Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02082022 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title 11]. AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 8, 2022 - 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 P.M. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. The City Council will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the acquisition of certain property interests, including certain fee interests, permanent footing easements, and temporary construction easements with a term of 28 months on two properties, and the acquisition of the interests in two outdoor advertising signs described below in connection with the French Valley Parkway/I-15 Improvements Phase II. Negotiators for the City are Patrick Thomas and Kendra Hannah-Meistrell. The negotiators for the respective property interests are set forth below. (i) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 26201 Ynez Road, Temecula, and identified as APN 910-281-001 and certain easement interests that benefit APN 910-281-001 and encumber the adjacent parcel located at 26155 Ynez Road, Temecula, and identified as APNs 910-271-002, -005 & -006 (referred to as Project Parcel 24616). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 178 square foot area in fee (Project Parcel 25216-1) on APN 910-281-001; an approximate 500 square foot permanent footing easement (Project Parcel 25216-2) on APN 910-281-001; an approximate 823 square foot temporary construction easement (Project Parcel 25216-3) on APN 910-281-001; an approximate 11 square foot portion of the total 500 square foot permanent footing easement is located on the easement that benefits APN 910-281-001 and burdens Project Parcel 24616, which is owned in fee by Ynez Acres, a general partnership (as to APNs 910-271-005 and -006) and Ynez Acres II, a California general partnership (as to APN 910-271-002) (said 11 square foot permanent footing easement area is comprised of an approximate 10 square foot permanent footing easement and an approximate 1 square foot permanent footing easement); an approximate 367 square foot portion of the total 823 square foot temporary construction easement is located on the easement that benefits APN 910-281-001 and burdens Project Parcel 24616 (said 367 square foot temporary construction easement area is comprised of an approximate 215 square foot temporary construction easement and an approximate 152 square foot temporary construction easement). The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owner BRE 26201 Ynez Owner, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests. (ii) The acquisition of an approximate 11,517 square foot area in fee (Project Parcel 24623-1) from, an approximate 6,901 square foot temporary construction easement (Project Parcel 24623-3) on, and an approximate 6,741 square foot temporary construction easement (Project Parcel 24623-2) on the vacant Page 1 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 real property located on the northwest corner of Elm Street and Jackson Avenue in Murrieta and identified as APN 910-100-018. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owners Linda D. Huddleston, Trustee of the Linda D. Huddleston Revocable Living Trust, dated August 12, 2019, Roxanna M. Hodges, Trustee of The Hodges Family Trust, dated September 10, 2014, and Susan D. Renno, Trustee of the Susan D. Renno Revocable Living Trust, dated May 20, 2015, as to an undivided one-half (1/2) interest; Foursquare Financial Solutions, Inc., a California non-profit corporation, as to an undivided one -quarter (1/4) interest and Steven Williams and Brenda Jordan, Successor Co -Trustees of the Marital Trust Share One created under the Blake Family Living Trust, dated November 26, 1986, as to an undivided (1/4) interest. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests. (iii) The acquisition of the interests in and to two outdoor advertising signs/billboards identified as Sign Number 33321 and Sign Number 33322 located on the east line of I-15 and 1-215, approximately 1.8 miles north of Winchester Road in Murrieta along the property line of APN 910-060-002 and 910-060-004. The billboards are subject to two ground lease agreements. One ground lease agreement involves APN 910-060-002 and is dated December 19, 2006 between Lamar Advertising Company and Judith A. Blake. The second ground lease agreement involves APN 910-060-004 and is dated November 1, 2014 between Lamar Advertising Company and Don Vernon Tiss. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Lamar Advertising Company. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests. Page 2 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Matt Rahn PRELUDE MUSIC: Josh Jurkosky INVOCATION: Buck Longmore, Retired Firefighter FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Matt Rahn ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart PRESENTATIONS Proclamation for African American History Month Proclamation for American Heart Month Presentation by Horsewomen of Temecula BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS Planning Commission and Public/Traffic Safety Commission PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT Riverside County Sheriffs Department PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record Page 3 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 1. Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. Attachments: Agenda Report 2. Approve Action Minutes of January 25, 2022 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of January 25, 2022. Attachments: Action Minutes 3. Approve List of Demands Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution List of Demands 4. Adopt Ordinance 2022-01 Amending Title 15 and Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code Pertaining to (1) Large Family Daycare Homes, (2) Clarify the Standards that Apply to Senior Housing, Transitional Housing, Supportive Housing Emergency Shelters, Trash Enclosures, Self -Storage or Mini -Warehouse Facilities and to Projects Using the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, 3) Establish Standards and Requirements for Dedications and Improvements for Developments Without a Subdivision, (4)Update How Development Impact Fees Can Be Used, (5) Clarify Where Artificial Turf Can Be Installed, and (6) Make Minor Typographical Edits and Finding the Ordinance to be Exempt from the California Environmental Qualily Act (CEOA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) 3) (Second Reading) Recommendation: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO.2022-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Page 4 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 TEMECULA AMENDING TITLES 15 AND 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO (1) COMPLY WITH STATE LAW CHANGES TO LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOMES, (2) CLARIFY THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO SENIOR HOUSING, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRASH ENCLOSURES, SELF -STORAGE OR MINI -WAREHOUSE FACILITIES AND TO PROJECTS USING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE, (3) ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITHOUT A SUBDIVISION, (4) UPDATE HOW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES CAN BE USED, (5) CLARIFY WHERE ARTIFICIAL TURF CAN BE INSTALLED, AND (6) MAKE MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL EDITS AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (13)(3) Attachments: Agenda Report Ordinance 5. Adopt Ordinance 2022-02 Amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to Revise the Multi -Family Definition and Require that Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Developments Comply with Objective Design Standards (Second Reading) Recommendation: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO.2022-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE MULTI -FAMILY DEFINITION AND REQUIRE THAT MULTI -FAMILY AND MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENTS COMPLY WITH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND MAKE THE FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3) AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.21(J) AND 66411.7(N) (LONG-RANGE PROJECT NO. LR18-1684) Attachments: Agenda Report Ordinance 6. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund And Rescinding Resolution No. 04-02 Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: Page 5 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 04-02 Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution 7. ADDrove Improvement and Securitv Agreement between the Citv of Temecula as Housin Successor and Warehouse at Creekside, LLC, FI Third Street 34, LP and FI ADCO 16, LLC Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Improvement and Security Agreement between the City of Temecula as Housing Successor and Warehouse at Creekside, LLC, FI Third Street 34, LP, and FI ADCO, LLC. Attachments: Agenda Report Agreement 8. Approve Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Ynez Road, Solana Way, Nicolas Road and Winchester Road, PW21-10 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve the specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Ynez Road, Solana Way, Nicolas Road and Winchester Road, PW21-10; and 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: Agenda Report Project Description Project Location Maps 9. Approve First Amendment to the Annual Agreement with NPG. Inc.. for Paving Maintenance Services Recommendation: That the City Council approve the first amendment to the annual agreement with NPG, Inc., for paving maintenance services in the amount $250,000. Attachments: Agenda Report First Amendment Page 6 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 10. Accept Sports Ranch at Sommers Bend into the City -Maintained Park System (Located on the Southeast Corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Sommers Bend Road) Recommendation AttarhmPntc That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ACCEPTING THE SPORTS RANCH AT SOMMERS BEND INTO THE CITY -MAINTAINED PARK SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE GRANT DEED Agenda Report Resolution Location Map Grant Deed 11. Receive and File Temporary Street Closures for the Pawliday and Vegan Market Event Recommendation: Attachments That the City Council receive and file the temporary closure of certain streets for the Pawliday and Vegan Market event. Agenda Report Exhibit A RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND/OR THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Page 7 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING CALL TO ORDER: President James Stewart ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 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 Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 12. Approve Action Minutes of January 25, 2022 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minuets of January 25, 2022. Attachments: Action Minutes 13. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and Rescinding Resolution No. CSD 04-01 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF Page 8 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 TEMECULA AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. CSD 04-01 Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District will be held on Tuesday, February 22, 2022, at 5:30 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Page 9 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CALL TO ORDER: Chair Matt Rahn ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart SARDA PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. SARDA CONSENT CALENDAR 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 Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 14. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and Rescinding Resolution No. RDA 04-01 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. RDA 04-01 Page 10 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution SARDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT SARDA BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS SARDA ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency will be held on Tuesday, February 22, 2022, at 5:30 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Page 11 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CALL TO ORDER: Chair Matt Rahn ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR 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 Temecula Public Financing Authority request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 15. Approve and Adopt Resolution to Appoint the Consultants to Assist with the Refundingof f the 2012 Bonds for CFD No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) Recommendation: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APPOINTING CONSULTANTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO - COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-1 (CROWNE HILL) Page 12 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 Attachments: Agenda Report RPcnIIItinn 16. Approve and Adopt Resolution to Appoint the Consultants to Assist with the Refundin of f the 2012 Bonds for CFD No. 03-03 (Wolf Creek) Recommendation Attachments: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APPOINTING CONSULTANTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO - COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-03 (WOLF CREEK) Agenda Report RPcnhition TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS TPFA ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Temecula Public Financing Authority will be held on Tuesday, February 22, 2022, at 5:30 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Page 13 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY - NO MEETING RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of a project at the time of the hearing. If you challenge a project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. For public hearings each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Email comments on all matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. At public hearings involving land use matters, the property owner and/or applicant has the burden of proof and, therefore, shall be allowed 15 minutes for an initial presentation, and an additional 10 minutes for rebuttal by its development team following other comments on the matter. An appellant, other than the property owner and/or applicant, and the spokesperson for an organized group of residents residing within the noticed area of the property, which is the subject of the public hearing, shall be allowed 15 minutes to present the appellant's position to the Council. The Mayor may allow more time if required to provide due process for the property owner, applicant or appellant. All other members of the public may speak during the public hearing for a maximum period of 5 minutes each. Deferral of one speaker's time to another is not permitted. In the event of a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce the maximum time limit for members of the public to speak. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 17. Adopt Resolution to Approve the Amended 2021-2029 Housing Element Update(6th Cam) and Environmental Impact Report Addendum to the General Plan (Long Range Planning Project Number LR18-1620) Recommendation That the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPDATED 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR18-1620) AND APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM NO. 2021-01 TO THE GENERAL PLAN Page 14 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution Revised Housing Element Revised Housing Element (Appendices) Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum Housing and Community Development Department Letter Planning Commission Resolution 2022-03 Public Correspondence Notice of Public Hearing BUSINESS Any member of the public may address the City Council on items that appear on the Business portion of the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 18. Review Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget Policies and Priorities Recommendation: That the City Council review the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget policies and priorities and provide feedback on fiscal policy metrics. Attachments: Agenda Report 19. Consider Term Limits for Citv Council Members (At the Reauest of Council Member Jessica Alexander Recommendation: That the City Council consider term limits for City Council Members and provide general direction regarding the same. Attachments: Agenda Report Page 15 City Council Agenda February 8, 2022 ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS Any Council Member, including the Mayor, may request an item be placed on a future agenda. Any such request will be discussed under this section. In making the request, a Council Member may briefly describe the topic of the proposed agenda item and any timing associated with the placement of the item on the agenda. This description shall not exceed 3 minutes unless extended by a majority vote of the City Council. No substantive discussion on the subject of the motion may occur. General discussion amongst the City Council on items listed under this section of the agenda shall be limited to 15 minutes. Items may only be placed on the agenda by Council Members pursuant to policy or by the City Manager based on administrative or operational needs of the City. Public comments on the placement of these agenda items shall be limited to a maximum of 30 minutes. Individual comments shall not exceed 3 minutes. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings and Agenda Placements by Council Members adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, February 22, 2022, at 5:30 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The full agenda packet (including staff reports, public closed session information, and any supplemental material available after the original posting of the agenda), distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the main reception area of the Temecula Civic Center during normal business hours at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The material will also be available on the City's website at TemeculaCa.gov. and available for review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda, please contact the City Clerk's Department at (951) 694-6444. Page 16 Item No. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 25, 2022 - 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 P.M. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. The City Council convened in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the acquisition of an approximate 52,092 square foot area in fee (Project Parcel 24624-1) from and the owner's interest in the billboard and ground lease in connection with the billboard on the real property located on the vacant real property located on the east side of I-151-215 and on the west side of Jackson Avenue in the City of Murrieta, California, and identified as APNs 910-020-077, 910-060-002, 910-060-003, 910-060-009, and 910-060-015 in connection with the I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements - Phase II. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owner, Larchmont Park, LLC, a California limited liability company. Negotiators for the City are Patrick Thomas and Kendra Hannah-Meistrell. Under negotiations are price and terms for the acquisition of the above -described subject property interests. CALL TO ORDER at 7:00 PM: Mayor Matt Rahn PRELUDE MUSIC: Susan Miyamoto INVOCATION: Marti Treckman of Grace Presbyterian Church FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Jessica Alexander ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart PRESENTATIONS Presentation by Connie Stopher, Economic Development Coalition Executive Director Presentation by Robb Grantham, Rancho California Water District General Manager BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS Planning Commission PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS The following individual(s) addressed the City Council on non -agenda item(s): 0 Bob Kowell PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS The following individual(s) submitted an electronic comment on an agenda item(s): • Marth Howard (Item #11) • Ira Robinson (Item #11) CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar. Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion Stewart, Second by Edwards. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 1. Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2. Approve Action Minutes of January 18, 2022 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of January 18, 2022. 3. Approve List of Demands Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2022-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4. Authorize the Submittal of an Application to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (Ca1Recycle) for Funding from the SB1383 Local Assistance Grant Program Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2022-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO AUTHORIZE THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE) FOR FUNDING FROM THE SB1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM 5. Approve Purchase and Sale Agreement for Acquisition of Certain Property Interests and Loss of Ground Lease Rent and Interests for Billboard on Assessor's Parcel Numbers 910-020-077, 910-060-002, 910-060-003, 910-060-009, 910-060-015 in Connection with I-15/French Valley 2 6. 7. ParkwU improvements - Phase II, PW 16-01 Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2022-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND LARCHMONT PARK, LLC IN CONNECTION WITH THE I-15/FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS — PHASE II (PORTIONS OF APN'S 910-020-077, 910-060-002, 910-060-003, 910-060-009, 910-060-015) 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve and execute all necessary documents, including those in substantially the form attached to the Agenda Report, and take all necessary actions to effectuate the purchase of the approximate 52,090 square foot fee area from and the loss of ground lease rent and interests of owners in and to the billboard on the real property located on the vacant real property located on the west side of Jackson Avenue in the City of Murrieta, California, and identified as APN's 910-020-077, 910-060-002, 910-060-003, 910-060-009, 910-060-015. Approve First Amended and Restated Term Sheet with United States Department of Transportation for I-15/French Valley Parkway provements - Phase II, PW16-01 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the First Amended and Restated Term Sheet with the United States Department of Transportation for I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements - Phase II, PW16-01. Accept Improvements and File the Notice of Completion for Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide - West Side Business Park Area, PW19-17 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Accept the improvements for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide - West Side Business Park Area, PW19-17, as complete; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the final contract amount; and 3. Release the Labor and Materials Bond seven months after filing the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 8. Accept Improvements and File the Notice of Completion for ADA Compliance for Pavement Rehab Program - West Side Business Park Area, PW20-08 Recommendation: RECESS: That the City Council: 1. Accept the improvements for the ADA Compliance for Pavement Rehab Program - West Side Business Park Area, PW20-08, as complete; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the final contract amount; and 3. Release the Labor and Materials Bond seven months after filing the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. At 8:07 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting and the Successor Agency of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 8:19 PM the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 11. Conduct a Public Hearing for the Purposes of Redistricting in the City of Temecula Recommendation: That the City Council conduct the third of four public hearings for the purposes of redistricting in the City of Temecula. Conducted public hearing, no action. 12. Adopt Ordinance Amending Title 15 and Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code Pertaining to 1 Large Family Daycare Homes, (2) Clarify the Standards that Apply to Senior Housing_, Transitional Housing, Supportive Housing, Emergency Shelters, Trash Enclosures, Self -Storage or Mini -Warehouse Facilities and to Projects Using the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, (3) Establish Standards and Requirements for Dedications and Improvements for Developments Without a Subdivision, (4)Update How Development Impact Fees Can Be Used, (5) Clarify Where Artificial Turf Can Be Installed, and (6) Make Minor Typographical Edits and Finding the Ordinance to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) Recommendation: That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 2022-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLES 15 AND 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO (1) COMPLY WITH STATE LAW CHANGES TO LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOMES, (2) CLARIFY THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO SENIOR HOUSING, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRASH ENCLOSURES, SELF -STORAGE OR MINI -WAREHOUSE FACILITIES AND TO PROJECTS USING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE, (3) ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITHOUT A SUBDIVISION, (4) UPDATE HOW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES CAN BE USED, (5) CLARIFY WHERE ARTIFICIAL TURF CAN BE INSTALLED, AND (6) MAKE MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL EDITS AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (13)(3) Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-1): Motion Edwards, Second by Stewart. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Alexander opposing. 13. Introduce an Ordinance Amending Title 17 (Zoniniz) of the Temecula Municipal Code to Revise the Multi -Family Definition and Require that Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Developments Comply with Objective Design Standards and Adopt Resolution to Establish Objective Design Standards for Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Development Consistent with State Housing Laws Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE MULTI -FAMILY DEFINITION AND REQUIRE THAT MULTI -FAMILY AND MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENTS COMPLY WITH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND MAKE THE FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3) AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.21(J) AND 66411.7(N) (LONG-RANGE PROJECT NO. LR18-1684) 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2022-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTI -FAMILY AND MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENTS 5 Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion Schwank, Second by Stewart. The vote reflected unanimous approval. BUSINESS 14. Appoint Member to the Race, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Commission Recommendation: That the City Council appoint a member to the Race, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Commission. Approved (5-0): Motion by Edwards, Second by Schwank to appoint Lyman Legters to the Race, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Commission. The vote reflected unanimous approval. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS — Receive and file 15. Community Development Department Monthly Report 16. Police Department Monthly Report 17. Public Works Department Monthly Report ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT At 9:13 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 8, 2022, at 5:30 PM for Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Adjourned in Memory of Jacob Flores 6 Item No. 3 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pam Espinoza, Accounting Technician I RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands RESOLUTION NO.2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $11,933,254.69. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of February 2022. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 01/13/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 01/20/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 01/20/2022 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: $9,904,981.41 $1,492,035.85 $536,237.43 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 02/08/2022 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 11,933,254.69 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 5,342,961.59 125 PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT 4,293.19 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 16,316.91 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3,926.56 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 244,580.74 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 22,776.29 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 948.34 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 4,337.87 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 11,429.85 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 616,629.66 300 INSURANCE FUND 2,343.08 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 10,511.45 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 160,486.98 325 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND 25,695.09 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 4,556.17 340 FACILITIES 47,773.91 380 SARDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 4,086,840.63 395 2011 FINANCING LEASE CIVIC CENTER & CRC 519,999.60 396 2018 FINANCING LEASE MRC 139,042.37 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 19.87 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 19.87 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 59.38 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 19.87 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 59.55 478 CFD 16-01 RORIPAUGH PHASE 11 39.69 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 2,134.34 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 1,501.43 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 1,721.35 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 309.08 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 1,568.09 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 767.41 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 534.85 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 6,135.59 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 91.77 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 267.27 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 79.45 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 12,559.39 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 3,869.11 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 501.42 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 417.09 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 5,514.41 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 87.92 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 3,955.95 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 3,763.64 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 30,048.05 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 11,028.53 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 179.76 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 242.79 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 32,988.33 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 1,767.39 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 79.59 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 267.58 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 8,867.14 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 100.03 $ 11,397,017.26 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS PAYROLL: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 324,526.03 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 497.08 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4,115.33 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 144,723.74 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 1,411.53 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 534.44 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 3,273.47 300 INSURANCE FUND 2,487.28 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 2,146.38 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 36,747.36 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 4,534.82 340 FACILITIES 8,826.12 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 29.72 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 29.72 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 89.23 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 29.72 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 89.17 478 CFD 16-01 RORIPAUGH PHASE II 59.47 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 0.05 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 0.54 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 0.54 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 0.54 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 0.54 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 0.54 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 0.05 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 256.31 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 0.05 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 0.54 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 0.05 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 128.16 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 12.80 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 0.05 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 0.05 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 12.80 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 0.05 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 76.90 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 107.61 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 256.38 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 487.07 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 0.05 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 1.18 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 205.05 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 25.63 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 0.05 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 0.54 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 512.60 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 0.10 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 536,237.43 $ 11,933,254.69 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 01/11/2022 4:12:54PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 501618 1/13/2022 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL DEC K9 TRAINING: KING/MUSHINSKIE: LLC POLICE 501619 1/13/2022 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM AFN SHERIFF DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM SHERIF FEB STAND BY FEE:POLICE DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM SHERIF 501620 1/13/2022 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO JAN DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: PD STOREFRON JAN DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: AULD R 501621 1/13/2022 018408 BOB CALLAHAN'S POOL DEC POOL MAINT SVC: CRC & TESC SERVICE DEC FOUNTAIN MAINT SVC: OLD TOWN 501622 1/13/2022 022670 BROWN, JAMAL DEON TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 501623 1/13/2022 016688 CALIFORNIA WATERSHED ENG DSGN SVCS: FLOOD CONTROL CORP, DBA CWE CHANNEL PW11-10 501624 1/13/2022 011870 CRIME SCENE STERI CLEAN BIO-HAZARD CLEAN UP: TEM SHERIFF LLC 501625 1/13/2022 020648 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 CITYWIDE SURVEILLANCE PROJECT: INC, CONVERGINT INFO TECH TECHNOLOGIES 501626 1/13/2022 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL PORTABLE RESTROOM: VAIL RANCH SRVCS PARK PORTABLE RESTROOM: RIVERTON PAR PORTABLE RESTROOM: LONG CANYON TEMPORARY FENCING: JRC PORTABLE RESTROOM: LA SERENA WA 501627 1/13/2022 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFORCEMENT FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: EOC 501628 1/13/2022 020904 ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES INC DEC CONDENSER WTR SYS PM: CIVIC CTR 501629 1/13/2022 021412 EIDE BAILLY LLP DEC FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT - FIELDWOR 501630 1/13/2022 018098 ELITE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT DEC'21 3RD PARTY CLAIM ADMIN: INC WRKRS COM Amount Paid Check Total 350.00 350.00 153.30 935.90 1,379.17 180.60 2,648.97 61.96 61.96 123.92 1,100.00 950.00 2,050.00 1,424.50 910.00 2,334.50 15,331.50 15,331.50 850.00 850.00 59,246.15 59,246.15 165.88 110.88 110.88 95.00 110.88 593.52 87.99 117.11 50.27 255.37 538.67 538.67 1.140.00 1.140.00 1,250.00 1,250.00 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 01/11/2022 4:12:54PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 501631 1/13/2022 010804 FEHR AND PEERS JAN CEQA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS UPDATE-VMT 501632 1/13/2022 013076 GAUDET YVONNE M, DBA YES TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS YOU CAN DRAW 501633 1/13/2022 021365 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY INC 12/13 CLAIMS RECOVERY SRVCS: RISK MGMT 501634 1/13/2022 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS MISC OFC SUPPLIES: FINANCE INC MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PLANNING MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PLANNING 501635 1/13/2022 018059 ICON ENTERPRISES INC CIVICENGAGE SOFTWARE: INFO TECH 501636 1/13/2022 012883 JACOB'S HOUSE INC EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS PAYMENT 501637 1/13/2022 000482 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC GEOTECH & MATUS TESTING SVS: PARK & RID 501638 1/13/2022 021370 MARK THOMAS AND COMPANY DSGN & ENVIRO SVCS: CONG INC RELIEF,PW19-02 NOV DSGN CONSULTANT SVCS: CHERR 501639 1/13/2022 018675 MDG ASSOCIATES INC NOV CDBG - LABOR COMPLIANCE PW20-08 NOV LABOR COMPLIANCE: MPSC PW20. NOV CDBG PRGM ADMIN: COM DEV 501640 1/13/2022 018314 MICHAEL BAKER CONSULTANT SVCS-ROW INTERNATIONAL CLOSEOUT:PW-CIP 501641 1/13/2022 012264 MIRANDA, JULIO C TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 501642 1/13/2022 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: IWTCM INC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKING GARA ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PW: PARKS PARKING LOT LED LIGHTS: PARKS: PW ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PW: PARKS 501643 1/13/2022 004040 MORAMARCO ANTHONYJ, TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS DBA BIGFOOT GRAPHICS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Amount Paid Check Total 810.84 810.84 472.50 472.50 1,833.25 1,833.25 48.94 33.47 377.73 460.14 1,652.67 1,652.67 40.00 40.00 5,012.40 5,012.40 17,857.15 11,763.85 29,621.00 754.50 73.13 5,477.50 6,305.13 4,862.18 4,862.18 974.40 974.40 -88.87 98.89 38.13 18,486.30 718.60 19,253.05 1,456.00 1,366.17 2,822.17 Paget apChkLst 01/11/2022 4:12:54PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 501644 1/13/2022 022599 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC DEC LDSCP MAINT: PARKS/MEDIANS 54,150.00 PW DEC LDSCP MAINT: PW SLOPES 58,553.00 DEC LDSCP MAINT: 1-15/79 LOOP 6,977.00 DEC LDSCP MAINT: PARKS/MEDIANS: P� 20,230.00 DEC LDSCP MAINT: CITY FACS 10,150.00 150,060.00 501645 1/13/2022 009337 NV5 INC NOV PROJ MGT SVCS: MRC, PW17-21 7,012.50 7,012.50 501646 1/13/2022 021121 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR 12/17 & 12/21 MEDICAL SCREENINGS: 65.00 OF CA, DBA CONCENTRA HR MEDICAL CTR 12/14 MEDICAL SCREENINGS: HR 32.50 97.50 501647 1/13/2022 021998 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE VEHICLE REPAIRS: BLDG & SAFETY 205.48 INC EQUIP MAINT: PW STREETS 794.58 VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINT: PARK RANGER 63.07 VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINT: PARK RANGER 694.80 1,757.93 501648 1/13/2022 002734 P V P COMMUNICATIONS INC MOTOR HELMETS: TRAFFIC 187.53 187.53 501649 1/13/2022 022537 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES, HVAC PARTS: CHILDRENS MUSEUM 70.87 DISTRIBUTOR MISC HVAC SUPPLIES, CIVIC CENTER 57.10 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES, CIVIC CENTER 65.20 193.17 501650 1/13/2022 020429 REMOTE SATELLITE SYSTEMS Satellite Phone Service 280.00 280.00 INTL 501651 1/13/2022 004274 SAFE AND SECURE LOCKSMITH SVCS: FOC 97.87 LOCKSMITH SRVC LOCKSMITH SERVCIES: CRC 207.17 305.04 501652 1/13/2022 005329 SAFE FAMILY JUSTICE CDBG REIMBURSEMENT: JUL -SEP'21 2,291.72 2,291.72 CENTERS 501653 1/13/2022 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC JAZZ @ THE MERC 12/30/21 1,130.00 JAZZ @ THE MERC 12/23 785.00 1,915.00 501654 1/13/2022 013482 SILVERMAN ENTERPRISES SECURITY SVCS: MPSC 372.00 INC, DBA BAS SECURITY SECURITY - VARIOUS: TCSD 1,760.00 SECURITY - VARIOUS: TCSD 850.00 2,982.00 501655 1/13/2022 000645 SMART AND FINAL INC MISC SUPPLIES: SPECIAL EVENTS: 124.10 124.10 TCSD 501656 1/13/2022 014783 SOFTRESOURCES, LLC CONSULTING: FINANCIAL SYS 1,988.75 1,988.75 UPGRADE MUNIS 501657 1/13/2022 006145 STENO SOLUTIONS TRANSCRIPTION SVCS: TEM SHERIFF 131.40 131.40 TRANSCRIPTION, SRVCS INC Page3 apChkLst 01/11/2022 4:12:54PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 501658 1/13/2022 004209 TEMECULA SUNRISE ROTARY, OCT-DEC BUS BENCH 2,030.63 2,030.63 FOUNDATION PLACEMENT-MAINT: PW 501659 1/13/2022 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY SERVICE AWARDS: HR 95.11 Service Awards: HR 66.81 Service Awards: HR 223.75 385.67 501660 1/13/2022 016311 TIERCE, NICHOLAS GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES: 4,140.00 4,140.00 THEATER 501661 1/13/2022 021580 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS STATE LEGISLATIVE CONSULTING AND 6,000.00 6,000.00 INC GRANT 501662 1/13/2022 014866 TWM ROOFING, INC PREVENTATIVE ROOF MAINT: 13,320.00 13,320.00 FACILITIES: PW 501663 1/13/2022 020399 VOICES FOR CHILDREN CDBG REIMBURSEMENT: JUL- SEP'21 1,014.60 1,014.60 501664 1/13/2022 018147 WADDLETON, JEFFREY L. DJ SVCS FOR HIGH HOPES EVENT: 525.00 TCSD MPSC DJ/MC SVCS: SANTAS PARADE: TCSD 1,125.00 1,650.00 501665 1/13/2022 000820 WINCHAK KRIS R, DBA K R W & 8/23-11/1 ENG PLAN CK & REVIEW: PW 13,090.00 ASSOCIATES LID ENG PLAN CHECK & REVIEW:PW-LAND 1 11,480.00 24,570.00 501666 1/13/2022 016864 WOOD, RANDOLPH REIMB: EXAMINER COURSE & EXAM: 1,114.00 1,114.00 WOOD Grand total for EFT UNION BANK: 384,383.87 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 01/11/2022 4:12:54PM CITY OF TEMECULA 49 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 384,383.87 Page:5 apChkLst 01/13/2022 4:01:51 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 12327 11/30/2021 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT 119,809.17 119,809.17 RETIREMENT) 12430 12/9/2021 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 013338 APPLE STORE KH EXTRA STORAGE: SOCIAL MEDIA: 2.99 ECO DEV 000198 INTL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING, KH REFUND: CONF REGISTRATION: -50.00 CENTERSINC FLETCHER 000198 INTL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING, KH REFUND: CONF REGISTRATION: -50.00 CENTERSINC DAMKO 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES KH CONF REGISTRATION: HAWKINS, 725.00 627.99 K. 12514 1/12/2022 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT 123,714.38 123,714.38 RETIREMENT) 12535 12/15/2021 020062 MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC QE SEP 2021 SALES TAX PHS 334,564.00 334,564.00 12536 12/14/2021 005460 U S BANK 2017 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS DEBT 4,086,840.63 4,086,840.63 SRVC PMT 12612 12/30/2021 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC DEC INTERNET SVCS: SENIOR CTR 185.74 185.74 12668 12/31/2021 004111 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT BALANCE OWED TO EDD 137.77 137.77 DEPT 102107 1/10/2022 022781 GOODMAN, ANGELA REFUND: PAID INCORRECT INVOICE 221.50 221.50 FOR 207796 1/12/2022 022744 MANUFACTURER'S & TRADERS MRAP MORTGAGE GRANT RECIPIENT 2,293.00 2,293.00 TRUST, DBA M&T BANK 2/3 207797 1/13/2022 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 245.00 245.00 207798 1/13/2022 001517 AETNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH FEB EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PRGM: 1,148.40 1,148.40 LLC, DBA AETNA RESOURCES HR 207799 1/13/2022 006915 ALLIES PARTY EQUIPMENT, RENTAL EQPMNT: CHRISTMAS EVENT: 343.29 343.29 RENTALINC MPSC 207800 1/13/2022 004422 AMERICAN BATTERY BATTERIES: CIVIC CENTER 137.97 137.97 CORPORATION, DBA AMERICAN BATTERY SUP 207801 1/13/2022 000101 APPLE ONE INC OCT TEMP HELP: CITY CLERK 5,765.76 OCT TEMP HELP: COMM DEV 5,473.71 11,239.47 Page-1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 01/13/2022 4:01:51PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 207802 1/13/2022 007065 B&H PHOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP (Continued) Description MISC AV EQUIPMENT: PEG SUPPLIES 207803 1/13/2022 011954 BAKER AND TAYLOR INC BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD 207804 1/13/2022 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL UNIFORM SHIRTS: INFO TECH PRODUCTS INC EMBROIDERY FOR UNIFORMS: CODE El STAFF UNIFORMS: CONTRACT CLASSES 207805 1/13/2022 020574 BATTERY SYSTEMS INC TRAFFIC SIGNAL BATTERIES: PW 207806 1/13/2022 004262 BIO TOX LABORATORIES PHLEBOTOMY SVCS: TEM SHERIFF PHLEBOTOMY SVCS: TEM SHERIFF PHLEBOTOMY SVCS: TEM SHERIFF 207807 1/13/2022 001323 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC, 11/23-12/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: PBSP DBA READYREFRESH 11/23-11/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: AQUATICS 11/23-12/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: MRC 11/23-12/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: HELP CTR 11/23-12/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: SKATE PAF 11/23-12/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: HARVEST( 207808 1/13/2022 021502 BUCHER, BRET PHILLIP TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 207809 1/13/2022 017707 CA VFW MOTORCYCLE CLUB COMMUNITY SERVICES FUNDING 207810 1/13/2022 010939 CALIF DEPT OF INDUSTRIAL, ASSESSMENT 7/1/21 - 6/30/22: RISK RELATIONS 207811 1/13/2022 021851 CALIF NEWSPAPERS ADVERTISING PUBLIC NOTICES: PARTNERSHIP, DBA SO CALIF PLANNING NEWS GROUP 207812 1/13/2022 021461 CAMPBELL, BRITTANY STUDENT LED THEATER PROD: WIZARD OF OZ Amount Paid Check Total 1.216.78 223.24 18.12 36.78 16.21 -14.42 6.35 76.67 57.59 13.67 -33.67 -18.98 48.09 17.38 106.58 31.04 6,412.75 4,991.00 2,660.00 434.00 77.63 17.39 17.68 49.28 9.15 8.61 889.00 5,000.00 6,590.57 2,820.50 5,000.00 1,216.78 429.65 155.00 6,412.75 8,085.00 179.74 889.00 5,000.00 6,590.57 2,820.50 5,000.00 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 01/13/2022 4:01:51PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 207813 1/13/2022 022779 CARDINAL INVESTMENT REFUND: PA17-0147 & DEPOSIT PROPERTIES, SERAPHINA ACCOUNT 207814 1/13/2022 018828 CASC ENGINEERING AND, ADD'L ENG SVCS: SOMMER'S BEND CONSULTING INC NOV COMM ERCIAL/IND'L INSPECTIONS: 207815 1/13/2022 004462 CDW LLC, DBA CDW MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO GOVERNMENT LLC TECH 207816 1/13/2022 009640 CERTIFION CORP DBA DEC ONLINE DATABASE SUBSCR: ENTERSECT POLICE 207817 1/13/2022 017429 COBRAADVANTAGE INC, DBA DEC FSA & COBRAADMIN: HR THE ADVANTAGE GROUP 207818 1/13/2022 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 SPECIAL EVENT: FIRE DEPT HOSPITALITY & OFC SUPPLIES: THEATE HOSPITALITY & OFC SUPPLIES: THEATE HOSPITALITY & OFC SUPPLIES: THEATE 207819 1/13/2022 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 PRGM & EVENT SUPPLIES: HUMAN SVCS: TCSD 207820 1/13/2022 022731 CRISP ENTERPRISES INC, DBA REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES: PW20-13: CRISP IMAGING CIP 207821 1/13/2022 016098 CULTIVATING GOOD INC, DBA RFRSHMNTS WORKFORCE DEV E AT MARKETPLACE FUTURE PHY JOB F RFRSHMNTS: WORKFORCE: FINANCIAL RFRSHMNTS: FINANCIAL LIT WORKSHO 207822 1/13/2022 001233 DANS FEED AND SEED INC MISC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PW 207823 1/13/2022 012600 DAVID EVANSAND NOV DSGN SVCS: DLR SIDEWALKS. ASSOCIATES INC PW19-18 NOV DSGN SVCS: DIAZ RD PROJ PW17; NOV CONST BID SUPPOT: SANTA GERTF SURVEY & ENVIRO: TRAFFIC SIGNAL PA SURVEY & ENVIRO: TRAFFIC SIGNAL PA 207824 1/13/2022 002990 DAVID TURCH AND NOV FEDERAL LOBBYING SVCS: CITY ASSOCIATES MGR DEC FEDERAL LOBBYING SVCS: CITY M 207825 1/13/2022 022483 DE LASECURA INC DBA DLS DSGN-BUILD SVCS: MRC PW17-21 BUILDERS 207826 1/13/2022 012633 FAITH AUTO GLASS & TINTING WINDSHIELD REPLACEMENT: STREETS: PW Amount Paid Check Total 8,527.89 8,527.89 206.50 160.00 366.50 958.36 958.36 200.00 200.00 1,060.20 1,060.20 229.34 89.83 66.39 33.68 419.24 220.67 220.67 207.55 207.55 864.56 353.43 353.43 1,571.42 28.81 28.81 2,173.82 8,029.48 8,434.00 10,594.65 13,092.68 42,324.63 5,500.00 5,500.00 11, 000.00 67,054.77 67,054.77 750.00 750.00 Page:3 apChkLst 01/13/2022 4:01:51PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 207827 1/13/2022 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SVCS: FIRE DEPT 23.25 23.25 207828 1/13/2022 022726 FORENSIC NURSING OF SART EXAM: TEM SHERIFF 1,200.00 1,200.00 SOCAL INC 207829 1/13/2022 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SEP-DEC 330383649 2019 FORM 592 1,298.99 1,298.99 207830 1/13/2022 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD CREDIT: TAX WITHHOLDING CASE 10.88 603016103 CREDIT: TAX WITHHOLDING CASE 60301 10.20 21.08 207831 1/13/2022 014865 FREIZE UHLER KIMBERLY DBA, UNIFORMS KNIT CAPS: PW 421.28 421.28 CLEAR BLUE PROMOTIONS 207832 1/13/2022 018608 HAMEL CONTRACTING INC. REFUND: ENG DEPOSIT MARGARITA 14,000.00 14,000.00 OFFICE 207833 1/13/2022 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 2,647.90 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW 688.69 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: TVM 24.55 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: STREETS: PW 706.09 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: IWTCM 82.36 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: OLD TOWN 295.98 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: CRC 126.14 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: FOC 70.62 MISC HRDWR SUPPLIES: MEDIC 291.08 MISC MAIN SUPPLIES: MPSC 74.33 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: TPL 46.64 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: AQUATICS 9.33 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: TRAFFIC: 300.08 ICE MACHINE MAINT: FIRE STATIONS 782.93 6,146.72 207834 1/13/2022 020698 HICKS AND HARTWICK INC ENG PLAN CK SVCS: LAND DEV: 6,640.00 6,640.00 SOLANA 207835 1/13/2022 000863 1 P M A (INT'L PUBLIC MGMT, MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: HR DEPT 835.00 835.00 ASSOC FOR HR) 207836 1/13/2022 022569 INLAND FLEET SOLUTIONS INC EQPMNT REPAIRS: STREET MAINT: 912.23 PW VEHICLE REPAIRS: STREET MAINT: PW 199.19 VEHICLE & EQUIP REPAIRS: STREETS: F 1,078.56 2,189.98 207837 1/13/2022 018352 JAMES ELLIOTT STTLMNT: PRINCE AGAIN 01/06 3,882.54 ENTERTAINMENT STTLMNT: BEE GEES GOLD 01/07 5,456.76 9,339.30 207838 1/13/2022 013127 JEFFREY STOVER ONSTAGE, CONCERT TICKET SALES STTLMT 7,705.60 7,705.60 MUSICALS 1 /9/22 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 01/13/2022 4:01:51PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 207839 1/13/2022 019884 LEONIDA BUILDERS INC STP NTC: ROBERTSON'S: PW08-04 SANTA GERTRUDIS CRK PEDESTRIAN E 207840 1/13/2022 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDYAND NOV HR LEGAL SVCS FOR WHITMORE TE060-00001 207841 1/13/2022 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS, DBA MISC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PW ATHACO INC 207842 1/13/2022 021434 MATRIX TELECOM LLC DBA DEC 800 SERVICES: CIVIC CENTER LINGO 207843 1/13/2022 015959 MEHEULA MUSIC 2ND INSTALLMENT PERF: THEATER PRODUCTIONS, AKA JAMES L. FY21/22 MARABOTTO 207844 1/13/2022 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC BOOKS ON TAPE: LIBRARY BOOKS ON TAPE: LIBRARY BOOKS ON TAPE: LIBRARY 207845 1/13/2022 000209 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR: PARKS: PW EQUIPMENT REPAIR: PARKS: PW EQUIPMENT REPAIR: FIRE STA 73 207846 1/13/2022 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 207847 1/13/2022 010338 POOLAND ELECTRICAL, VARIOUS SUPPLIES: AQUATICS: PRODUCTS INC FACILITIES 207848 1/13/2022 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE ANNUAL NEWSPAPER SUBSC: PW COMPANY INC 207849 1/13/2022 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL UNIFORM SVCS: PARK MAINTENANCE SUPPLY FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CIVIC C 12/16 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: Cl 207850 1/13/2022 020127 QUINN COMPANY RENTAL EQUIP: STREETS: PW RENTAL EQUIP: OLD TOWN PARKING 207851 1/13/2022 011853 RANCON COMMERCE CNTR JAN-MAR'22 BUS PKASSN DUE: STN PH2,3&4 73 JAN-MAR'22 BUS PKASSN DUE: OVRLN1 JAN-MAR'22 BUS PKASSN DUE: OVRLN1 207852 1/13/2022 000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE FPARC-TM,234660, 21/22, Q1 DEPARTMENT 207853 1/13/2022 000411 RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD SANTA GERTRUDIS CRK ENCROACH CONTROLAND, WATER PERMIT CONSERVATION DIST Amount Paid Check Total -14,155.00 297,113.57 282,958.57 1,765.50 1,765.50 140.02 140.02 69.18 69.18 5,000.00 5,000.00 44.69 39.25 60.87 144.81 123.09 174.99 93.51 391.59 1,006.93 1,006.93 488.07 488.07 611.45 611.45 109.86 95.70 95.70 301.26 574.66 112.44 687.10 510.71 177.27 249.03 937.01 1,606,779.15 1,606,779.15 1,407.28 1,407.28 Page:5 apChkLst 01/13/2022 4:01:51PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 207854 1/13/2022 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS 10/21-11/17 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2,560,686.22 2,560,686.22 DEPT 207855 1/13/2022 017699 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA M PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS:SPECIAL 170.00 PRESTON EVENTS:TCSD PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: DUCK POND SAI• 250.00 PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: ICE RINK: TCSD 170.00 PHOTO SVCS: SPECIAL EVENTS-TCSD 220.00 810.00 207856 1/13/2022 017113 SCHOLASTIC LIBRARY MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL-TCSD 12.39 12.39 PUBLISHING, 207857 1/13/2022 013695 SHRED -IT US JV LLC, DBA: 12/9 DOCUMENT SHRED SVCS: CITY 228.98 SHRED -IT USA LLC CLERK DOC COLLECTION & SHRED SVCS: CITV 97.27 DOCUMENT SHRED SVCS: POLICE SUB; 44.36 370.61 207858 1/13/2022 015235 SMOKE GUARD CALIFORNIA, CIVIC CTR: SMOKE GUARD 3,350.00 3,350.00 INC. INSPECTIONS: PW 207859 1/13/2022 000537 SO CALIF EDISON DEC 700276704365 VARIOUS 17.75 LOCATIONS DEC 700116137841 VARIOUS LOCATION! 32,755.52 32,773.27 207860 1/13/2022 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST PEST CONTROL SERVICES: PARKS 140.00 CONTROL INC PEST CTRL SVCS: CHILDRENS MUSEUM 36.00 PEST CONTROL: STATION 95 80.00 PEST CTRL SVCS: HISTORY MUSEUM 32.00 288.00 207861 1/13/2022 012652 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, JAN GEN USAGE: 0141,0839,0978,0979 737.42 737.42 TELEPHONE COMPANY 207862 1/13/2022 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC RFRSHMNTS: HIGH HOPE EVENT: 184.21 184.21 HUMAN SVC 207863 1/13/2022 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT MISC SUPPLIES: RHRTPL: TCSD 32.66 32.66 207864 1/13/2022 015648 STEIN ANDREW, DBA PARKINK MISC SUPPLIES: SPECIAL EVENTS: 4,408.66 TCSD MISC MERCHANDISE: SPECIAL EVENTS 812.56 5,221.22 207865 1/13/2022 022722 STREETLIGHT DATA INC Data Access Services: PW Traffic- 59,000.00 59,000.00 207866 1/13/2022 003941 TEMECULA WINNELSON PLUMBING SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 29.59 COMPANY PLUMBING SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR -29.59 MISC SUPPLIES: CIVIC CENTER 75.54 75.54 207867 1/13/2022 017415 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION EMERG ELEVATOR SRVCS: PRKG 172.26 172.26 STRUCTURE Page.-6 apChkLst 01/13/2022 4:01:51PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 207868 1/13/2022 017565 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT INC. MESSAGE BOARDS: SPECIAL EVENTS: 4,340.00 4,340.00 TCSD 207869 1/13/2022 021242 TWOS COMPANY INC MERCHANDISE FOR GIFT SHOP: TCSD 104.40 MERCHANDISE FOR GIFT SHOP: TCSD 92.80 MERCHANDISE FOR GIFT SHOP: TCSD 185.60 382.80 207870 1/13/2022 022102 UNITED PARCEL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SRVCS: FV PKWY 26.13 INC PROJECT EXPRESS MAIL SRVCS: FINANCE DEPT 31.63 EXPRESS MAIL SRVCS: INFO TECH 140.46 EXPRESS MAIL SRVCS: INFO TECH 2.29 EXPRESS MAIL SRVCS: LAND DEV: PW 21.41 EXPRESS MAIL SRVCS: TVM TO DAISEN 414.66 EXPRESS MAIL SRVCS: FINANCE DEPT 14.66 651.24 207871 1/13/2022 022102 UNITED PARCEL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SRVCS: TVM: TCSD 22.97 22.97 INC 207872 1/13/2022 002110 UNITED RENTALNORTH MISC SUPPLIES: PW STREET 2,134.76 2,134.76 AMERICA INC MAINTENANCE 207873 1/13/2022 020963 UPTOWN TEMECULA AUTO NOV VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: TCSD 4.00 4.00 SPA LLC 207874 1/13/2022 021957 US AIR CONDITIONING, HVAC PARTS: CIVIC CENTER 160.78 160.78 DISTRIBUTORS LLC 207875 1/13/2022 018174 VCA PET MEDICAL CENTER, VETERINARY SERVICES: POLICE 694.48 DBA VCAANIMAL HOSPITALS VETERINARY SERVICES: POLICE 62.26 VETERINARY SERVICES: POLICE 26.50 783.24 207876 1/13/2022 001890 VORTEX INDUSTRIES INC DOOR OPERATORS: CIVIC CENTER 1,353.00 GATE REPAIR - STA 92 1,145.00 2,498.00 207877 1/13/2022 020275 WALLACE & ASSOC NOV INSPECTION SRVCS: PW LID/ 22,080.00 22,080.00 CONSULTING INC NPDES 207878 1/13/2022 007987 WALMART THEATER HOSPITALITY & MISC 38.53 38.53 SUPPLIES 207879 1/13/2022 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC CLEANING SUPPLIES: CIVIC CENTER 3,418.12 3,418.12 207880 1/13/2022 008668 WES FLOWERS SUNSHINE FUND 100.58 100.58 207881 1/13/2022 002841 WESTERN OILFIELDS SUPPLY Temp irrigation: chilled in park: tcsd 9,375.26 9,375.26 CO, DBA: RAIN FOR RENT Page:? apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 01/13/2022 4:01:51PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 207882 1/13/2022 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES INC 207883 1/13/2022 018871 WONDER SCIENCE (Continued) Description NOV TRAFFIC ENG SRVC: PW TRAFFIC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Amount Paid Check Total 682.00 682.00 4,725.00 4,725.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 9,520,597.54 Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 01/13/2022 4:01:51PM CITY OF TEMECULA 96 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 9,520,597.54 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 01/18/2022 3:46:01 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 501667 1/20/2022 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM AFN SHERIFF DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM SHERIF 501668 1/20/2022 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO JAN DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: INFO TECH 501669 1/20/2022 018941 AZTEC LANDSCAPING INC DEC MAINT SVCS: PARKS/SCHOOLS: PW 501670 1/20/2022 004248 CALIF DEPT OF NOV FINGERPRINT SVCS: POLICE JUSTICE-ACCTING DEPT NOV FINGERPRINT SVCS: HR NOV FINGERPRINT SVCS: VOLUNTEER: 501671 1/20/2022 020648 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 CITYWIDE SURVEILLANCE PROJ: INC, CONVERGINT SOMMERS BEND TECHNOLOGIES 501672 1/20/2022 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL PORTABLE RESTROOM: VAIL RANCH SRVCS PARK PORTABLE RESTROOM: LA SERENA WA PORTABLE RESTROOM: RIVERTON PAR PORTABLE RESTROOM: LONG CANYON 501673 1/20/2022 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL FUEL FOR GENERATOR: CITY HALL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PARK MAINT FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREET MAI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: FIRE DEPT FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CIP: PW FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC: PN FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV: F FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFOI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: FIRE DEPT 501674 1/20/2022 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS MISC OFC SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 92 INC MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PLANNING MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PLANNING MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PLANNING MISC OFC SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY 501675 1/20/2022 004890 GOLDEN STATE FIRE WATER GAUGE REPLACE: PARKING PROTECTION GARAGE 501676 1/20/2022 017334 HOUSE OF AUTOMATION INC GATE SERVICE: FOC Amount Paid 454.30 180.60 28.28 9,766.50 2,162.00 196.00 130.00 9,450.22 165.88 110.88 110.88 110.88 2,662.15 1,619.04 775.19 198.71 168.83 166.47 143.30 127.13 90.22 49.90 39.15 194.67 83.73 29.99 29.99 25.69 794.00 848.06 Check Total 634.90 28.28 9,766.50 2,488.00 9,450.22 498.52 6,040.09 364.07 794.00 848.06 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 01/18/2022 3:46:01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 501677 1/20/2022 022056 IDETAIL SUPPLY CO ENGINE MAINT SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 92 ENGINE MAINT SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 92 501678 1/20/2022 012883 JACOB'S HOUSE INC EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS PAYMENT 501679 1/20/2022 019823 MERCHANTS BLDG MAINT LLC NOV JANITORIAL SVCS: FACILITIES 501680 1/20/2022 018314 MICHAEL BAKER CONSULT FINAL MONUMENTATION: INTERNATIONAL OLD TOWN 501681 1/20/2022 013827 MIKO MOUNTAINLION INC PUMP TRACK CONSTRUCTION: PW 501682 1/20/2022 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW INC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW 501683 1/20/2022 002925 NAPAAUTO PARTS MISC AUTO PARTS: STREET MAINT: PW 501684 1/20/2022 022599 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC DEC LDSCP MAINT: SCHOOLS/SPORTS: PARKS IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VAIL RANCH SLOI IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VAIL RANCH SLOI IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VILLAGES IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VAIL RANCH 501685 1/20/2022 012904 PROACTIVE FIRE DESIGN DEC PLAN REVIEW SVC: AND, CONSULTING PREVENTION: FIRE 501686 1/20/2022 022537 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES, MISC PARTS - FIRE DISTRIBUTOR 501687 1/20/2022 020429 REMOTE SATELLITE SYSTEMS DEC'21 SAT PH AIRTIME/FEB FEE: INTL EOC 501688 1/20/2022 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL HERBICIDE APPLICATION: CITY MANAGEMENT ROWS: PW SHOPPING CART CLEAN-UP: STREET M, 501689 1/20/2022 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC JAZZ @ THE MERC 1/6/22 501690 1/20/2022 021620 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC REPLACE POLE: WOLF RD/ROCKY 501691 1/20/2022 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW NEW SIGNS:OFFICE: HALLWAYS: HR NEW SIGNAGE: CIVIC CENTER NEW SIGNAGE: CIVIC CENTER Amount Paid Check Total 114.02 76.07 190.09 40.00 40.00 26,437.73 26,437.73 2,375.00 2,375.00 13,128.00 13,128.00 789.37 253.45 1,042.82 52.10 52.10 66,484.53 506.36 419.42 208.75 180.54 67,799.60 16,962.70 16,962.70 274.00 274.00 280.00 280.00 19,656.00 1,774.00 21,430.00 206.50 206.50 15,528.40 15,528.40 3,196.56 1,661.55 181.56 5,039.67 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 01/18/2022 3:46:01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 501692 1/20/2022 021603 TITAN RENTALS GROUP INC, TABLES/CHAIRS RENTAL: SPEC TITAN TENT & EVENT RENTAL EVENTS: TCSD 501693 1/20/2022 022566 TRAFFIC LOGIX CORPORATION TRAFFIC CALMING: TRAFFIC: PW 501694 1/20/2022 014866 TWM ROOFING, INC ROOF REPAIRS: FIRE STATION 92 501695 1/20/2022 007766 UNDERGROUND SERVICE DEC UNDERGRND UTILITY LOCATOR ALERT, OF SOUTHERN ALERTS: PW CALIFORNIA DEC DIG SAFE BIRD BILLABLE TCKTS: P1 501696 1/20/2022 009101 VISION ONE INC, DBA SHOWARE TICKETING SERVICES: ACCESSO THEATER 501697 1/20/2022 001881 WATER SAFETY PRODUCTS MISC SUPPLIES: AQUATICS/TCSD INC Amount Paid Check Total 1.890.64 11,840.70 17,135.00 133.75 94.30 5,188.60 180.00 501698 1/20/2022 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC EMERGENCY CALL SVC: CHANTEMAR 1,155.00 501699 1/20/2022 016864 WOOD, RANDOLPH COMPUTER PURCHASE PRGM 2,000.00 Grand total for EFT UNION BANK: 1,890.64 11,840.70 17.135.00 228.05 5,188.60 180.00 1,155.00 2,000.00 241.317.24 Page.-3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 01/18/2022 3:46:01PM CITY OF TEMECULA 33 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 241,317.24 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 12431 12/9/2021 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 013218 SORO'S MEDITERRANEAN RO RFRSHMNTS: CLOSED CITY CNCL 289.80 GRILL MTG 10/12 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE RO ONLINE SUBSCRIPTION: CITY 14.00 COMPANY INC CLERK 020419 CHIPOTLE - CORP OFC RO RFRSHMNTS: CLOSED CITY CNCL 303.83 MTG 10/26 001104 A R M A RO MEMBERSHIP FEE: KRAGE, LANNY 175.00 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE LLC, RO RFRSHMNTS: SPECIAL CITY CNCL 288.08 DBA CORNER BAKERY CAFE MTG 11/2 018323 GOAT & VINE, THE RO RFRSHMNTS: CLOSED CITY CNCL 142.45 1,213.16 MTG 11/09 12432 12/9/2021 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 008567 GODADDY.COM INC. MH DOMAIN NAME: 21.17 TEMECULAARTS.ORG 020934 OSP CASES MH CASE W/TABLE FOR MOBILE 1,142.99 CART: IT 022765 EBAY MH CASE W/TABLE FOR MOBILE -1,243.00 CART: IT 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT MH PROJECTOR SCREENS: INFO 326.23 TECH 022765 EBAY MH CASE W/TABLE FOR MOBILE 1,243.00 CART: IT 013338 APPLE STORE MH IPHONE PRO 13: EDWARDS, M. 269.00 1,759.39 12433 12/9/2021 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES AA CONF REGISTRATION: ADAMS 725.00 018996 BAJA EXPRESS AA RFRSHMNT: SOTC COLOR GUARD 73.25 008669 VONS AA RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL 22.36 BUSINESS MTGS 020829 MURRIETA CHAMBER OF AA REGIST: WILDOMAR STATE OF THE 50.00 COMMERCE CITY 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE LLC, AA RFRSHMNTS: REIM'B CITY ATTY 110.37 DBA CORNER BAKERY CAFE MTG 10/26 000871 HILTON AA RFRSHMNTS: CCMF BOARD MTG 32.19 10/28 000871 HILTON AA LODGING: CCMF BOARD MTG 10/29 300.71 008956 PANERA BREAD AA RFRSHMNTS: MEDIA RELATIONS 359.63 MTG 11/2 022773 INDIAN MASALA GRILL AA RFRSHMNTS: CITY ATTY MTG 11/9 83.68 004432 ALBERTSONS GROCERY AA RFRSHMNTS: PECHANGA PUESKA 21.56 STORE MTN DAY 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 AA RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL MTGS 84.64 1,863.39 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 12540 12/28/2021 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 12541 12/28/2021 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 12543 12/29/2021 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 12544 12/29/2021 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 12545 1/3/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 12546 1/4/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 12547 1/4/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 12548 12/29/2021 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 12549 12/29/2021 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 12550 12/29/2021 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 12551 12/29/2021 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 12552 12/29/2021 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 12553 12/29/2021 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 12554 12/29/2021 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 12563 1/4/2022 001986 MUZAK LLC 12564 1/4/2022 001986 MUZAK LLC (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total NOV 055-475-6169-5: 32380 DEER 16.27 16.27 HOLLOW NOV 015-575-0195-2: 32211 WOLF 339.90 339.90 VALLEY DECEMBER INTERNET SVCS 41845 598.63 598.63 6TH ST DECEMBER INTERNET SVCS 28922 598.63 598.63 PUJOL ST DECEMBER INTERNET SVCS: 29119 1,621.36 1,621.36 MARGARITA DECEMBER INTERNET SVCS: 32364 119.99 119.99 OVERLAND DECEMBER INTERNET SVCS: 40820 598.63 598.63 WINCHESTER DEC 700187069897 44173 20.68 20.68 BUTTERFIELD STG DEC 700295838526 44747 REDHAWK 34.56 34.56 PKWY DEC 700066386743 32805 PAUBA RD 95.88 95.88 DEC 700376130476 29429 TEMECULA 98.38 98.38 PKWY NOV 700606072010 46679 PRIMROSE 903.65 903.65 AVE NOV 600000000717 30140 MARGARITA 1,507.25 1,507.25 RD DEC 700316536912 32131 S LOOP RD 1,514.87 1,514.87 JAN DISH NETWORK 41952 6TH ST 59.16 59.16 JAN DISH NETWORK STA 95 32131 175.38 175.38 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 12610 12/30/2021 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC 12611 12/30/2021 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC 12613 12/30/2021 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC 12614 12/30/2021 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC 12615 12/30/2021 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC 12616 1/4/2022 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC 12617 1/4/2022 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC 12618 1/5/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 12630 1/10/2022 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC 12631 1/10/2022 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 12632 1/10/2022 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 12640 1/7/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 12654 1/11/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 000647 CALIF DEPT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total DEC INTERNET SVCS: COMMUNITY 130.99 130.99 CTR DEC INTERNET SVCS: SENIOR CTR 150.98 150.98 DEC INTERNET SVCS: CITY HALL 295.98 295.98 DEC INTERNET SVCS: CITY HALL 2,918.64 2,918.64 DEC INTERNET SVCS: CITY HALL 5,621.97 5,621.97 DEC INTERNET SVCS - STA 73 171.84 171.84 DEC INTERNET SVCS - LIBRARY 190.98 190.98 DECEMBER INTERNET SVCS: 28300 598.63 598.63 MERCEDES JAN INTERNET SVCS -THEATER 150.98 150.98 DEC 095-167-7907-2: 30650 PAUBA 364.14 364.14 DEC 125-244-2108-3: 30600 PAUBA 1,585.61 1,585.61 JANUARY INTERNET SVCS: 29119 324.96 324.96 MARGARITA PT LICENSE RENEWAL: MORENO, R. 180.00 180.00 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 12655 1/11/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 019244 HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. 008669 VONS 002103 CALIF ASSOCIATION PUBLIC INFO, DBA: CAPIO 013338 APPLE STORE 007987 WALMART 014529 DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. 12657 1/11/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 013338 APPLE STORE 018925 MEMORABLE BITES LLC, DBA FIREHOUSE SUBS 004087 LOWES INC 022788 OR CODE GENERATOR 022699 MOUNTAIN MIKE'S PIZZA 006714 SHERATON HOTEL 006714 SHERATON HOTEL 006714 SHERATON HOTEL 12658 1/11/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 005531 FRONT STREET BAR & GRILL DBA, BAILY WINE COUNTRY CAFE 021177 NOTHING BUNDT CAKES 006714 SHERATON HOTEL 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPANY INC 12659 1/11/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 021322 PEPPERMILL FIRESIDE LOUNGE 007987 WALMART 022777 THE MEADOWS (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total KH SUPPLIES: MIXER EVENT: ECO 134.21 DEV KH RFRSHMNTS: PU'ESKA DAY 44.44 EVENT:CM KH WEBINAR: SOCIAL MEDIA: DAMKO 35.00 KH EXTRA STORAGE: SOCIAL MEDIA: 2.99 ECO DEV KH SUPPLIES: MIXER EVENT: ECO 76.34 DEV KH SUPPLIES: MIXER EVENT: ECO 86.44 379.42 DEV JC ADD'L PHONE STORAGE: MILLER, 0.99 W. JC RFRSHMNTS: PLANE CRASH 291.73 INCIDENT JC WREATHS: CITY FIRE ENGINES: 251.06 FIRE DEPT JC CPR CLASSES: FIRE DEPT 191.88 JC RFRSHMNTS: SANTA'S PARADE: 296.75 FIRE DEPT JC RFRSHMNTS: CHIEF 26.43 CONFERENCE: CRATER JC RFRSHMNTS: CHIEF 36.28 CONFERENCE: CRATER JC RFRSHMNTS: CHIEF 70.40 1,165.52 CONFERENCE: CRATER RO RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL MTG 228.38 11/23 RO RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL MTG 235.00 12/ 14/21 RO LODGING: SEMINAR: JOHL-OLSON 690.72 RO ONLINE SUBSCRIPTION: CITY 14.00 1,168.10 CLERK ZH LODGING: CONF: CNOA: 682.35 GARCIA/ROBERTS ZH CAMERA: USED FOR EVIDENCE: 190.71 POLICE ZH RFRSHMNTS: DEPOSIT: 500.00 1,373.06 VOLUNTEERS Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 12664 1/11/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 012550 MARRIOTT, COURTYARD BY IG PARKING: CALPELRA CONF: MARRIOTT COLLINS 022791 911MARKET.COM IG SERVICE AWARDS: TCC 012550 MARRIOTT, COURTYARD BY IG PARKING: CALPELRA CONF: MARRIOTT GARIBAY 022792 ACI JET SNA - VALET IG AIRPORT PARKING: CALPELRA CONF: COLLI 002377 BEST BUY COMPANY INC IG EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER RAFFLE 020792 CANVA.COM IG MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: HR STAFF 005115 ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR INC IG RENTAL CAR: CALPELRA CONF: GARIBAY 015534 GOVERNMENT JOBS.COM INC, IG RECRUIT ADVERTISING: MGMT DBA NEOGOV ASSIST 022795 WORLD MARKET IG SUPPLIES: HR LOBBY 016883 MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT, IG WEBINAR REGISTRATION: ALFORD, ASSOCIATION OF SO CALIF M. 002377 BEST BUY COMPANY INC IG EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER RAFFLE 022794 PRESIDENT'S VOLUNTEER, IG SERVICE AWARDS: TCC SERVICE AWARD 022793 ALVARADO STREET BREW IG RFRSHMNTS: CALPELRA CONF: HR STAFF 12669 1/14/2022 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC JAN INTERNET SVCS: EOC 12674 1/20/2022 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT SUPPORT 12675 1/20/2022 021301 I C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN ICMA- 401(A) RETIREMENT PLAN 106474 PAYMENT 12676 1/20/2022 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN ICMA-RC RETIREMENT TRUST 457 303355 PAYMENT 12677 1/20/2022 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) STATE TAX PAYMENT 12678 1/20/2022 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) FEDERAL TAX PAYMENT 12679 1/20/2022 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT SOLUTION 12680 1/20/2022 019088 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE LOAN REPAYMENT SOLUTION PAYMENT Amount Paid Check Total 38.44 285.45 108.00 160.00 402.31 119.40 623.61 295.00 148.18 15.00 130.49 134.72 64.80 2,525.40 156.28 156.28 478.11 478.11 384.62 384.62 14,170.39 14,170.39 29,560.13 29,560.13 93,587.79 93,587.79 12,226.85 12,226.85 344.39 344.39 Page:5 apChkLst 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 12681 1/20/2022 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- PROJECT RETIREMENT 2,357.20 2,357.20 SOLUTION PAYMENT 12704 12/2/2021 014685 COMPASS BANK '11 REFUNDING 01/08 CERT PART 519,999.60 519,999.60 DEBT SVC 12705 12/2/2021 014685 COMPASS BANK 2018 MRC DEBT SVC 139,042.37 139,042.37 12706 1/7/2022 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS 11/16-12/15 16,857.98 16,857.98 CELLULAR/BROADBAND:CITYWIDE 102106 1/10/2022 022780 GREEN BEE PATIOS REFUND: PERMIT B21-6737 221.99 221.99 CANCELLED 102108 1/19/2022 022800 HOLLIS, MARK REFUND: BL 030039 DUPLICATE 39.00 39.00 RENEWAL 102109 1/19/2022 022803 PEREZ, MARGARITO REFUND: DUPLICATE PAYMENT 39.00 39.00 INVOICE 104108 207884 1/20/2022 019307 ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE ANNUAL SMOG CHECK: INFO TECH 50.00 50.00 SMOG 207885 1/20/2022 003552 AFLAC PREMIUM HOLDING, AFLAC ACCIDENT INDEMNITY 3,509.74 3,509.74 C/O BNB BANK LOCKBOX PAYMENT 207886 1/20/2022 007282 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES MISC SUPPLIES: TVM: TCSD 98.70 INC MISC SUPPLIES: HUMAN SVCS: TCSD 39.90 MISC EQUIP: PREVENTION: FIRE DEPT 28.66 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: EMERGENCY MGt 32.71 MISC SUPPLIES: HUMAN SVCS: TCSD 162.68 EVENT/SAFETY EQPMNT: CRC: TCSD 175.32 ERGONOMIC KEYBOARD: SHARP, ANISE 76.11 EVENT/SAFETY EQPMNT: CRC: TCSD 316.27 MISC SMALL TOOLS/EQUIPMENT: HR 120.79 REC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD 222.57 RETURN: MOBILE CART: INFO TECH -249.42 MISC SMALL TOOLS/EQUIPMENT: EOC 43.49 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CITY CLERK 107.18 1,174.96 207887 1/20/2022 004422 AMERICAN BATTERY BATTERIES: CIVIC CENTER 605.48 CORPORATION, DBA AMERICAN BATTERY SUP BATTERIES: CIVIC CENTER 117.82 723.30 207888 1/20/2022 007513 ATTAR, AMER COMPUTER PURCHASE PRGM 2,000.00 2,000.00 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 207889 1/20/2022 007065 B&H PHOTO & ELECTRONICS MISC AV EQUIPMENT: PEG SUPPLIES CORP 207890 1/20/2022 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL UNIFORM SHIRTS: INFO TECH PRODUCTS INC UNIFORM SHIRTS: INFO TECH 207891 1/20/2022 021278 BEAR DESIGNZ SPECIAL EVENT ITEMS: BATTALION 15: FIRE 207892 1/20/2022 011348 BONCOR WATER SYSTEMS 01/06-02/02 WTR FILTER: FIRE STA 73 LLC, DBA SUNSHINE WATER SOFT 207893 1/20/2022 003048 BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, OF FY 21/22 COMMUNITY SRVC FUNDING SOUTHWEST COUNTY 207894 1/20/2022 000484 CALIF ASSN FOR LOCAL MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: DAMKO, C. ECONOMIC, DEVELOPMENT 207895 1/20/2022 000413 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & PERMITAPP FEE: PW16-01 WILDLIFE 207896 1/20/2022 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES DEC COPIER LEASE - CIVIC CTR INC 207897 1/20/2022 004462 CDW LLC, DBA CDW MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO GOVERNMENT LLC TECH LAPTOP/BATTERY BACKUP: MOBILE ME MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECI MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECI MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECI 207898 1/20/2022 018315 CHARITY FOR CHARITY FY 21/22 COMMUNITY SVC FUNDING 207899 1/20/2022 005417 CINTAS PROTECTION NO2, FIRST AID KIT MAINT: RISK MGMT CINTAS FIRE 636525 FIRST AID KIT MAINT: RISK MGMT FIRST AID KIT MAINT: RISK MGMT FIRST AID KIT MAINT: RISK MGMT FIRST AID KIT MAINT: RISK MGMT FIRST AID KIT MAINT: RISK MGMT 207900 1/20/2022 022790 CLEARSTAR INC PRE -EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR PRE -EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 207901 1/20/2022 016530 COMMUNITY MISSION OF FY 21122 COMMUNITY SRVC FUNDING HOPE 207902 1/20/2022 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA491 MISC SUPPLIES: TVM/ACE: TCSD Amount Paid Check Total 63.01 63.01 21.73 14.40 36.13 1,006.72 1,006.72 293.50 293.50 5,000.00 5,000.00 853.70 853.70 5,748.75 5,748.75 671.56 671.56 194.22 2,119.83 150.03 133.22 216.41 2,813.71 5,000.00 5,000.00 167.39 179.11 179.33 26.09 164.52 32.52 748.96 191.69 175.07 366.76 5,000.00 5,000.00 86.34 86.34 Page:? apChkLst 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 207903 1/20/2022 004194 D LT SOLUTIONS, LLC AUTOCAD RENEWAL: PUBLIC WORKS 3,244.78 3,244.78 207904 1/20/2022 015330 FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, OF DEC CDBG SUB -RECIPIENT: FAIR 2,236.96 2,236.96 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INC HOUSING SVC 207905 1/20/2022 014865 FREIZE UHLER KIMBERLY DBA, EMBROIDERY SVCS: CITY MGR 77.95 CLEAR BLUE PROMOTIONS STAFF SHIRTS/UNIFORMS: FINANCE 648.82 726.77 207906 1/20/2022 016184 FUN EXPRESS LLC VAR CRAFT KITS/DECOR: SKIP PGM: 237.90 237.90 TCSD 207907 1/20/2022 009475 GOLDEN STAR TECHNOLOGY, SCREEN PROTECTION LCD TABLETS: 377.13 377.13 INC, DBA: GST TRAFFIC:P 207908 1/20/2022 022782 GUENTHER, CHRIS REIMB: CERT RENEWAL: ARBORIST 250.00 250.00 207909 1/20/2022 022801 HEIN, MARILYN REFUND: LIBRARY SMARTPAY 24.99 24.99 207910 1/20/2022 013749 HELIXSTORM INC FIREWALLANNUAL SUB RENEWAL: 29,028.00 VAR SITES IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT: INFO TECH 3,762.50 IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT: INFO TECH 3,675.00 IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT: INFO TECH 14,287.50 50,753.00 207911 1/20/2022 022666 HOSKINS, MITCHELLJ STTLMNT: LIVE HIP -HOP AT THE 540.00 540.00 MERC: 01/14 207912 1/20/2022 011049 HOSPICE OF THE VALLEY FY 21/22 COMMUNITY SVC FUNDING 5,000.00 5,000.00 207913 1/20/2022 012342 INLAND CUTTER SERVICE INC PAPER FOLDER MAINT: CENTRAL 375.00 SVCS PAPER SENSOR UNIT: CENTRAL SVCS 50.04 425.04 207914 1/20/2022 022569 INLAND FLEET SOLUTIONS INC EQUIPMENT REPAIRS: STREETS: PW 757.46 757.46 207915 1/20/2022 015923 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR INC COMPUTER REPLACEMENT: LIBRARY 24,095.09 24,095.09 207916 1/20/2022 021896 JP HANDMADE CORP, DBA PRINTING:BUSINESS CARDS: ECON 86.07 86.07 MINUTEMAN PRESS DEV 207917 1/20/2022 022770 KEY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, PACKAGE TRACKING: CENTRAL SVCS 2,495.00 2,495.00 DBA QTRAK -10.20 207918 1/20/2022 017118 KRACH BREE B, DBA CREDITS: TEMECULA TROPHY & DES -10.88 NAME BADGES: CITY MGR OFC 43.50 22.42 Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 207919 1/20/2022 014432 LANAIR GROUP LLC MITEL MOBILITY ROUTER: INFO TECH 207920 1/20/2022 004813 M AND J PAUL ENTERPRISES JUMPER/GAME RENTALS: SPEC INC, DBA JOLLY JUMPS EVENT: TCSD 207921 1/20/2022 022664 MARIPOSATREE TREE TRIMMING: HARVESTON SLOPE MANAGEMENT INC TREE TRIMMING: HARVESTON SLOPE TREE TRIMMING: CROWNE HILL SLOPE TREE TRIMMING: PRESLEY SLOPE TREE TRIMMING: TRADEWINDS SLOPE TREE TRIMMING: PARKS & MEDIANS TREE TRIMMING: VINTAGE HILLS SLOPE 207922 1/20/2022 019019 MUSIC CONNECTION LLC STTLMNT: SPEAKEASY AT THE MERC 1 /8/22 207923 1/20/2022 017861 MYTHOS TECHNOLOGY INC JAN-MAR MONITORING SVCS: TVE2 207924 1/20/2022 010167 ODYSSEY POWER UPS REPAIR: CIVIC CTR CORPORATION 207925 1/20/2022 022784 PEREZ, LIANNA REIMB: INTRO TO GOV'TACCTG: INFO TECH 207926 1/20/2022 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE 26 WKS SUBSCR: CITY MGRS OFC COMPANY INC 180905647 PAST DUE FEES: HR SUBSCRIPTION 207927 1/20/2022 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE 26 WKS SUBSCR:SUPPORT SVC COMPANY INC 181108943 207928 1/20/2022 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: VAR SUPPLY FACILITIES 1/4/22 UNIFORM RENTAL: PARKS: PW 207929 1/20/2022 022741 PUTNAM, DAVID NOVELTY GLASSES/BOOKS: TVM: TCSD 207930 1/20/2022 016869 RIGHTWAY SITE SERVICES INC PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTALS: DBA, RIGHTWAY PORTABLE SPCL EVENTS: TOILET 207931 1/20/2022 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS SHERIFF EXTRA DUTY: ROD RUN: DEPT POLICE 207932 1/20/2022 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AUG TROLLEY SVC: RIDERSHIP SEP TROLLEY SVC: RIDERSHIP OCT TROLLEY SVC: RIDERSHIP NOV TROLLEY SVC: RIDERSHIP Amount Paid Check Total 1,600.00 1,600.00 2,610.00 2,610.00 27,109.00 116.00 24,220.00 2,604.00 4,521.00 10,179.00 8,836.00 77,585.00 250.60 250.60 450.00 450.00 716.96 716.96 75.00 75.00 611.45 33.39 644.84 392.31 392.31 95.70 109.86 205.56 132.00 132.00 1,278.38 1,278.38 18,400.59 18,400.59 1,736.22 1,736.22 1,736.22 1,736.22 6,944.88 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 207933 1/20/2022 016439 ROTARY CLUB OF TEMECULA, ANNUAL CSF FY21-22: FOOD BASKETS FOUNDATION ACCOUNT 207934 1/20/2022 021964 RUSSELL SIGLER INC, DBA Misc Parts for HVAC Units: Civic Ctr SIGLER WHOLESALE DIST 207935 1/20/2022 009980 SANBORN GWYNETH A, CO COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 1/15 TEMECULA MUSIC ACADEMY 207936 1/20/2022 017699 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA M PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES FOR CC PRESTON FY21/22 PHOTO SVCS: TEAM PACE: EOQ PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS:FIRST FRIDAY MERC: PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: GRAPE DROP: TCSD 207937 1/20/2022 021309 SB&O INC 11/15-12/12 ENG: CITYWIDE SDWLKS, 19-20 207938 1/20/2022 020545 SOCIAL WORK ACTION GROUP HOMELESS/STREET OUTREACH SVCS:TCSD 207939 1/20/2022 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST PEST CONTROL SVCS: CIVIC CTR: PW CONTROL INC PEST CONTROL SVCS: CRC PEST CONTROL SVCS: STA 73: FIRE PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKING GARAGE PEST CONTROL SVCS: DUCK POND: PW 207940 1/20/2022 013351 SPECIAL OLYMPICS SO CALIF FY 21/22 COMMUNITY SRVC FUNDING INC 207941 1/20/2022 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC REFRESHMENTS - HIGH HOPES EVENTS 207942 1/20/2022 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT OFFICE SUPPLIES: THEATER: TCSD MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW - CIP MISC SUPPLIES:POLICE MALL STOREFRONT MISC OFC SUPPLIES: MALL STOREFRON OFFICE SUPPLIES: THEATER: TCSD 207943 1/20/2022 003000 STATE WATER RESOURCE STORM WATER PERMIT: NPDES: PW CONTROL, BOARD 207944 1/20/2022 012789 STUART, JENNIFER SARAH TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 207945 1/20/2022 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINT. TRAFFIC: PD LLC Amount Paid Check Total 5,000.00 5,000.00 250.73 250.73 753.75 753.75 275.00 250.00 170.00 220.00 915.00 195.00 195.00 32,924.35 32,924.35 120.00 90.00 68.00 90.00 49.00 417.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 350.53 350.53 36.11 293.94 294.53 38.54 13.20 676.32 44,169.00 44,169.00 10,290.00 10,290.00 271.46 271.46 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 207946 1/20/2022 005722 TEMECULA VALLEY GARDEN COMMUMITY SERVICES FUNDING CLUB FY21 /22 207947 1/20/2022 017415 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION EMERG ELEVATOR SVCS: PRKG STRUCTURE:PW 207948 1/20/2022 022745 TRUIST BANK MRAP MORTGAGE GRANT RECIPIENT 2/3 207949 1/20/2022 020843 TVEYES INC MEDIA MONITORING: 3/1/22-2/28/23 207950 1/20/2022 000161 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC EDEN RENEWAL: INFO TECH 207951 1/20/2022 020963 UPTOWN TEMECULAAUTO NOV VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: FIRE SPA LLC NOV VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: STREE' NOV VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: PARKS: 207952 1/20/2022 007987 WALMART THEATER HOSPITALITY & MISC SUPPLIES REC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD REC SUPPLIES: CRC -TCSD MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER: TCSD MISC OFC SUPPLIES: THEATER: TCSD 207953 1/20/2022 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: PW: PARKS 207954 1/20/2022 000339 WEST PUBLISHING CLEAR SUBSCRIPTION: TEM SHERIFF CORPORATION, DBA:THOMSON REUTERS Amount Paid Check Total 1,500.00 1,500.00 265.69 265.69 2,393.83 2,393.83 1,500.00 1,500.00 32,005.52 32,005.52 72.00 4.00 12.00 88.00 154.70 179.31 179.31 28.95 63.64 605.91 891.10 891.10 984.53 984.53 207955 1/20/2022 021148 WEX BANK 12/07-01/06 FUEL USAGE: POLICE 2,227.21 2,227.21 207956 1/20/2022 003776 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION, PARAMEDIC SUPPLIES: FIRE 877.31 GPO CPR PROGRAM: FIRE 1,931.40 CPR PROGRAM: FIRE 1,455.89 CPR PROGRAM: FIRE 1,284.61 CPR PROGRAM: FIRE 4,386.54 9,935.75 Grand total for UNION BANK: 1,250,718.61 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 12 01/20/2022 3:11:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA 125 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,250,718.61 Page:12 Item No. 4 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance 2022-01 Amending Title 15 and Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code Pertaining to (1) Large Family Daycare Homes, (2) Clarify the Standards that Apply to Senior Housing, Transitional Housing, Supportive Housing, Emergency Shelters, Trash Enclosures, Self -Storage or Mini -Warehouse Facilities and to Projects Using the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, (3) Establish Standards and Requirements for Dedications and Improvements for Developments Without a Subdivision, (4) Update How Development Impact Fees Can Be Used, (5) Clarify Where Artificial Turf Can Be Installed, and (6) Make Minor Typographical Edits and Finding the Ordinance to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) (Second Reading) PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 2022-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLES 15 AND 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO (1) COMPLY WITH STATE LAW CHANGES TO LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOMES, (2) CLARIFY THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO SENIOR HOUSING, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRASH ENCLOSURES, SELF -STORAGE OR MINI -WAREHOUSE FACILITIES AND TO PROJECTS USING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE, (3) ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITHOUT A SUBDIVISION, (4) UPDATE HOW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES CAN BE USED, (5) CLARIFY WHERE ARTIFICIAL TURF CAN BE INSTALLED, AND (6) MAKE MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL EDITS AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (B)(3) BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. With the exception of urgency ordinances, Government Code Section 36934 requires two readings of standard ordinances more than five days apart. Ordinances must be read in full at the time of introduction or passage unless a motion waiving the reading is adopted by a majority of the City Council present. Ordinance No. 2022-01 was first introduced at the regularly scheduled meeting of January 25, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO.2022-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLES 15 AND 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO (1) COMPLY WITH STATE LAW CHANGES TO LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOMES, (2) CLARIFY THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO SENIOR HOUSING, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRASH ENCLOSURES, SELF -STORAGE OR MINI - WAREHOUSE FACILITIES AND TO PROJECTS USING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE, (3) ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITHOUT A SUBDIVISION, (4) UPDATE HOW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES CAN BE USED, (5) CLARIFY WHERE ARTIFICIAL TURF CAN BE INSTALLED, AND (6) MAKE MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL EDITS AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (11)(3) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. City staff identified the need to make minor revisions and clarifications to portions of Title 15 (Building and Construction), and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code. B. The code amendments are being made to address changes in State law where the City is now preempted from regulating large day care homes. In addition, this Ordinance amends the code to address and reflect the City's standard pattern and practice with respect to (1) improvements for developments without subdivisions (2) use of development impact fees, (3) the standards that apply to senior housing, transitional housing, supportive housing, emergency shelters, trash enclosures, and self -storage or mini -warehouse facilities, and (4) the standards that apply to projects in the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. The code amendment also reaffirms when artificial turf can be installed and amends the definition of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Finally, the code amendment makes minor typographical edits to the code. C. As required by State law, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Ordinance") on December 1, 2021, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021-41, recommending that the City Council approve the code amendments. E. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Ordinance on , 2022, at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. F. Following the public hearing, the City Council considered the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council, in approving the proposed Ordinance, hereby makes the following additional findings as required by Section 17.01.040 ("Relationship to General Plan") of the Temecula Municipal Code: 1. The proposed use is allowed in the land use designation in which the use is located, as shown on the land use map, or is described in the text of the general plan. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code do not propose any land use that is inconsistent with the Temecula General Plan. The proposed changes to family day care homes are required by recent state legislation that requires all day care facilities to be treated as any other residential use would be treated. The proposed revisions to transitional and supportive housing clarify the standards that apply to these uses and are required to adhere to state law in compliance with Housing Program #3 of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. Standards for emergency shelters are in Compliance with Housing Program #2 of the Housing Element. All other proposed amendments are minor clarifications and typographical edits and do not propose any land use changes contrary to the adopted General Plan. 2. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the general plan. The proposed changes to family day care homes are consistent with Goal 5 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities element of the Temecula General Plan, which is to ensure "Public and quasi -public facilities and services that provide for the social, cultural, civic, and religious, and recreational needs of the community." As a quasi -public facility, day care homes provide needed services to residents who may require day care services. For transitional, supportive, and emergency shelter facilities, Housing Element Policy 2.4 of the General Plan states, "Pursue all available forms of private, local, state, and federal assistance to support development and implementation of the City's housing programs." The proposed changes related to senior housing are supported by Housing Element Policy 5.3 of the General Plan that states, "Encourage housing design standards that promote the accessibility of housing for persons with special needs, such as the elderly..." The remaining proposed amendments to the Temecula Municipal Code are minor 2 clarifications and typographical edits and do not result in a contrary policy direction, or indicate an inconsistency between the Temecula Municipal Code and the adopted General Plan. 3. The proposed use is to be established and maintained in a manner which is consistent with the general plan and all applicable provisions contained therein. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code do not propose any land use that is inconsistent with the Temecula General Plan. The proposed changes to family day care homes are required by recent state legislation that requires all day care facilities to be as treated as any other residential use would be treated. Changes to transitional and supportive housing are required to adhere to state law in compliance with Housing Program #3 of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. Standards for emergency shelters are in Compliance with Housing Program #2 of the Housing Element. The proposed changes related to senior housing are supported by Housing Element Policy 5.3 of the General Plan that states, "Encourage housing design standards that promote the accessibility of housing for persons with special needs, such as the elderly..." All other proposed amendments are clarifications and typographical edits and do not propose any land use changes contrary to the adopted General Plan. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Municipal Code amendments would have a significant impact on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The Municipal Code amendments are minor policy changes, changes required by state law or revisions that reflect the City's standard practice and patterns, and clarifications or typographical corrections, which do not result in a significant increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared and will be filed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 4. Table 17.03.010 (Planning and Zoning Approval Authority) of Section 17.03.010 (Purpose and intent) of Chapter 17.03 (Administration of Zoning) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text), with all other provisions of Section 17.03.010 remaining unchanged: Table 17.03.010 Planning and Zoning Approval Authority Application Administrative Planning Planning City Approval Director Commission Council General plan amendment Recommendation) X1 Zoning amendment: text 1 Recommendation X1 changes Zoning amendment: map Recommendation) X1 changes 3 Zoning amendment: specific plan, includes specific plan amendments Recommendation' X1 Conditional use permit— existing building 1 2 X Conditional use permit with a development plan 1 2 3 X ° ° 1 3 X Development plan (10,000 sq. ft. or greater) X i Development plan (less than 10,000 sq. ft.) X1 Major modifications X2°4 X IA Minor modifications X2 Administrative development plan X2 Home occupation plan X2 day heffie X - - �family eaf:e y Minor exceptions X2 Sign permits X2 Sign programs, including sign program modifications X2 Temporary use permits X2 Variance X1 Seeendafy ' Accessory Dwelling Unit Xs Hillside development permit X1 Section 5. Table 17.06.030 (Residential Districts) of Section 17.06.030 (Use regulations.) of Chapter 17.06 (Residential Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (with deletions appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text), with all other provisions of Table 17.06.030 remaining unchanged: Table 17.06.030 Residential Districts Description of Use I HR I RR I VL I L- I L- I LM I M H HR-SMy 1 2 Residential Single-family detached P P P P P P P - P Duplex (two-family dwellings) - - - -2 -2 -2 P P - Single-family attached (greater than P P P two units) Multiple -family - - - - - - P P - Manufactured homes P P P P P P P P P Mobilehome park - - C8 C C C C C - Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or dependent or neglected P P P P P P P P P children (six or fewer) Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or dependent or neglected C C C C C C P P C children (seven to twelve) Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or P P P P P P P P P treatment facility (six or fewer) Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or C C C8 C C C P P C treatment facility (seven or more) Description of Use (residential HR RR VL L L LM M H HR-SM9 continued) 1 2 Residential care facilities for the P P P p P P P P P elderly (six or fewer) Residential care facilities for the C C C C C C P P C elderly (seven or more) Residential care facilities (six or P P P P P P P P P fewer) Residential care facilities (seven or C C C C C C C P C more) Congregate care residential facilities _ P P p p for the elderly Rooming and boarding house - - - - - - C C - Accessory dwelling units P P P P P P P P P Guest house P P P P P P P4 P4 P Family day care homes —small and P P P P P P P P P large Day care centers C C C C C C C C C Bed and breakfast establishments C C C C C C C C C Emergency shelters C C C8 C C C P P C Transitional housing i G P — G P Es P C P C P EP — P P EP — Supportive housing'2 EP G P C- P C P C P EP P P EP Efficiency units - - - - - - P P - Nonresidential Agriculture/open space uses6 P P P P P P P P C Religious institutions C C C C C C C C C Public utility facilities C C C C C C C C C Educational institutions C C C C C C C C C Libraries C C C, C C C C C - Commercial marijuana activity - - - - - - - - - Marijuana cultivation10 - - - - - - - - - Medical marijuana dispensaries - - - - - - - - - Museums and art galleries (not for profit) C C C8 C C C C C - Kennels and catteries6 C C C - - - - - - Noncommercial keeping of horses, cattle, sheep and goats P P P P P - - - P Temporary real estate tract offices P P P P P P P P P Recreational vehicle storage yard - C C8 C C C C C - Parking for commercial uses - - - - - - P P - Nonprofit clubs and lodge halls - - - - - - P P - Convalescent facilities - - - - - - P P - Golf courses C C C8 C C C C C - Home occupations P P P P P P P P P Construction trailers',6 P P P P P P P P P Short-term rentals - - - - - - - - - Notes: 12. Transitional housingand nd supportive housing shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Section 6. Table 17.06.050A (Accessory Structures Setbacks for the HR, RR, VL, L- 1, L-2, LM, M and H Zoning District) of Section 17.06.050 (Special use standards and regulations.) of Chapter 17.06 (Residential Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text), with all other provisions of Table 17.06.050A remaining unchanged: Table 17.06.050A Accessory Structures Setbacks for the HR, RR, VL, L-1, L-2, LM, M and H Zoning Districts Accessory Structure Carports Detached guest house Garage Storage/utility enclosure Swimming pool Swimming pool equipment Spa Antennas Gazebo/garden structure Solar collector (ground mounted) Decks not too ee gre (not to exceed 36 inches above the round Front Yard Not permitted Not permitted in the actual front yard' 20 ft. (Entrance faces street) 10 ft. (Entrance from side not facing front yard) Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted in front yard Not permitted Rear Yard 5 ft. min. for support columns Refer to the rear yard setbacks in Table 17.06.040 5 ft. min., but no less than 15 ft. from centerline of alley 3 ft. 5 ft. to water's edge 3 ft. 3 ft. to water's edge 5 ft. 5 ft. 1n 44 n;,-. 5 ft. min. Interior Side Yardl 5 ft. min. for support columns Refer to the side yard setbacks in Table 17.06.040 5 ft. min. 3 ft. 5 ft. to water's edge 3 ft. 3 ft. to water's edge 5 ft. 5 ft. if interior side yard 10 ft. if street side yard on corner lot 1n4 n;r 5 ft. min. Must meet district development standards (i.e. setbacks, height, coverage, etc.) 7 Table 17.06.050A Accessory Structures Setbacks for the HR, RR, VL, L-1, L-2, LM, M and H Zoning Districts Accessory Structure Front Yard Rear Yard Interior Side Yardl Patio covers 15 ft. 5 ft. min. 5 ft. min. measured at vertical supports Section 7. Subsection "I" (Family Day Care Home Facilities) of Section 17.06.050 (Special use standards and regulations.) of Chapter 17.06 (Residential Zoning Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety, with all other provisions of Section 17.06.050 remaining unchanged. Section 8. Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to change any reference to the terms "Alcoholism and/or drug treatment facility" or "Alcoholism or drug treatment facility" to "Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility". Section 9. Subsection "M" of Section 17.10.020 (Supplemental development standards) of Chapter 17.10 (Supplement Development Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text) with all other provisions of Section 17.10.020 remaining unchanged: "M. Senior Housing/Congregate Care Facilities. Senior housing and congregate care facilities are permitted in the zoning districts identified in the land use tables, subject to the approval of a development plan. Senior housing and congregate care facilities shall comply with the following: 1. Senior housing shall comply with all the provisions of the development code, unless modified by the following provisions: a. The maximum densities for senior housing are as follows: i. In the high density residential zoning district and the community commercial, highway tourism, service commercial, public/institutional district, and professional office zoning districts, the maximum density shall be thirty units per acre. ii. In the medium density residential zoning district and the neighborhood commercial zoning district, the maximum density shall be twenty units per acre. iii. In the low medium residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be eight units per acre. b. The net livable area for each dwelling unit shall not be less than four hundred square feet for an efficiency unit, five hundred fifty square feet for a one -bedroom unit, and seven hundred square feet for a two -bedroom unit. Kitchenettes may be permitted, provided they are sized to meet the immediate needs of the occupants of the unit. c. Senior housing shall comply with the requirements for senior housing developments set forth in Civil Code Section 51.3 et seq. 2. Congregate care projects shall comply with all the provisions of the development code unless modified by the following provisions: a. The maximum densities for congregate care facilities are not limited specifically to density requirements so long as all the site development standards are met (i.e., required setbacks, parking, landscaping, open space, etc.). b. The disabled units shall comply with the standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all approved specific plans within the city of Temecula, unless the specific plan contains specific standards for the type of housing being considered." Section 10. Subsection "N" of Section 17.10.020 (Supplemental development standards.) of Chapter 17.10 (Supplemental Development Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with additions appearing in underlined text), with all other provisions of Section 17.10.020 remaining unchanged: "N. Self -Storage or Mini -Warehouse Facilities. 1. Development Standards. The following standards shall be applied to all new self - storage or mini -warehouse facilities: a. The design of the facility shall be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of design, bulk and mass, materials and colors. Building exteriors shall not be corrugated metal or similar surface, but shall be of finished quality. Metal containers are prohibited; b. In commercial zoning districts the rear and side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten feet. In industrial zoning districts no rear or side yard setbacks are required. The director of planning may increase the setbacks to a maximum of twenty-five feet when adjacent to an existing residential development project. The front yard setback shall maintain the setback for the underlying zoning classification; c. The maximum lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) shall be sixty-five percent; d. The development site shall provide a minimum of ten percent landscaped open space for a project within commercial districts. In industrial districts, the total landscaping shall be equal to the required setback areas. No interior landscaping is required, but the setback areas shall be landscaped; e. A manager's residential unit may be provided, but is not required; f. Required parking spaces may not be rented as, or used for, vehicular storage. However, additional parking area may be provided for vehicles, boats, buses, trailers, etc., provided that the storage area is adequately screened from public view with enhanced landscaping, decorative walls, fences, or other methods as deemed appropriate by the director. 2. Performance and Use Regulations. a. Any business activity, other than rental of storage units, including the on -site sale of merchandise or garage sales, and transfer/storage businesses which utilize vehicles as part of the business is prohibited. No servicing or repair of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, lawn mowers, or any similar equipment is permitted. b. Storage units shall not be used for the storage of flammable liquids, highly combustible or explosive materials, or hazardous chemicals. c. Truck or vehicle rental is prohibited without obtaining all necessary approvals subject to the development code schedule of permitted uses." Section 11. A new Subsection "R" is hereby added to Section 17.10.020 (Supplemental development standards.) of Chapter 17.10 (Supplemental Development Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows, with all other provisions of Section 17.10.020 remaining unchanged: "R. Emergency Shelters. Emergency shelters shall be allowed in accordance with the land use table for the specific zone and provided that the following development standards are met: 1. The minimum floor area per occupant shall beat least one hundred fifty (150) square feet and the maximum number of occupants to be served at any given time shall not exceed fifty (50). 2. A minimum distance of three hundred feet (300') shall be maintained from any other emergency shelter. 3. The maximum stay per occupant at the facility shall not exceed ninety (90) days in a three hundred sixty five (365) day period. 4. On site client waiting and intake areas shall be located inside the building and shall be screened from public and private property where feasible. If not feasible, an exterior waiting area shall be provided that (a) contains a minimum of ten (10) square feet per bed provided at the facility; (b) is in a location not adjacent to the public right of way; and (c) is visibly separated from public view by a minimum six foot (6) tall visual screening. 5. A minimum of one employee per fifteen (15) beds shall be on duty and remain on site during operational hours whenever clients are on the site. Licensed security personnel shall also be provided during operational hours whenever clients are on the site and when people are waiting outside the facility. The licensed security personnel shall be in addition to the minimum employee requirement set forth above. 6. Exterior lighting shall be provided for the entire outdoor area of the site, and shall be stationary, shielded, and directed away from adjacent properties and public rights of way. Lighting should be provided at a minimum illumination of one footcandle across parking areas and two footcandles at entrances. 7. A minimum of one parking space for every ten (10) beds, plus one-half (1/2) parking space for each bedroom designated for families with children, plus one parking space for each 10 employee/volunteer on duty, shall be maintained. The number of parking spaces may be reduced by twenty-five percent (25%) if the shelter is located within one thousand feet (1,000') of a public transit stop. Bicycle rack parking shall also be provided at the facility. 8. The facility may provide the following services and facilities to clients in a designated area separate from the sleeping areas: a. A recreation area either inside or outside the shelter. If located outside, the area shall be screened from public view with landscaping. b. A counseling center for job placement, educational, healthcare, legal, or mental health services. c. Laundry facilities to serve the occupants at the shelter. d. A kitchen for the preparation of meals. e. A dining hall. f. Client storage areas (i.e., for the overnight storage of bicycles and personal items). 9. The operator of the facility shall provide, at the city's request, an annual report of the use of the facility and determination of compliance with the city's development standards for the use. 10. A management plan shall be submitted to be reviewed, approved, and enforced by the director of community development. The management plan shall be approved before issuance of a building permit (including those building permits solely utilized for occupancy only). The management plan shall be comprehensive and shall address, at a minimum, hours of operation, eligibility requirements, admission hours and process, staff training, case management, neighborhood outreach and privacy, resident counseling and treatment, maintenance plans, residency and guest rules and procedures including rules pertaining to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, weapons and fraternization, staffing and volunteer needs, including job descriptions, procedures related to families with children, policies related to personal effects, disciplinary procedures, safety policy, grievance procedures, and emergency preparedness plan." Section 12. A new Subsection "S" is hereby added to Section 17.10.020 (Supplemental development standards.) of Chapter 17.10 (Supplemental Development Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows, with all other provisions of Section 17.10.020 remaining unchanged: "S. Trash Enclosures Trash enclosures shall be designed in a manner that incorporates the following requirements: 1. Trash enclosures shall be designed in a size, manner, and location that is approved by the City's trash purveyor and the City. 2. Trash enclosures shall be designed in accordance with the City's most recent design standards. 3. Trash enclosures shall incorporate architectural design features from the surrounding architecture, including finishes, roofing, and colors. 4. Trash enclosures shall incorporate a solid (non -permeable) roof and working interior illumination (a minimum of one foot candle throughout the interior). IF 5. Trash enclosures shall have working locking mechanisms on all access gates, including pedestrian access gates, that shall remain locked and accessible only to authorized users (residents, commercial tenants, etc.) during times when pick-up service is not scheduled. 6. Trash enclosures shall have anti -dumping design features incorporated into the design of the trash enclosure, which prevent (a) the transfer of materials over or around the trash enclosure, and (b) the unauthorized entry into any portion of the trash enclosure or unauthorized dumping. Anti -dumping features must be designed in complimentary design manner to the existing or proposed building, and shall not include chain link fence, razor wire, or barbed wire. 7. When required by the Public Works Department, the trash enclosures shall have a drain that is tied into the sewer purveyor and designed to the sewer purveyor's standards. 8. When required by the Public Works Department, trash enclosures shall have a functioning hose bib located within the interior of the trash enclosure to keep the trash enclosure free of potential pollutants. The hose bib shall have a detachable key and/or locking mechanism. The hose bib shall be designed in a manner where the hose bib is protected from damage occurring from normal operations by location or another physical barrier. 9. Upgrades to existing trash enclosures may be required as determined by the Public Works Director, based upon the scope of tenant improvements to an existing building, building additions or other similar modifications. Tenant improvements at restaurants, automobile repair facilities, and other uses with a higher likelihood of pollutants will require upgrades to the existing trash enclosures." Architectural Roof s - ` Durable Doors with Locking - Anti -dumping r� Mechanism l��ls. r Features Matching Building Finishes(Stucco, Brick, Etc.) SAWLE TRASH ENCLOSURE Section 13. Note 4 of Table 17.12.030 (Schedule of Permitted Uses— Public/Institutional Districts.) of Section 17.12.030 (Use Regulations) of Chapter 17.12 (Public/Institutional District) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby 12 amended to read as follows (with additions appearing in underlined text), with all other provisions of Section 17.12.030 remaining unchanged: "4. Residential, multiple -family housing shall be allowed in the PI zone only if W the affordable housing overlay (AHO) applies to the property, (2) the proposed development complies with all of the requirements of the High Density Residential District Standards outlined in Table 17.06.040 (Development Standards — Residential Districts) of Section 17.06.040 (Development Standards) and (33,) the proposed development complies with all requirements of Chapter 17.21." Section 14. Table 17.12.040 (Development Standards — Public Institutional Districts) of Section 17.12.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter 17.12 (Public/Institutional District) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new note 1 to read as follows (with additions appearing in underlined text): GG Table 17.12.040 Development Standards—Public/Institutional Districts Development Standard' PI District Minimum lot size 7,000 sq. ft. Minimum lot width 50 ft. Minimum lot depth 100 ft. Maximum lot coverage 35% Floor area ratio 0.3 Setbacks': Front yard 20 ft. Interior side yard 5 ft. Street side yard 15 ft. Rear yard 15 ft. Rear yard —adjacent to alley or street 20 ft. Minimum landscape coverages 25% Note: 1. Residential. multiple-familv housing utilizing the affordable housing overlav (AHO) shall comply with all of the requirements of the High Density Residential District Standards outlined in Table 17.06.040 (Development Standards — Residential Districts) of Section 17.06.040 (Development Standards) and the development shall comply with all reauirements of Chapter 17.21." Section 15. Table 17.22.116 (Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Road Planned Development Overlay District-2) of Section 17.22.116 (Use regulations.) of Chapter 17.21 (Planned Development Overlay Zoning District (PDO-)) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (with deletions appearing in strikethrough text and 13 additions appearing in underlined text), with all other provisions of Table 17.22.116 remaining unchanged: Table 17.22.116 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Road Planned Development Overlay District-2 Description of Use PDO-2 Residential Single-family detached P1 Duplex (two-family dwellings) P1 Single-family attached (greater than two units) P Multiple -family P Manufactured homes P Mobilehome park - Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled or dependent or neglected children (six or fewer) P Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled or dependent or neglected children (seven to twelve) P Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility (six or fewer) P Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility seven or more P Residential care facilities for the elderly (six or fewer) P Residential care facilities for the elderly (seven or more) P Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly P Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities C Secondary dwelling units - Guest house P3 Family day care homes —small and large P Day care centers C Bed and breakfast establishments Emergency shelters P Transitional housing P Nonresidential Agriculture/open space uses P Religious institutions - Public utility facilities - Educational institutions - Public libraries C Public museums and art galleries (not forprofit) - Kennels and catteries - Noncommercial keeping of horses, cattle, sheep and goats - Temporary real estate tract offices P Recreational vehicle storage yard CZ 14 Parking for commercial uses I- Section 16. Section 17.23.020 (Definitions) of Chapter 17.23 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text) with all other provisions of Section 17.23.020 remaining unchanged: "Accessory dwelling unit" or "ADU" has the same meaning ascribed in Government Code section 65852.2, as the same may be amended from time to time. An Accessory dwelling unit contains a kitchen, which may include plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and/or physical space set aside for cooking or meal preparation facilities, which may include space for a refrigerator, sink, wet bar. and/or dishwasher. "Attached ADU" means an ADU that is constructed as a physical expansion (i.e. addition) of the primary dwelling and shares a common wall with the primary dwelling. "Detached ADU" means an ADU that is constructed as a separate structure from the primary dwelling, which does not share any walls with the primary dwelling. "Existing structure" means an existing single-family dwelling or other accessory structure that can be safely converted into habitable space under the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the city, and other applicable law. "Junior accessory dwelling unit" or "JADU" has the same meaning ascribed in Government Code Section 65852.22, as the same may be amended from time to time. A : u� nior accessory dwelling unit contains at least an efficiency kitchen, which may include plumbing_, electrical, mechanical, and/or physical space set aside for cooking or meal preparation facilities, which may include space for a refrigerator, sink, wet bar, and/or dishwasher. "Primary dwelling", for purposes of this chapter, means the existing or proposed single- family dwelling on the lot where an ADU would be located. "Public transit", for purposes of this chapter, has the meaning ascribed in Government Code Section 65852.20), as the same may be amended from time to time. Section 17. Subsection "K" of Section 17.32.060 (Landscape Design Requirements.) of Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape Design) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new number "9" to read as follows, with all other provisions of Section 17.32.060 remaining unchanged: "9. Artificial/synthetic turf is not a permitted plant material in commercial, industrial, or mixed -use zones and/or multi -family projects. Green artificial turf may be permitted in commercial, industrial, and/or mixed -use zones or multi -family projects when utilized for bona fide recreational facilities such as a sports field. Green artificial/synthetic turf is a permitted non - plant material for single family homes when used in place of a lawn or other landscaped area of the home." 15 Section 18. The Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new Chapter 15.07 (Dedications and Improvements Where No Subdivision is Involved) to Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) which shall read as follows: "Chapter 15.07 Dedications and Improvements Where No Subdivision is Involved 15.07.010 Purpose. 15.07.020 Dedications required. 15.07.030 Design of public improvements and security. 15.07.040 Deferrals of Public Improvement Requirements. 15.07.050 Exemption for Expansion of Existing Single Family Homes. 15.07.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards and requirements for dedications and improvements in connection with the development of land in which no subdivision is involved. 15.07.020 Dedications required. A. Applicants who propose new development within the city shall provide, by means of an offer of dedication or other appropriate conveyance as approved by the city attorney, the rights -of -way necessary for the construction of any street, trail, and/or bicycle path as shown on the circulation plan in the general plan or any supplemental document identified in the general plan, any applicable specific plan, or as otherwise required by the city engineer in connection with a land use entitlement pursuant to Title 17. Rights -of -way shall also be provided for improvements to existing facilities including rights -of -way for storm drains, trails, bicycle paths, or other required public facilities. All rights -of -way shall be accompanied by a title examination report and be free of all liens and encumbrances. Dedications required by this section shall be made before the issuance of a building permit for a subject property. 15.07.030 Design of public improvements and security. A. Public Improvements. Applicants shall construct public improvements to city standards and shall comply with the requirements set forth in Section 16.30.080, with the following modifications: 1. Any reference to "tentative map" or "final or parcel map" is replaced with "land use entitlement"; and 2. Any reference to "subdivider" is replaced with "applicant" B. Security. Applicants are required to guarantee the construction of public improvements by executing an improvement agreement secured by a bond or cash deposit before issuance of a building permit for the subject property. If the building permit is not exercised, the improvement obligation shall terminate and the security shall be returned. The city engineer is authorized to execute agreements on behalf of the city. The improvement agreement and security 16 shall comply with the requirements set forth in Section 16.30.100 (A) through (E) with the following modifications: 1. Any reference to "subdivision improvement agreement" is replaced with "improvement agreement"; 2. Any reference to "subdivider" is replaced with "applicant"; 3. The reference in Section 16.30.100(B) to agreements being executed by "those parties executing the final or parcel map" shall be replaced with "the applicant"; and 4. The reference in Section 16.30.100(C) to "final tract map, parcel map waiver, lot line adjustment, or lot merger" is replaced with "land use entitlement". 15.07.040 Deferrals of Public Improvement Requirements. Any required frontage improvements may be deferred when deemed appropriate by the city engineer. Deferral shall be allowed only when the city engineer finds that construction is impractical due to physical constraints. When improvements are deferred, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city for the installation of all frontage improvements at a future date as determined by the city engineer. The agreement shall be approved by the city attorney. The agreement shall provide for the following: A. Construction of required improvements shall begin within ninety (90) days of the receipt of notice to proceed from the city engineer; B. In the event of default by the applicant or successors, the city is authorized to cause the construction to be done and charge the entire cost and expense to the applicant or successors, including interest from the date of notice of the cost and expense until paid; C. The agreement shall be recorded with the county recorder, at the expense of the applicant, and shall constitute: 1. Notice to all successors of title to the real property of the obligation; and 2. A lien in an amount to fully reimburse the city for the cost of constructing the improvements, including interest as outlined above, subject to foreclosure in the event of default in payment. D. In the event of litigation caused by a default of the applicant or successors, the applicant or successors agree to pay all costs involved, including reasonable attorney's fees, which shall become a part of the lien against the real property; E. The term "applicant" shall include not only the present owner but also heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns, with the intent that the obligations undertaken shall run with the real property and constitute a lien against it: and F. Other provisions deemed necessary by the city engineer. 15.07.050 Exemption for Expansion of Existing Single Family Homes. A. The following developments shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter to construct street improvements: The addition, enlargement, expansion, alteration, extension, reconstruction or replacement of any existing single family dwelling and/or accessory 17 structure up to a maximum increase in square footage of 25% to the existing dwelling or structure 2. The construction of an accessory dwelling unit up to 1,200 square feet in size. 3. The development of non -habitable accessory structure(s) as provided for under Section 17.06.050 of this Chapter 17.06 (Residential Districts). B. A development that is exempt from the requirement to construct street improvements as provided for in this section shall remain subject to the requirement to provide the city with an irrevocable offer of dedication for the ultimate street right-of-way for any addition, enlargement, expansion, alteration, extension, reconstruction or replacement of an existing single family dwelling and/or habitable accessory structure regardless of size. C. No exemption from the requirement to construct street improvements shall be granted if the city engineer determines that the lack of street improvements in this case would be a potential danger to the public health, safety, and welfare." Section 19. Section 15.06.060 (Use of Funds.) of Chapter 15.06 (Public Facilities Development Impact Fee) of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby renamed "Accounting and Use of Development Impact Fees, and amended in its entirety to read as follows: "The City shall establish separate accounts for each category of development impact fee established by the City Council and deposit development impact fees collected into the appropriate account. The money deposited into these accounts, and any interest earnings thereon, shall be used solely for the public improvements, public services, and community amenities for which the development impact fees were imposed. Development impact fees may be used to pay the principal, interest and other costs of bonds, notes and other obligations issued or undertaken by or on behalf of the City to finance such improvements, services and amenities." Section 20. Severability. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation. Section 21. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. Section 22. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. 18 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of February, 2022. ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] 19 Matt Rahn, Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2022-01 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 251h day of January, 2022, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 20 Randi Johl, City Clerk Item No. 5 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance 2022-02 Amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to Revise the Multi -Family Definition and Require that Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Developments Comply with Objective Design Standards (Second Reading) PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE MULTI- FAMILY DEFINITION AND REQUIRE THAT MULTI- FAMILY AND MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENTS COMPLY WITH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND MAKE THE FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3) AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.21(J) AND 66411.7(N) (LONG-RANGE PROJECT NO. LR18-1684) BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. With the exception of urgency ordinances, Government Code Section 36934 requires two readings of standard ordinances more than five days apart. Ordinances must be read in full at the time of introduction or passage unless a motion waiving the reading is adopted by a majority of the City Council present. Ordinance No. 2022-02 was first introduced at the regularly scheduled meeting of January 25, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO.2022-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE MULTI- FAMILY DEFINITION AND REQUIRE THAT MULTI- FAMILY AND MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENTS COMPLY WITH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND MAKE THE FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3) AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.21(J) AND 66411.7(N) (LONG-RANGE PROJECT NO. LR18-1684). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. In 2017, the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA") was significantly strengthened through the passage of three bills, Senate Bill ("SB") 167, Assembly Bill ("AB") 678 and AB 1515. These bills were part of a comprehensive group of laws enacted to address California's housing shortage. This signaled a significant shift in the focus of the state's housing policies from planning to production. In 2018, AB 3194 further amended and strengthened the HAA. As clarified by AB 3194, when there are inconsistencies between the General Plan and zoning regulations, the General Plan policies take precedence; and B. On January 1, 2018, SB 35, intended to help address California's housing shortage, went into effect, requiring a streamlined and ministerial review process for multi -family housing projects meeting specific qualifications; and C. On January 1, 2019, AB 2162, intended to help address California's need for supportive and emergency housing, went into effect, requiring a streamlined and ministerial review process for supportive housing meeting specific qualifications; and D. On January 1, 2020, SB 330, intended to create certainty in the development of housing projects, went into effect, speeding up the review of these project, and created restrictions on new local regulations; and E. On January 1, 2022, SB 9 will go into effect, that requires cities to ministerially approve, within single family residential zones, housing developments containing no more than two residential units and parcel maps for urban lot splits; and F. With certain limitations, the above -referenced laws permit the City to impose design standards on housing projects, so long as those standards are objective and involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. Staff developed the "Objective Design Standards for Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Developments" (referred to as "Objective Design Standards") to establish objective design standards that will apply to any housing development project, pursuant to State law, requires ministerial approval. Staff also identified the need to amend a portion of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to revise the multi- family definition and to require that multi -family and mixed -use developments comply with Objective Design Standards as permitted by State law; and G. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the proposed amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Ordinance") on December 1, 2021, 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; and H. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021-40, recommending that the City Council adopt (1) a Resolution adopting the Objective Design Standards for Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Developments and (2) an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula Amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to revise the multi -family definition and require that multi -family and mixed -use developments comply with objective design standards and make the finding that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and Government Code Section 65852.210) and 66411.7(n); and I. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Ordinance on January 25, 2022, at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or opposition of this matter; and J. Following the public hearing, the City Council considered the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council; and K. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council, in approving the proposed Ordinance, hereby makes the following additional findings as required by Section 17.01.040 ("Relationship to General Plan") of the Temecula Municipal Code: 1. The proposed use is allowed in the land use designation in which the use is located, as shown on the land use map, or is described in the text of the General Plan. The proposed amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code do not propose any changes to land use designations. The proposed amendments to Title 17 require that multi -family and mixed -use residential developments comply with objective design standards. These projects will still need to comply with the land use designation of the General Plan. N 2. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs, and guidelines of the elements of the general plan. Requiring that multi -family and mixed -use housing developments comply with objective design standards conforms with Goal 2 of the Design Element of the Temecula General Plan, which is to ensure "design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs," and Policy 2.1 to "establish and consistently apply design standards and guidelines for both residential and non-residential development," and Policy 2.3 to "provide development standards ensuring higher quality building and site design that is well integrated with the infrastructure and circulation systems." 3. The proposed use is to be established and maintained in a manner which is consistent with the general plan and all applicable provisions contained therein. The adoption of objective design standards for multi -family and mixed -use housing developments will ensure quality designs for multi -family and mixed -use residential projects. Requiring that these project comply with objective design standards furthers Goal 2 of the Design Element of the Temecula General Plan which is to ensure "design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs," and with Policy 2.1 to "establish and consistently apply design standards and guidelines for both residential and non-residential development," and with Policy 2.3 to "provide development standards ensuring higher quality building and site design that is well integrated with the infrastructure and circulation systems." Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Compliance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Ordinance has been deemed to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The Ordinance revises the multi- family definition so that it applies to any housing project with two or more units and requires that multi -family and mixed -use housing developments comply with objective design standards. The adoption of the Ordinance will not result in any increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what's currently allowed. Moreover, Government Code Sections 65852.210) and 66411.7(n) provide that an ordinance adopted to implement SB 9 is not a project under CEQA. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts a Notice of Exemption for the proposed ordinance. Section 4. Chapter 17.06 (Residential District) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new Section titled "17.06.90 (Objective Design Standards — Multi -Family and Mixed -Use)" to read as follows: "Any housing development project that pursuant to State law, requires ministerial approval or where the housing development project is subject to discretionary review, but a Specific Plan or a Planned Development Overlay Zoning District (PDO) does not otherwise set forth objective design standards applicable to the project shall comply with the Temecula Objective Design Standards for Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Developments." Section 5. Table 17.06.030 (Residential Districts) of Chapter 17.06 (Residential District) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (with additions appearing in underlined text), with all other provisions of Table 17.06.030 (Residential Districts) remaining unchanged: Table 17.06.030 Residential Districts Description of Use FIR RR VL L-1 L-2 LM M H HR-SM9 Duplex (two-family dwellings) - - - 2,12 2,12 2,12 Pie Pie - Multi -Family _ _ _ _ - _ piz piz _ Notes: 12. Anv housiniz development Droiect that. pursuant to State law. reauires ministerial approval or where the housingdevelopment project is subject to discretionary review but a Specific Plan or a Planned Development Overlay Zoning District (PDO) does not otherwise set forth objective design standards applicable to the project shall comply with the Temecula Objective Design Standards for Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Developments. Section 6. Subsection "D" of Section 17.06.070 (Residential Performance Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, (with deletions shown in strikethrough text, and additions shown in underline) with all other provisions of Section 17.06.070 remaining unchanged: "D. Multi -Family or Attached Single -Family Residential Development. The following design criteria shall apply to all new multi -family or attached single-family residential projects. 1. Obiective Design Standards. Anv housiniz development Droiect that. pursuant to State law, requires ministerial approval or where the housingdvelopment project is subject to discretionary review, but a Specific Plan or a Planned Development Overlay Zoning District (PDO) does not otherwise set forth objective design standards applicable to the project shall comply with the Temecula Objective Design Standards for Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Developments. 2. Streetscape. Use creative entry treatments and other architectural features such as porches, balconies, shutters and dormers. Use a variety of complementary colors and avoid the use of a single dark color without contrast. Use various window shapes and sizes with special details such as multipaned or curved windows. Develop a consistent design theme throughout the project through the use of similar materials, colors, shapes, and forms and architectural design details. Buildings should be designed so that there is visual relief in building facades, especially those viewed from the street. This can be accomplished by using appropriate combinations of building materials, use of materials with texture or depth, providing appropriately located window or door openings and by providing variations in the building footprint. 3. Massing and Scale. The bulk of the building should be divided to reduce the apparent scale and provide visual interest. Box -like designs should be avoided. This can be accomplished through the following strategies: a. Use variations in the building footprints and facades. Such variations should be proportional to the overall bulk of the buildings with variations being greater for large buildings. b. Use a variety of shapes and forms including architectural projections such as roof overhangs, box windows, stairways, balconies, and cantilevers that create shadows on the building. c. Use contrasting vertical and horizontal elements that help to break the visual mass of the fagade into small areas. d. The bulk of the roof should be divided into smaller areas to reduce the apparent scale of the building and provide visual interest. 4. Compatibility. Where a neighborhood area has an identifiable character, new development within that neighborhood should be designed to maintain that character. This can be accomplished by designing new housing to be in scale with the existing structures by using similar or complementary materials or colors and by using similar building forms, shapes, or architectural details. Section 7. Section 17.08.030 (Use Regulations) Table 17.08.030 (Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/ Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to add footnote 9 to Residential, multi -family housing under Description of Use as follows (with additions appearing in underlined text): Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Residential, multi -family housing - C9 - - P8,9 Notes 9. Anv housing development proiect that, pursuant to State law, reauires ministerial annroval or where the housingdevelopment project is subject to discretionary review, but a Specific Plan or a Planned Development Overlay Zoning District (PDO) does not otherwise set forth objective design standards applicable to the project shall comply with the Temecula Objective Design Standards for Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Developments. Section 8. Chapter 17.10 (Supplemental Development Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new section titled "17.10.030 Objective Design Standards — Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Development) to read as follows: "Any housing development project that, pursuant to State law, requires ministerial approval or where the housing development project is subject to discretionary review, but a Specific Plan or a Planned Development Overlay Zoning District (PDO) does not otherwise set forth objective design standards applicable to the project shall comply with the Temecula Objective Design Standards for Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Developments." Section 9. Article I. Generally of Chapter 17.22 (Planned Development Overlay Zoning District (POD-)) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new section titled "17.22.110 (Objective Design Standards for Multi -Family and Mixed - Use Developments) to read as follows: "Any housing development project that, pursuant to State law, requires ministerial approval or where the housing development project is subject to discretionary review, but a Specific Plan or a Planned Development Overlay Zoning District (PDO) does not otherwise set forth objective design standards applicable to the project shall comply with the Temecula Objective Design Standards for Multi -Family and Mixed -Use Developments." Section 10. Section 17.34.010 (Definition and illustrations of Terms) of Chapter 17.34 (Definition of Terms) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to revise the definition of "multi -family dwelling" as follows (deletions shown in strikethrough text, additions shown in underline), with all other provisions of Section 17.34.010 remaining unchanged: "Dwelling, Multifamily. "Multifamily dwelling" means a building or portion thereof and/or designed as a residence with tie two or more separate dwelling units. Section 11. Severability. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation. Section 12. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. Section 13. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of February, 2022. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2022-02 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 251h day of January, 2022, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Item No. 6 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and Rescinding Resolution No. 04-02 PREPARED BY: Ward Komers, Assistant Director of Finance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 04-02 BACKGROUND: The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is a voluntary investment alternative for local government agencies in the State of California, which is administered by the State Treasurer's Office under the authority of Government Code Section 16429.1 et seq. The LAIF program offers local agencies the opportunity to participate in a major investment portfolio using the investment expertise of the professional investment staff in the State Treasurer's Office. With over 2,000 public agencies participating, LAIF's investment activities are monitored by multiple oversight boards and transactions are audited daily. In February 1990, Staff requested that the City Council approve the City's participation in LAIF as a means of maximizing earnings on funds held in the City's treasury. The City Council agreed to participate in LAIF by adopting Resolution No. 90-12 dated February 13, 1990. This resolution authorized certain City officials to make deposits and withdrawals from LAIF. Subsequently, at its January 13, 2004 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-02, which updated the list of authorized City officials. As a result of changes in personnel, it is necessary to update the City's officers and/or employees that are authorized to conduct transactions or have access to reports with LAIF. In order to do so, the City Council must adopt a resolution rescinding any previous resolutions (Resolution No. 04-02) and authorize officers and/or employees to conduct transactions. The proposed resolution authorizes Aaron Adams, City Manager, Kevin Hawkins, Assistant City Manager, and Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance to order the deposit to and/or withdrawal of monies from LAIF. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the City. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO.04-02 WHEREAS, The Local Agency Investment Fund is established in the State Treasury under Government Code section 16429.1 et. seq. for the deposit of money of a local agency for purposes of investment by the State Treasurer; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula (the "City") desires to rescind Resolution No. 04-02 which previously authorized investment of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the deposit and withdrawal of money in the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with Government Code section 16429.1 et. seq. for the purpose of investment as provided therein is in the best interests of the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby rescinds Resolution No. 04-02 effective February 8, 2022. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby authorizes the deposit and withdrawal of City monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury in accordance with Government Code section 16429.1 et. seq. for the purpose of investment as provided therein. Section 2. The following City officers holding the title(s) specified hereinbelow or their successors in office are each hereby authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and may execute and deliver any and all documents necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this resolution and the transactions contemplated hereby: Aaron Adams (Name) Kevin Hawkins (Name) Jennifer Hennessy (Name) City Manager (Title) Assistant City Manager (Title) Director of Finance (Title) (Signature) (Signature) (Signature) Section 3. This resolution shall remain in full force and effect until rescinded by City Council by resolution and a copy of the resolution rescinding this resolution is filed with the State Treasurer's Office. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of February, 2022. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Item No. 7 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve Improvement and Security Agreement Between the City of Temecula as Housing Successor and Warehouse at Creekside, LLC, FI Third Street 34, LP and FI ADCO, LLC RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Improvement and Security Agreement between the City of Temecula as Housing Successor and Warehouse at Creekside, LLC, FI Third Street 34, LP, and FI ADCO, LLC. BACKGROUND: The former Temecula Redevelopment Agency had been engaged in the development, rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing since 1995. In 2008, the former Redevelopment Agency approved an Owner Participation Agreement and Loan Agreement to contribute $6 million dollars in affordable housing set -aside funds to the Warehouse at Creekside development in Old Town. Warehouse at Creekside Project Description Completed in 2021, the Warehouse at Creekside (Project) is a 42,717 square foot mixed use project on .52 acres along the south side of Yd Street, west of Old Town Front Street. This site is adjacent to Murrieta Creek and backs up to the City's south side parking lot. The project is a three-story building with 32 units of affordable housing over 3,500 square feet of retail and office. The project includes 20 one -bedroom units restricted to low-income rents, and 12 two bedroom -units restricted at moderate income rents. Former Redevelopment Agency Assistance The total cost of the proposed project, with land was estimated at just under $10.4 million or $329 per square foot. The pro forma analysis prepared by KMA demonstrated a financial contribution need of $6 million or $188,000 per unit. Proposed Sale of the Project In 2021 by the current owner of the Project approached City staff and stated that they were seeking to sell the Project to Fiola Communities (Buyer). In order to consummate a sales transaction, the Buyer's lender is requesting that the City as Housing Successor subordinate its Deed of Trust to a loan to be made by the Buyer's new lender When the Project was initially completed, the former Redevelopment Agency did subordinate its Deed of Trust to the loan made by the current owner's lender. The City's Deed of Trust currently sits in second position on title behind the original loan. If the City was to approve the sale of the property and agreed to subordinate its Deed of Trust to the lender's new loan, the City's Deed of Trust would be in the same position on title as its sits today. City Council Request On October 12, 2021, staff presented the Buyer's request for a subordination to the City Council in closed session. The Council generally agreed to consider a subornation of the City Deed of Trust upon certain conditions. Those conditions included that the current owner or Buyer do the following: 1. Upgrade the washer and dryers in the communal laundry room 2. Create a designated secure area for tenants to have parcels delivered to the property 3. Replace windows on the south -facing side of the building with windows that provided more acoustic sound damping characteristics Improvement and Security Agreement The current owner and the Buyer have agreed to the City Council conditions outlined above. The washer and dryers have already been upgraded and a secure parcel locker has been ordered. Because the windows will not have been installed by the scheduled close of escrow, the current owner, Buyer and the City are proposing to enter into an Improvement and Security Agreement to ensure that sufficient funds for the completion of the windows are placed on deposit by the current owner with the City. The Improvement and Security Agreement outlines that the City will then utilize the deposited funds to provide reimbursement to the Buyer upon evidence of installation of the new windows. CONCLUSION: Buyer appears to be an experienced property ownership firm with track record of owning and operating over 10,000 residential units. Approving of the sale of the property and the Improvement and Security Agreement will not impact the City's 55-year covenant, restricting rents to low and moderate income individuals and families. Approving the Improvement and Security Agreement will ensure that the City Council's conditions to subordination are completed. FISCAL IMPACT: The Improvement and Security Agreement will have no fiscal impact on the City. Funds contemplated by the Improvement and Security Agreement will be deposited with the City by the current owner. The City will then utilize those deposited fund to provide reimbursement to the Buyer upon completion of the window replacement. ATTACHMENTS: Improvement and Security Agreement IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT (CASH DEPOSIT) This IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is dated February 8, 2022, and is entered into by and among the CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ("City"); THE WAREHOUSE AT CREEKSIDE, LP, a California limited partnership ("Owner"); and FI THIRD STREET 34, LP, a California limited partnership and FI ADCO 16, LLC, a California limited liability company (collectively, "Buyer"). RECITALS A. Owner is selling to Buyer the property described on Exhibit "A" hereto on which City holds a deed of trust, and Owner and Buyer have requested that the City subordinate such deed of trust to the deed of trust securing the purchase money loan to the Buyer that will enable the Buyer to purchase the property. B. City is willing to subordinate its deed of trust provided the subordination agreement is acceptable to City, and provided, further, that the Owner and Buyer execute this Agreement and deliver to City the deposit described herein, which will then be governed by the terms of this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, City, Owner and Buyer agree as follows: On or before April 30, 2022, Buyer shall complete the work described on Exhibit "B" hereto. 2. On or before January 31, 2022, and as a condition to City's subordination of its deed of trust, Owner shall deposit with City the sum of $20,000 ("Improvement Security"). Owner hereby grants a security interest in the Improvement Security to secure the obligations of Buyer to timely perform the work. 3. City shall disburse the Improvement Security to Buyer to reimburse Buyer for the reasonable costs of the work, not more often than once every thirty (30) days, after receipt of a written disbursement request specifying the amount requested, with reasonable evidence of the cost of the work for which reimbursement is requested (such as copies of the contract for the work and invoices), and reasonable evidence that such work has been completed (which may include conditional lien releases). Upon timely completion of the work and City inspection of the work, City shall release the remainder of the Improvement Security to Owner. 4. If the work is not completed correctly or is not timely completed, then City may perform or correct the work and reimburse itself from the undisbursed Improvement Security for all costs incurred by City in performing the work. Buyer shall then be liable for all additional costs incurred by City to correct or perform the work. i`111 i a1sr`MIS ��zM. 1:Me 5. Time is of the essence of every provision of this Agreement in which time is a factor. 6. Notices shall be in writing, addressed as set forth below, and may be sent by certified mail or reputable overnight delivery service. Cam: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attn: City Manager Owner: The Warehouse at Creekside, LP 2707 Bonita Circle Palm Springs, CA 92264 Buyer: FI Third Street 34, LP FI ADCO 16, LLC 25422 Trabuco Road, #105-268 Lake Forest, California 90603 7. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts,. each of which, and all of which together, shall constitute one and the same agreement. OWNER: CITY: THE WAREHOUSE AT CITY OF TEMECULA CREEKSIDE, LP Matt Rahn, Mayor Print Name: Title: -2- 11086-0111\2612246v1.doc BUYER: FI THIRD STREET 34, LP, a California limited partnership By: YALE AVE HOUSING INC., a California nonprofit corporation, its General Partner Richard Fiola Director AND FI ADCO 16 LLC, a California limited liability company By: FIOLA INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation, its Manager Roger Fiola Secretary -3- 11086-0111\2612246v1.doc 00M1I11.11WTI DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California, County of Riverside, City of Temecula, described as follows: LOT(S) 17 THROUGH 22, IN BLOCK 29 OF THE TOWN OF TEMECULA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15 PAGE(S) 726, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF ALLEY VACATED BY RESOLUTION NO. 79-68, RECORDED APRIL 23, 1979 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80863, OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS APN: 922-046-012 DESCRIPTION OF WORK (Attached.) 11086-0111\2612246v1.doc Quote Only Date Qoute # 12/29/2021 29581 Customer Information Name: EFFICIENT WINDOWS&DOORS Phone: (323) 794-3221 Fax: Email: efficientwindowsdoors(q?gmail.com Ship to: NA Qty Description Each Total VINYL WINDOW, DUAL GLAZED, RETROFIT FRAME, WHITE COLOR 4 33 1/4 W X 30 1/2 H, UP -DOWN, Clear -Temper, Low-E3-Temper, No Grids 386.00 1,544.00 6 59 112 W X 29 3/4 H, X-O SLIDER, Clear -Temper, Low-E3-Temper, No Grids 344.00 2,064.00 CAN NOT BE AN UP -DOWN TOO WIDE 6 33 112 W X 71 H, UP -DOWN, Clear -Temper, Low-E3-Temper, No Grids 426.00 2,556.00 2 17 1/4 W X 22 1/2 H, PICTURE -FIX, Clear -Temper, Low-E3-Temper, No Grids 217.00 434.00 CAN NOT BE AN UP -DOWN TOO SMALL 2 30 112 W X 66 1/2 H, UP -DOWN, Clear -Temper, Low-E3-Temper, No Grids 444.00 888.00 1 22 112 W X 39 1/2 H, UP -DOWN, Clear -Temper, Low-E3-Temper, No Grids 319.00 319.00 1 59 1/2 W X 59 1/2 H, X-O SLIDER, Clear -Temper, Low-E3-Temper, No Grids 589.00 589.00 1 70 3/4 W X 67 H, SPECIAL -LINK, Clear -Temper, Low-E3-Temper, No Grids 1,211.00 1,211.00 A. 2) 35 3/8 W X 67 H, SINGLE HUNG *SIDE BY SIDE" TAKES 5-7 EXTRA BUSINESS DAY FROM THE PICK-UP A,A DATE (01.24.22) Note ; Labor and Installation, Materials 23 Windiws to be installed $ 11,700 NOTES: Project total ; $ 21,998.36 PLEASE YOU MUST READ AND REVIEW THE ATTACHED TERMS AND CONDITIONS BEFORE YOU APPROVED THE SubTotal $ ORDER. ALL ORDERS APPROVED AFTER 12:00 PM THE PICK UP AND PRODUCTION DAY WILL INCREASE ONE 9,605.00 MORE DAY. PLEASE REVIEW THE SPECIFICATION OF YOUR ORDERS, YOU NEED TO CHECK FRAME TYPE, COLOR, SIZES, OPENINGS AND GLASS TYPE. Sale Tax $ 692.34 POR FAVOR LEA Y REVISE LOS TERMINOS Y CONDICIONES ADJUNTOS ANTES DE APROVAR SU ORDEN, TODA ORDEN APROBADA DESPUES DE LAS 12:00 PM LA FECHA DE ENTREGA Y PRODUCCION INCREMENTARA UN ❑IA. Total $ 10,297.34 POR FAVOR DE REVISAR LAS ESPICIFICACIONES DE SU ORDEN, NECESITA REVISAR TIPO DE FRAME, COLOR, TAMANO, FORMA EN QUE ABREN Y LOS TIPOS DE VIDRIO. Page 1/2 GM Windows and Doors "ALL SALES ARE FINAL*i" Item No. 8 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road, Solana Way, Nicolas Road and Winchester Road, PW21-10 PREPARED BY: Kendra Hannah-Meistrell, Senior Civil Engineer Chris White, Associate Engineer II RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: I . Approve the specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road, Solana Way, Nicolas Road and Winchester Road, PW21-10; and 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. BACKGROUND: As part of the Capital Improvement Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-26, the City Council approved appropriations to support a Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program that would implement the recommended maintenance activities identified in the previously completed Pavement Management Program update (PMP). The PMP prioritized the areas in need of repairs and identified the recommended method for these repairs. Using the PMP, staff selected several locations throughout the City based on its ranking on the PMP report, economy of scale, and the available budget. The following four locations were selected for rehabilitation at this time: 1. Ynez Road - 860 feet north of County Center Drive to North City Limits, 2. Solana Way - Ynez Road to Margarita Road, 3. Nicolas Road — Winchester Road to North General Kearny Road, and 4. Winchester Road — Enterprise Circle West to Jefferson Avenue. Specifications are complete and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract documents are available for review in the office of the Director of Public Works. The Engineer's Construction Estimate is $2,628,600 and the number of allowable working days is 90. This project is exempt from the CEQA requirements pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 states that the repair and maintenance of existing highways, streets, and gutters are Class 1 activities, which are exempt from CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT: The Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2022-26 and is funded with Measure A and Road Repair and Accountability Act (RMRA) Funds. Adequate funds are available in the project accounts to construct the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Description 2. Project Location Maps Adk The Heart of Southern California Wine Country City of Temecula Fiscal Years 2022-26 Capital Improvement Program PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Circulation Project Project Description: This project includes the environmental processing, design, construction of pavement rehabilitation, and reconstruction of major streets as recommended in the Pavement Management Program update. Benefit: This project improves pavement conditions so that the transportation needs of the public, business industry, and government can be met. Core Value: Transportation Mobility and Connectivity Project Status: A priority list of rehabilitation projects from the Pavement Management Program is used to determine the projects to be undertaken. Construction is completed annually based on the allocated funds. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.265.999.655 / Various Level: I Project Cost: Prior Years Actuals 2020-21 Adjusted 2021-22 Adopted Budget 2022-23 Projected 2023-24 Projected 2024-25 Projected 2025-26 Projected Total Project Cost Administration 2,868,335 1,838,674 659,259 668,205 662,724 682,098 670,888 8,050,183 Construction 24,350,696 5,845,846 2,581,437 2,373,058 2,461,401 2,513,762 2,605,055 42,731,255 Construction Engineering 370,506 1,524,033 378,934 383,203 377,723 385,277 388,409 3,808,084 Design & Environmental 789,199 508,843 1,298,042 Total Expenditures 28,378,736 9,717,395 3,619,630 3,424,466 3,501,848 3,581,137 3,664,352 55,887,564 Source of Funds: Gas Tax 1,200,000 1,200,000 General Fund 5,692,614 5,692,614 Measure A 16,646,857 6,172,184 1,123,380 1,155,380 1,187,380 1,220,380 1,256,380 28,761,941 Measure S 2,000,000 2,000,000 Reimbursements 36,000 36,000 RMRA 3,251,263 3,097,213 2,496,250 2,269,086 2,314,468 2,360,757 2,407,972 18,197,009 Total Funding 28,826,734 9,269,397 3,619,630 3,424,466 3,501,848 3,581,137 3,664,352 55,887,564 Future Operating & Maintenance Costs: Total Operating Costs Notes : 1. Road Repair and Accountability Act (RMRA) 85 f C R City of Temecula - Nicolas Road 0 125 250 Feet The map GdndProjects.mxd is maintained by City of Temecula GIS. Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. This map is not for reprint or resale. Visit the City of Temecula GIS online at hftps://temeculaca.gov/gis Updated 11 /15/2021 0 125 250 Feet The map GrindProjects.mxd is maintained by City of Temecula GIS. Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. This map is not for reprint or resale. Visit the City of Temecula GIS online at https:Htemeculaca.gov/gis Updated 11/15/2021 f C � City of Temecula - Winchester Road 0 125 250 Feet The map Grind Projects.mxd is maintained by City of Temecula GIS. Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. This map is not for reprint or resale. Visit the City of Temecula GIS online at hftps://temeculaca.gov/gis Updated 11/15/2021 City of Temecula - Ynez Road f Z x r r �c r Q f/ ole �• a R' 40"- I ° 1 I F i ✓��. � III ,tt ' Y{ � �� � S r b ire. � : ,,, � a��Q�- �'�'•.,�, ill �f=w ° Legend Ynez Road e 'i v; •Y °� � �.'.- `' �.-'4 �� � City Boundary 0 250 500 Feet The map GrindProjects.mxd is maintained by City of Temecula GIS. Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. This map is not for reprint or resale. Visit the City of Temecula GIS online at https:Htemeculaca.gov/gis Updated 11/15/2021 Item No. 9 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve First Amendment to the Annual Agreement with NPG, Inc., for Paving Maintenance Services PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst Stacey Biddle, Management Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the first amendment to the annual agreement with NPG, Inc., for paving maintenance services in the amount $250,000. BACKGROUND: On September 24, 2020, the City entered into an agreement for paving maintenance services with NPG, Inc, to provide ongoing maintenance of paving and other related services within the City. Services also include that the City may request contractor to make repairs which are beyond the scope of preventive maintenance, and these additional maintenance repairs will be based on current time and material costs and be provided in a written proposal according to each site condition and need. In an effort to provide for the additional paving repairs and roadway maintenance througout the city, we are requesting an increase to the overall agreement in the amount of $250,000 to allow for the completion of immediate repairs needed and to continue the on -going maintenance in the forthcoming years through the term of this agreement. We hereby recommend the approval of the First Amendment to the agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2021-2022, and Capital Improvement Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2022-2026. ATTACHMENTS: First Amendment FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND NPG, INC. PAVING MAINTENANCE SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of February 8, 2022 by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and NPG, Inc., a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On September 24, 2020, the City and Contractor entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Paving Maintenance Services," in the amount of $2,000,000. b. The parties now desire to increase the payment in the amount of $250,000 and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 3 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Contractor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The total agreement amount for paving maintenance services is Two Million, Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,250,000) for the total term of this agreement, unless additional payment is approved as provided in this agreement. 3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 08/09/2021 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA NPG, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: By: Rand! Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney By: By: CONTRACTOR NPG, Inc. Attn: Mimi Stone 1354 Jet Way Perris, CA 92571 (951) 940-0200 cstone@npgasphalt.com `a City Purchasing Mgr. Initials a d Date: 08/09/2021 Item No. 10 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Accept the Sports Ranch at Sommers Bend into the City -Maintained Park System (Located on the Southeast Corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Sommers Bend Road) PREPARED BY: Anissa Sharp, Office Specialist II Ron Moreno, Principal Civil Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ACCEPTING THE SPORTS RANCH AT SOMMERS BEND INTO THE CITY -MAINTAINED PARK SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE GRANT DEED BACKGROUND: The Sports Ranch at Sommers Bend is a 21.3 acre neighborhood park (Planning Area 27) within the Sommers Bend community. The park site is located on the southeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Sommers Bend Road, residing on Lot 20 of Tract Map 37368. Pursuant to the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula ("City") and Ashby USA, LLC the developer was required to dedicate the park site to the City in fee title. Additionally, the developer was required to construct the park per City -approved plans LD20- 0094. The City originally approved the Development Agreement between the City and Ashby USA, LLC pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-14 and was recorded on January 9, 2003 as Document No. 2003- 018567 in the Official Records of the County of Riverside. As the developer, Woodside 05S, LP, is the successor to the approved applications for development and have finished the required park construction and improvements. The Grant Deed for a portion of Lot 20 of Tract Map 37368 has been provided by Woodside 05S, LP ("Grantor) to the City of Temecula ("Grantee") and shall convey the real property described in Exhibit A effective the date of recordation. Public Works Staff have inspected the park and determined that park improvements are 100% complete. The Performance Bond will be released by separate action of the Director of Public Works as authorized by City Council under the provisions of Resolution No. 99-110. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting the Sports Ranch at Sommers Bend into the City -maintained park system. FISCAL IMPACT: Routine maintenance of plant, irrigation, and site improvements. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Grant Deed RESOLUTION NO.2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ACCEPTING THE SPORTS RANCH AT SOMMERS BEND INTO THE CITY -MAINTAINED PARK SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE GRANT DEED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Sports Ranch at Sommers Bend is a 21.3 acre neighborhood park (Planning Area No. 27) within the Sommers Bend development. The park site the southeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Sommers Bend Road, residing on Lot 20 of Tract Map 37368. Section 2. Pursuant to the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula ("City") and Ashby USA, LLC the developer was required to dedicate the park site to the City in fee title and to construct the park improvements. As the developer, Woodside 05S, LP, is the successor to the approved applications for development and have finished the required park construction and improvements. Section 3. The Grant Deed for a portion of Lot 20 of Tract Map 37368 has been provided by Woodside 05S, LP ("Grantor) to the City of Temecula ("Grantee") and shall convey the real property described in Exhibit A effective the date of recordation. Section 4. Public Works Staff has reviewed and inspected the park and has determined that improvements are 100% complete per the City -approved plans LD20-0094. Section 5. The Performance Bond will be released by separate action of the Director of Public Works as authorized by City Counci under the provisions of Resolution No. 99-110. Section 6. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby accepts into the City - Maintained Park System the Sports Ranch at Sommers Bend, described as Lot 20 of Tract Map No. 37368. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of February, 2022. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk g i I I i i I I 1 i I I 1 i 0 0 _ ILL W IQI � I � I I J I IW iLL uj `L co I I I I I I I I � I I � I HOA MAINTAINED STREET RIGHT OF WAY II LANDSCAPE\ L&DERGROWD SERI CALL TOLL FREE 1-800-422-4133 Date ' LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS - GENERALNOTES � 1. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF RECORD, AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE NOTIFIED NO LESS THAN 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE START OF CONSTRUCTION, ANY SOMMERS j ' SITE OBSERVATION, OR MEETINGS. SITE OBSERVATIONS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE y _ , BEND LIMITED TO: 1iE _ A. PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING B. SPOTTING OF SPECIMEN PLANTS. 5 7$g139°W ' - - _ _ M I _ C. IRRIGATION PRESSURE AND COVERAGE TEST. HOA MAINTAINED I _ _ _ _ - - - D. INSTALLATION OF PAVING FORMWORK. y r STREET RIGHT OF WAY _ 1 E. PRE -MAINTENANCE PERIOD 90 DAY) INSPECTION. r rri E ---- - 6 E F. WARRANTY/FINAL INSPECTION. I r � i.. 3 520 Sg r,.. r, r LANDSCAPNOTE: "LANDSCAPE" SHALL REFER TO ALL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THIS SET OF ��� `,N3 �� ,L34 �y��� %,4,¢^L� '• ' ' ; - DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNED BY IN SITE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. I � ✓i {0`� � , �/r, 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT PLANS n' ARE CURRENT AND APPROVED. r i ri % %� / "r �O �'' `•3 �� �.S ' ' 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY AND/OR REQUIRED PERMITS AND PAY , ,=v } � .•C. ALL RELATED FEES AND/OR TAX REQUIRED TO INSTALL THE WORK ON THESE PLANS, 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROPRIATELY LICENSED AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. - ''%�l 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY OF ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES IN EXISTING CONDITIONS OR WITH THE PLANS PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE WORK. _ PARKING /" ,r� • LL • • LL • ` • • LL' •' • LL • - - LL • • . ` ` - ` • • 210 SPACES, 6. LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLANS BALLFIELD ..'.'.' BALLFIELD:'... 7ACCESSIBLE AND SPECIFICATIONS. :'. SPACES • • • • - • - 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION OF EXISTING AND • . `- • - • , • - • - • - • , PROPOSED UTILITIES ON SITE. NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD A CONFLICT EXIST BETWEEN PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND SITE UTILITIES, ETC., rr `m.'.'. `.`. BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK. 8. DETERMINATION OF "EQUAL" SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE MADE ONLY BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF RECORD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ACCESSIBLE PATH . . ' _ 9. SITE OBSERVATIONS BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DURING ANY PHASE OF THIS _ - PROJECT DO NOT RELIEVE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR OF HIS PRIMARY OF TRAVEL, `. . l TYP. THIS SYM..' .'.' .' . � � � RESPONSIBILITY TO PERFORM ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS, 6 a - „" SPECIFICATIONS AND GOVERNING CODES. MAINTENANCE CK.MI 01*2 IGU oil TRACT NO. 37368 SPORTS PARK BASKETBALL • 1---------------- a.WoolRHP W WIz ** SAS ••:�Z" .1 " �`�� kum- �:4aA�4 .• MAINTAINED TRAIL LONG VALLEY WASH mom I - V. 1•; OPEN 1 LAWN RESTROOM ae'zia,� RECOMMENDED BY.• DALE5/20/2020 ACCEPTED BC�TI'TA� LATE 5/20/2020 Pa MOM4$ P.E. AtiPccrov Dr PUMK• warxs / cm LTCb1fffN R.C.E. No. 44223 0' 60, 120' 240' NORTH C/TY OF TEMECL/LA LD20-0094 BU/LD/A/C AND SAFETY THE 14 DISABLED ACCESSIBILITY ONLY APPROVED DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TRACT MAP NO. 37368 LOT 20 RORIPAUGH RANCH COMMUNITY SPORTS PARK SITE PLAN Drawing No. L.0-2 Shm" of 6 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Temecula Attn: City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 THIS DOCUMENT IS EXEMPT FROM A RECORDING FEE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103 AND 27383 APNs: 964-640-020 and 964-640-014 DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $ 0 (EXEMPT) SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ...Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR ...Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. GRANT DEED with Reservation and Covenants (Sports Park) This document is exempt from documentary transfer tax pursuant to Section 11922 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and is being recorded pursuant to Section 6103 of the California Government Code and California Government Code Section 27383. FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, WOODSIDE 05S, LP, a California limited partnership ("Grantor") hereby GRANT(S) to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation ("Grantee") the real property in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. THE REAL PROPERTY CONVEYED HEREIN BY GRANTOR TO GRANTEE IS CONVEYED EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE OF RECORDATION OF THIS GRANT DEED AND ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO ALL MATTERS OF RECORD, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD, AND/OR DISCLOSED BY AN INSPECTION. Date: 2022 WOODSIDE 05S, LP, a California limited partnership By: WDS GP, Inc., a California corporation, Its General Partner By: _ Name: Title: SMRH:4862-3365-6071.2 -1- 011422 42AE-277113 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of On before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature SMRH:4862-3365-6071.2 -2- 011422 42AE-277113 EXHIBIT "A" Real property located in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: PARCELS A AND B OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LD21-0451 RECORDED DECEMBER 23, 2021 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2021-0753639, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING A PORTION OF LOT 20 AND LETTERED LOT "B" OF TRACT NO. 37368, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 468, PAGES 89 THROUGH 98, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. RESERVING FROM PARCEL A, unto Grantor and its successors and assigns, non-exclusive easements appurtenant to and over the entirety of PARCEL A (the "Easement Area") as described and depicted on the attached Exhibit "B" for purposes of (i) installation, maintenance, mowing, cutting, trimming, drainage, weed and debris removal and replacement of landscaping consisting of grass, trees, shrubs, flowers and landscaping irrigation meters and utilities for such related purposes within the Easement Area; and (ii) installation, maintenance, repair, painting and replacement of the monument structures consisting of a guard tower, block walls, signage and lighting and the right and obligation to maintain and pay for utilities and all other related purposes within the Easement Area. The non-exclusive easements granted herein over the Easement Areas includes the rights of access on, over through and across the entirety of PARCEL A for such easement rights, uses, obligations and purposes described herein. FURTHER RESERVING PARCEL A, for the benefit of Grantor and any Declarant under the First Amended and Restated Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Establishment of Easements of Sommers Bend recorded in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Riverside County on September 30, 2020, as Document No. 2020-0465640, and any amendments thereto (collectively, the "Master Declaration"), and their successors and assigns, the right to grant or transfer the same non-exclusive easement rights granted and reserved herein to the SOMMERS BEND MASTER MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, for the same and similar purposes over the Easement Area for the continued installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the monument structures, signs and landscaping and related facilities within the entirety of PARCEL A. SMRH:4862-3365-6071.2 -Exhibit "A"- 011422 42AE-277113 EXHIBIT "B" Easement Area SMRH:4862-3365-6071.2 -Exhibit "B"- 011422 42AE-277113 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE (Government Code Section 27281) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by the Grant Deed dated from WOODSIDE 05S, LP, a California limited partnership to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation (the "City"), is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City pursuant to authority conferred by Ordinance No. 16-02 of the City Council adopted on March 22, 2016, and the City consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. "CITY" CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation By: Name: Title: City Manager Date: ATTEST: By: Randi Johl City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney S M R H :4862-3365-6071.2 011422 42AE-277113 Item No. 11 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Receive and File Temporary Street Closures for the Pawliday and Vegan Market Event PREPARED BY: Anissa Sharp, Office Specialist II Ron Moreno, Principal Civil Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the temporary closure of certain streets for the Pawliday and Vegan Market event. BACKGROUND: The Pawliday and Vegan Market event, hosted by Barks of Love and Animal Friends of the Valley, is scheduled to take place February 19th, 2022 in Old Town Temecula. The event will promote pet adoptions and include vegan food vendors, promotional booth space, music, and kid's activities. The event necessitates the physical closure of all or portions of certain streets within the Old Town area for event operation as well as to protect participants and attendees. The associated street closures are as follows: Main Street 10:00 a.m. on Friday, February 181h from the easterly driveway edge of to 41964 Main Street to Mercedes Street 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, February 19th Mercedes Street 10:00 a.m. on Friday, February 18th to Third Street to Fourth Street 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, February 19th While the event is scheduled for Saturday, February 19th from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., the additional day will allow for set-up and take -down. It is necessary to close Mercedes Street during this period for the safety and protection of pedestrians crossing Mercedes Street from the parking structure and other parking areas across Mercedes Street. Street closures for the Pawliday and Vegan Market event are shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Street closures are allowed by the California Vehicle Code upon approval by the local governing body for certain conditions. Under Vehicle Code Section 21101, "Regulation of Highways," local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution for, among other instances, "temporary closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes, when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing." Chapter 12.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Parades and Special Events, provides standards and procedures for special events on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or public right of way and authorizes the City Council or City Manager to temporarily close streets, or portions of streets, for these events. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of police services, as well as services provided by the City Public Works Maintenance Division (for providing, placing and retrieving of necessary warning and advisory devices), are appropriately budgeted within the City's operating budget. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Pawliday and Vegan Market Road Closures Mercedes St Fourth, St Pawliday & Vegan Market Road Closures Start: February 18th at 10 AM All Roads Reopen: February 19th at 6 PM Road Closure Exhibit A Pawliday and Vegan Market Road Closures IT ellr. jf llkft. Third St Main St I Mm Rt V_ 97:14F�- zi ro 1 vft Second St IkIk 4m PhD IW Ift Item No. 12 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 25, 2022 CALL TO ORDER at 8:07 PM: President James Stewart ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS — None CSD CONSENT CALENDAR Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar. Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion by Edwards, Second by Rahn. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 9. Approve Action Minutes of January 18, 2022 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of January 18, 2022. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 8:17 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 5:30 PM for a Closed Session, with a regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. James Stewart, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] Item No. 13 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and Rescinding Resolution No. CSD 04-01 PREPARED BY: Ward Komers, Assistant Director of Finance RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. CSD 04-01 BACKGROUND: The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is a voluntary investment alternative for local government agencies in the State of California, which is administered by the State Treasurer's Office under the authority of Government Code Section 16429.1 et seq. The LAIF program offers local agencies the opportunity to participate in a major investment portfolio using the investment expertise of the professional investment staff in the State Treasurer's Office. With over 2,000 public agencies participating, LAIF's investment activities are monitored by multiple oversight boards and transactions are audited daily. In May 1991, Staff requested that the Board of Directors approve the District's participation in LAIF as a means of maximizing earnings on funds held in the District's treasury. The Board of Directors agreed to participate in LAIF by adopting Resolution No. CSD 91-04 dated May 28, 1991. This resolution authorized certain District officials to make deposits and withdrawals from LAIF. Subsequently, at its January 13, 2004 meeting, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. CSD 04-01, which updated the list of authorized District officials. As a result of changes in personnel, it is necessary to update the District's officers and/or employees that are authorized to conduct transactions or have access to reports with LAIF. In order to do so, the Board of Directors must adopt a resolution rescinding any previous resolutions (Resolution No. CSD 04-01) and authorize officers and/or employees to conduct transactions. The proposed resolution authorizes Aaron Adams, General Manager, Kevin Hawkins, Assistant General Manager, and Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance/Treasurer to order the deposit to and/or withdrawal of monies from LAIF. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the District. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. CSD 04-01 WHEREAS, The Local Agency Investment Fund is established in the State Treasury under Government Code section 16429.1 et. seq. for the deposit of money of a local agency for purposes of investment by the State Treasurer; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula (the "District") desires to rescind Resolution No. CSD 04-01 which previously authorized investment of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors hereby finds that the deposit and withdrawal of money in the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with Government Code section 16429.1 et. seq. for the purpose of investment as provided therein is in the best interests of the District. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby rescinds Resolution No. CSD 04-01 effective February 8, 2022. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, as follows: Section 1. That the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the deposit and withdrawal of District monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury in accordance with Government Code section 16429.1 et. seq. for the purpose of investment as provided therein. Section 2. The following District officers holding the title(s) specified hereinbelow or their successors in office are each hereby authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and may execute and deliver any and all documents necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this resolution and the transactions contemplated hereby: Aaron Adams (Name) Kevin Hawkins (Name) Jennifer Hennessy (Name) General Manager (Title) Assistant General Manager (Title) Director of Finance/Treasurer (Title) (Signature) (Signature) (Signature) Section 3. This resolution shall remain in full force and effect until rescinded by Board of Directors by resolution and a copy of the resolution rescinding this resolution is filed with the State Treasurer's Office. Section 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula this 81h day of February, 2022. James Stewart, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary 3 Item No. 14 THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Board of Directors FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and Rescinding Resolution No. RDA 04-01 PREPARED BY: Ward Komers, Assistant Director of Finance RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. RDA 04-01 BACKGROUND: The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is a voluntary investment alternative for local government agencies in the State of California, which is administered by the State Treasurer's Office under the authority of Government Code Section 16429.1 et seq. The LAIF program offers local agencies the opportunity to participate in a major investment portfolio using the investment expertise of the professional investment staff in the State Treasurer's Office. With over 2,000 public agencies participating, LAIF's investment activities are monitored by multiple oversight boards and transactions are audited daily. In April 1994, Staff requested that the Board of Directors approve the Agency's participation in LAIF as a means of maximizing earnings on funds held in the Agency's treasury. The Board of Directors agreed to participate in LAIF by adopting Resolution No. RDA 94-03 dated April, 5 1994. This resolution authorized certain Agency officials to make deposits and withdrawals from LAIF. Subsequently, at its January 13, 2004 meeting, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. RDA 04-01, which updated the list of authorized Agency officials. As a result of changes in personnel, it is necessary to update the Agency's officers and/or employees that are authorized to conduct transactions or have access to reports with LAIF. In order to do so, the Board of Directors must adopt a resolution rescinding any previous resolutions (Resolution No. RDA 04-01) and authorize officers and/or employees to conduct transactions. The proposed resolution authorizes Aaron Adams, Executive Director, Kevin Hawkins, Assistant Executive Director, and Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance/Treasurer to order the deposit to and/or withdrawal of monies from LAIF. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the Agency. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. RDA 04-01 WHEREAS, The Local Agency Investment Fund is established in the State Treasury under Government Code section 16429.1 et. seq. for the deposit of money of a local agency for purposes of investment by the State Treasurer; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") desires to rescind Resolution No. RDA 04-01 which previously authorized investment of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors hereby finds that the deposit and withdrawal of money in the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with Government Code section 16429.1 et. seq. for the purpose of investment as provided therein is in the best interests of the Agency. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby rescinds Resolution No. RDA 04-01 effective February 8, 2022. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, as follows: Section 1. That the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the deposit and withdrawal of Agency monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury in accordance with Government Code section 16429.1 et. seq. for the purpose of investment as provided therein. Section 2. The following Agency officers holding the title(s) specified hereinbelow or their successors in office are each hereby authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and may execute and deliver any and all documents necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this resolution and the transactions contemplated hereby: Aaron Adams Executive Director (Name) (Title) (Signature) Kevin Hawkins Assistant Executive Director (Name) (Title) (Signature) Jennifer Hennessy Director of Finance/Treasurer (Name) (Title) (Signature) Section 3. This resolution shall remain in full force and effect until rescinded by Board of Directors by resolution and a copy of the resolution rescinding this resolution is filed with the State Treasurer's Office. Section 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency this 8th day of February, 2022. Matt Rahn, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. SARDA 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary 3 Item No. 15 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Aaron Adams, City Manager/Executive Director DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve and Adopt Resolution to Appoint the Consultants to Assist with the Refunding of the 2012 Bonds for CFD No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance/Treasurer RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APPOINTING CONSULTANTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO — COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-1 (CROWNE HILL) BACKGROUND: In 2003 the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") Community Facilities District No. 03 -1 (Crowne Hill) (the "CFD") was formed and subsequently bonds were issued in 2003 and 2005 to finance various public facilities within the CFD. The bonds are payable from the proceeds of an annual special tax levied on property in the CFD. These bonds were refunded in 2012 and 2017, respectively. In light of current low interest rates in the financial markets, the opportunity has arisen for the Authority to issue bonds (the "2022 Refunding Bonds") for and on behalf of the CFD, to refund the outstanding 2012 Bonds and thereby reduce future special tax levies on property in the CFD. The proposed refunding bonds will not be issued if interest rates rise to the point where a 3% present value savings cannot be achieved. Based upon current market conditions it is anticipated that are the estimated savings will exceed the policy threshold. The Board of Directors of the Authority now desires to authorize the actions needed for the issuance of the 2022 Refunding Bonds. It is anticipated the 2022 Refunding Bonds will be sold mid -May and close early June. SPECIFIC ACTIONS: In order to proceed with the 2022 Refunding Bonds, it is recommended the Board of Directors adopt the attached resolution. The resolution will appoint the consultants necessary for the proposed 2022 Refunding Bonds and authorize and direct the City staff to take all actions necessary or advisable to present to the Board of Directors for its review and approval all proceedings necessary to issue the 2022 Refunding Bonds. The consultants are as follows: the firm of Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated will serve as underwriter for the 2022 Refunding Bonds; the firm of Webb Municipal Finance, LLC will serve as Special Tax Consultant; the firm of Fieldman Rolapp & Associates will serve as Municipal Advisor for the 2022 Refunding Bonds; and the firm of Quint & Thimmig LLP will serve as Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel for the 2022 Refunding Bonds. FISCAL IMPACT: None. All costs associated with the 2022 Refunding Bonds, including those of the consultants, shall be paid for out of the proceeds of the issuance. and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APPOINTING CONSULTANTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO — COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.03-1 (CROWNE HILL) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") has formed the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) (the "CFD") pursuant to the provisions of the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, constituting Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Act") and Resolution No. TPFA 03-05 adopted by the Board of Directors of the Authority on March 25, 2003. Section 2. In order to finance various public facilities authorized to be funded by the CFD, on August 7, 2003, the Authority, for and on behalf of the CFD, issued its Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) Special Tax Bonds, Series 2003-A (the "2003 Bonds"), and on August 24, 2005, the Authority, for and on behalf of the CFD, issued its Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) Special Tax Bonds, Series 2005B (the "2005 Bonds"). Section 3. On August 15, 2012, the Authority, for and on behalf of the District, issued its Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2012 (the "2012 Bonds") the proceeds of which were used to refund the then outstanding 2003 Bonds. Section 4. On July 13, 2017, the Authority, for and on behalf of the CFD, issued its Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2017 (the "2017 Bonds"), the proceeds of which 2017 Bonds were used to refund the then outstanding 2005 Bonds. Section 5. The 2003 Bonds and the 2005 Bonds were, and the 2012 Bonds and the 2017 Bonds are, payable from the proceeds of an annual special tax levied on property in the CFD pursuant to Ordinance No. TPFA 03-01, adopted by the Board of Directors of the Authority on April 8, 2003. Section 6. In light of current low interest rates in the financial markets, the opportunity has arisen for the Authority to issue bonds (the "2022 Refunding Bonds") for and on behalf of the CFD to refund the outstanding 2012 Bonds and thereby reduce future special tax levies on property in the CFD. Section 7. The Board of Directors of the Authority now desires to authorize the actions needed for the issuance of the 2012 Refunding Bonds so as to reduce the future special taxes to be levied on property in the CFD. Section 8. City of Temecula ("City") Staff, acting for and on behalf of the Authority, are hereby requested to take all actions necessary or advisable to present to the Board of Directors for its review and approval all proceedings necessary to issue the 2022 Refunding Bonds. Section 9. The firm of Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated is hereby designated as underwriter for the 2022 Refunding Bonds. Section 10. The firm of Webb Municipal Finance, LLC is hereby designated as Special Tax Consultant to assist in the preparation of an official statement for the offering and sale of the 2022 Refunding Bonds, the firm of Fieldman Rolapp & Associates is hereby designated as Municipal Advisor for the 2022 Refunding Bonds, and the firm of Quint & Thimmig LLP is hereby designated as Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel for the 2022 Refunding Bonds. The Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to execute agreements with said firms for their services in connection with the 2022 Refunding Bonds, in the respective forms on file with the Finance Director of the City or otherwise in a form acceptable to the Executive Director upon consultation with the City Attorney in his capacity as legal counsel to the Authority. Section 11. The Executive Director, the Treasurer, the Secretary, legal counsel to the Authority, and all other officers and agents of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary or advisable to further the purposes of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 8th day of February, 2022. Matt Rahn, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary Item No. 16 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Aaron Adams, City Manager/Executive Director DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve and Adopt Resolution to Appoint the Consultants to Assist with the Refunding of the 2012 Bonds for CFD No. 03-3 (Wolf Creek) PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance/Treasurer RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APPOINTING CONSULTANTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO — COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-03 (WOLF CREEK) BACKGROUND: In 2003 the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") Community Facilities District No. 03-3 (Wolf Creek) (the "CFD") was formed and subsequently bonds were issued in 2003 to finance various public facilities within the CFD. The bonds are payable from the proceeds of an annual special tax levied on property in the CFD. The 2003 bonds were refunded in 2012. In light of current low interest rates in the financial markets, the opportunity has arisen for the Authority to issue bonds (the "2022 Refunding Bonds") for and on behalf of the CFD, to refund the outstanding 2012 Bonds and thereby reduce future special tax levies on property in the CFD. The proposed refunding bonds will not be issued if interest rates rise to the point where a 3% present value savings cannot be achieved. Based upon current market conditions it is anticipated that are the estimated savings will exceed the policy threshold. The Board of Directors of the Authority now desires to authorize the actions needed for the issuance of the 2022 Refunding Bonds. It is anticipated the 2022 Refunding Bonds will be sold mid -May and close early June. SPECIFIC ACTIONS: In order to proceed with the 2022 Refunding Bonds, it is recommended the Board of Directors adopt the attached resolution. The resolution will appoint the consultants necessary for the proposed 2022 Refunding Bonds and authorize and direct the City staff to take all actions necessary or advisable to present to the Board of Directors for its review and approval all proceedings necessary to issue the 2022 Refunding Bonds. The consultants are as follows: the firm of Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated will serve as underwriter for the 2022 Refunding Bonds; the firm of Webb Municipal Finance, LLC will serve as Special Tax Consultant; the firm of Fieldman Rolapp & Associates will serve as Municipal Advisor for the 2022 Refunding Bonds; and the firm of Quint & Thimmig LLP will serve as Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel for the 2022 Refunding Bonds. FISCAL IMPACT: None. All costs associated with the 2022 Refunding Bonds, including those of the consultants, shall be paid for out of the proceeds of the issuance. and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APPOINTING CONSULTANTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO — COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.03-03 (WOLF CREEK) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") has formed the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-03 (Wolf Creek) (the "CFD") pursuant to the provisions of the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, constituting Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Act") and Resolution No. TPFA 03-22 adopted by the Board of Directors of the Authority on October 28, 2003. Section 2. In order to finance various public facilities authorized to be funded by the CFD, on January 8, 2004, the Authority, for and on behalf of the CFD, issued its Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-03 (Wolf Creek) 2003 Special Tax Bonds (the "2003 Bonds"). Section 3. On August 15, 2012, the Authority, for and on behalf of the District, issued its Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-03 (Wolf Creek) 2012 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "2012 Bonds") the proceeds of which were used to refund the then outstanding 2003 Bonds. Section 4. The 2003 Bonds were, and the 2012 Bonds are, payable from the proceeds of an annual special tax levied on property in the CFD pursuant to Ordinance No. TPFA 03-02, adopted by the Board of Directors of the Authority on November 18, 2003. Section 5. In light of current low interest rates in the financial markets, the opportunity has arisen for the Authority to issue bonds (the "2022 Refunding Bonds") for and on behalf of the CFD to refund the outstanding 2012 Bonds and thereby reduce future special tax levies on property in the CFD. Section 6. The Board of Directors of the Authority now desires to authorize the actions needed for the issuance of the 2012 Refunding Bonds so as to reduce the future special taxes to be levied on property in the CFD. Section 7. City of Temecula ("City") Staff, acting for and on behalf of the Authority, are hereby requested to take all actions necessary or advisable to present to the Board of Directors for its review and approval all proceedings necessary to issue the 2022 Refunding Bonds. Section 8. The firm of Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated is hereby designated as underwriter for the 2022 Refunding Bonds. Section 9. The firm of Webb Municipal Finance, LLC is hereby designated as Special Tax Consultant to assist in the preparation of an official statement for the offering and sale of the 2022 Refunding Bonds, the firm of Fieldman Rolapp & Associates is hereby designated as Municipal Advisor for the 2022 Refunding Bonds, and the firm of Quint & Thimmig LLP is hereby designated as Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel for the 2022 Refunding Bonds. The Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to execute agreements with said firms for their services in connection with the 2022 Refunding Bonds, in the respective forms on file with the Finance Director of the City or otherwise in a form acceptable to the Executive Director upon consultation with the City Attorney in his capacity as legal counsel to the Authority. Section 10. The Executive Director, the Treasurer, the Secretary, legal counsel to the Authority, and all other officers and agents of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary or advisable to further the purposes of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this Bch day of February, 2022. Matt Rahn, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary Item No. 17 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution to Approve the Amended 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (61h Cycle) and Environmental Impact Report Addendum to the General Plan (Long Range Planning Project Number LR18-1620) PREPARED BY: Brandon Rabidou, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPDATED 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR18-1620) AND APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM NO. 2021-01 TO THE GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND: The original City of Temecula General Plan Housing Element was approved in 1993 and updated in 2002, 2010, and 2014, pursuant to the amendment cycle for local agencies under the jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). A comprehensive General Plan Update was adopted by the City Council on April 12, 2005, and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared in association with the comprehensive General Plan Update. Upon the Housing Element's most recent update (2014), an Addendum to the City's General Plan FEIR was prepared. State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Sections 65580-65589) requires all cities and counties to update their Housing Elements at least every eight years to reflect the community's changing needs. This update covers the 2021-2029 planning period, pursuant to the sixth update cycle for jurisdictions within the SCAG region. In June 2019, the City entered into an agreement with De Novo Planning Group (De Novo) to assist in the development of the Housing Element update for the current cycle and prepare a targeted update to the City's Public Safety Element in accordance with State law. The consultant and the City have been worked diligently to engage the public, prepare the updated Housing Element and Public Safety Element, and provide a public Draft Housing Element. On September 15, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Draft Housing Element and Public Safety Element. On October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted the Housing Element and Public Safety Element. The City is required to send the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and comment. HCD has a maximum of 60 days to provide comments on the Housing Element. On December 3, 2021, HCD provided a comment letter listing required changes to the Housing Element. A copy of that letter is available as an attachment. The City's consultant has revised the Housing Element to respond to HCD's comments. The revised changes were brought before the Planning Commission on January 19, 2022. At that meeting the Planning Commission voted 3-1 to approve the revised Housing Element. There was one public speaker at the meeting, and a corresponding letter from an organized labor group requesting the consideration of local labor requirements. For agencies under the jurisdiction of SCAG, the statutory deadline to adopt an updated Housing Element is October 15, 2021. The City adopted the Housing Element on October 12, 2021. To ensure certification of the Housing Element, the city must adopt the revised Housing Element within 120 days of the statutory due date (February 12, 2022). Analysis The purpose of a General Plan Housing Element is to address local and regional housing needs. A Housing Element is required to: • Provide housing opportunities to all income segments of the population; • Provide adequate sites to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA); • Remove governmental constraints in maintaining and developing housing; • Conserve and improve the existing housing stock; • Implement statutes under State Housing Law; • Provide equal access to housing opportunities; • Affirmatively furthering fair housing, and • Preserve at -risk housing units. In accordance with State law, staff conducted a housing needs assessment which included the following components: • An analysis and update of Temecula's demographic, household, and housing characteristics; • An analysis and update of Temecula's potential constraints; • An evaluation of land and resources to address housing needs; • An evaluation of accomplishments under the adopted Housing Element; and 0 A housing plan to address the City's identified housing needs. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (Proposed Housing Element, 2021-2029) The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a minimum projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the Housing Element's statutory planning period. The RHNA is developed by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and allocated to cities and counties in the region. Historically, Temecula has generated thousands of units (including many that were naturally more affordable) over the past 30 years, often to the benefit of communities that have not produced adequate units (at all income levels) in major urban centers. In September 2019, the City advocated for a revision to the proposed methodology based on various concerns related to infrastructure and consistency with various regional plans and statewide goals. Many jurisdictions, like the City of Temecula, advocated for a change to the RHNA allocation, based on various similar concerns. At that time, the City projected that it would be assigned a RHNA allocation between 6,393-11,231 units. Unexpectedly, SCAG voted to reverse a historical trend of placing higher RHNA allocations on suburban/inland communities and increased the responsibility of communities near major employment/urban centers to provide units. A substantially lower RHNA allocation was provided to the City of Temecula, as described below. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation was originally anticipated to be adopted in October of 2020. The Final RHNA allocation was not adopted until March 4, 2021 and was not adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) until March 22, 2021, a six-month delay. Upon completion, SCAG distributed the sixth cycle RHNA for all local agencies under its jurisdiction. RHNA includes targets for Extremely Low, Very Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate Income categories. The City of Temecula needed to plan for 4,193 new housing units for people working in our community in the next eight years. Temecula's 2021- 2029 allocation is distributed among the five standard income categories shown below. Income Level Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) % of Total Allocation (Rounded) Extremely Low 679 Units 16% Very Low 680 Units 16% Low 801 Units 19% Moderate 778 Units 19% Above Moderate 1,255 Units 30% Total RHNA 4,193 Units 100% State law requires the City to provide enough suitable sites with appropriate zoning and density to accommodate the affordable housing needs for of all income levels, listed above. Any units constructed between July 1, 2021 and the adoption of the Housing Element will be credited to the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. 5th Cycle Progress (Current Housing Element, 2014-2021) The City's 5th Cycle Housing Element addresses housing needs for the City from 2014 through 2021. During the 5th Cycle, the City was required to accommodate 1,494 housing units under the previous RHNA allocation. The private market then constructs housing units based on market considerations. The market exceeded the total RHNA allocation goal, with 1,895 housing units being built or under construction. This equates to 127% of the City's Total 5th Cycle RHNA. However, while the market was successful in having housing built at the above -moderate income level, the market did not construct all units at the lower income levels, which is an issue that most jurisdictions face in California. Three deed restricted workforce/affordable projects (Arrive at Rancho Highlands, Las Haciendas, and Vine Creek) were approved during the 5th Cycle RHNA but are expected to be constructed in the next couple of years, during the 6th Cycle RHNA. Suitable Sites and Capacity An important component of the Temecula Housing Element is the identification of sites for future housing development. Equally important is an evaluation of the adequacy of this site inventory in accommodating the City's share of regional housing growth. As part of this Housing Element update, the City conducted a parcel -by -parcel analysis of vacant residential sites based on data obtained from the City's geographic information system (GIS). The vacant land inventory for the City of Temecula includes an estimated development capacity for the identified vacant parcels. Appendix A of the Housing Element summarizes the available housing unit capacity based on vacant residential sites. Residential capacity for each vacant parcel is based on the current zoning for each parcel. Each parcel is assumed to develop at 75%-85% of its maximum capacity, which allows for setbacks, landscaping, right-of-way dedications, and other non-residential uses. The City has found that it has adequate capacity to accommodate its RHNA allocation at all income levels. The proposed Housing Element does not include any zone changes or General Plan amendments to accommodate additional units. Currently, the City has a surplus of 5,006 units above the 4,193 units already mandated by the RHNA allocation. Future Municipal Code Amendments Upon certification of the Housing Element Update by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), at least six Zoning Code Amendments will be required to ensure that the Temecula Municipal Code complies with State Housing Law. City staff will work with the City Attorney's office to draft the necessary amendments, which will be brought before the Planning Commission and City Council at future hearing dates. First, the City will update the Zoning Code to comply with Government Code Sections 65660 through 65668 in relation to low barrier navigation centers. A low barrier navigation center is a Housing First, low -barrier, service enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter and housing. The City's Municipal Code does not prohibit low barrier navigation centers currently, but State law requires explicit language that permits low barrier navigations by right in certain zones. Second, the City will need to develop Municipal Code language to allow for agricultural worker housing, consistent with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5., 17021.6, and 17021.8. Third, the City will need to develop Municipal Code language for employee housing, consistent with State law. Fourth, the City will need to update the Municipal Code to comply with numerous State laws, including SB 35, SB 330, Government Code Section 65905.5, 65913.4, 65940, 65941.1, 65950 and 66300 related to streamlined housing reviews/approvals and affordable housing projects. Staff is currently working on these changes and will bring these changes forward at a future hearing date. Fifth, the City will need to update the Municipal Code to comply with AB 139, which outlines requirements for emergency shelter parking. Staff is currently working on these changes and will bring these changes forward at a future hearing date. Sixth, the City will need to amend Planning Development Overlay Zone 2 and 7 to specifically allow Accessory Dwelling Units consistent with State law. Seventh, in compliance with State law, if, during the course of the planning period, the City should identify additional sites/replacement sites to accommodate a portion of the City's lower -income RHNA, and if the site is vacant and has been included in two prior cycles or is occupied and been included in one prior cycle, this program requires that the site be added to the City's AHOZ thereby providing for by -right development when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households consistent with Government Code section 65583.2(i). California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Comments The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has four areas of comments on the previously adopted Housing Element. Those areas include: • Review and Revision • Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints • Housing Programs • Public Participation Staff has worked with the consultant to address the attached comment letter. Some takeaways from the letter include the need for the city to update certain data, clarifications on specific sections of the document, revisions to housing programs, and additional programs for mitigating nongovernmental constrains, previously identified sites, and revisions to the accessory dwelling unit calculations. Staff has worked with the consultant to make the requested changes. Outreach The City conducted significant outreach, even amongst a challenging environment related to COVID-19 restrictions. The City's outreach included: • A dedicated website, TemeculaCA.gov/housing • A dedicated email list for interested parties • A dedicated Housing Element brand/presence on social media, "#housethis? " • 33,000 newsletter mailers that included a Housing Element article • 63,000 social media impressions • Over 860 survey respondents, which included printed copies for seniors/constituents without access to a computer • A virtual workshop, conducted in English and Spanish, and made available online throughout the duration of the public outreach process • An in -person workshop, conducted in English, with live Spanish translation available • Virtual meetings with real estate groups • Over 10,800 direct emails sent, with thousands of additional emails sent by partners at the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, local real estate organizations, religious institutions, and nonprofits • Direct emails sent to existing affordable housing developments within the City and prospective affordable housing developers • Flyers in foods banks, coffee shops, and the public libraries • Surveys and flyers at the Temecula Help Center (which serves those constituents who are at risk of becoming homeless or are already homeless) • Advertisements and educational materials shared on Channel 3 (local broadcast) and the City's YouTube channel • Staff presented the Housing Element to the REDI Commission • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Outreach with a Fair Housing discussion FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are currently programmed for the Community Development Department to adopt and implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Exhibit A - 2021-2029 Revised Housing Element, 2021-2029 Revised Housing Element (Appendices), and FEIR Addendum No. 2021-01 3. Letter from HCD on 61h Cycle Housing Element 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-03 5. Public Correspondence 6. Notice of Public Hearing RESOLUTION NO. 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPDATED 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR18-1620) AND APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM NO.2021-01 TO THE GENERAL PLAN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine, and declare that: A. The City of Temecula adopted its first Housing Element (Second Cycle) on November 9, 1993. B. The City of Temecula first amended its Housing Element (Third Cycle) on October 8, 2002. C. The City of Temecula adopted a Comprehensive Update of its General Plan on April 12, 2005. D. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Fourth Cycle) on July 27, 2010. E. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Fifth Cycle) on January, 2014. F. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Sixth Cycle) on October 12, 2021. G. The Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) completed the Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) on March 4, 2021, with a minor amendment adopted on July 1, 2021. H. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved the RHNA allocation on March 22, 2021. I. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provided a comment letter on December 3, 2021. J. Government Code Section 65588 establishes October 15, 2021, as the due date for cities located in the SCAG region to submit their 2021-2029 Housing Element Update to the State. K. The City of Temecula must adopt its 2021-2029 Housing Element within 120 days of the above -referenced due date. L. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an analysis of potential sites that indicates that the City of Temecula has adequate development capacity under existing zoning designations to meet its RHNA of 4,139 total units and related affordable housing needs for lower and moderate income households. M. On August 17, 2021, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was released to the community for public comment and review including to groups that represent lower income and special needs populations in Temecula; and N. On August 17, 2021, the City hosted a community open house to introduce the Draft Housing Element and solicit public feedback on the Housing Element O. On October 27, 2021, the City hosted a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) workshop, which included a discussion on Housing Element. P. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, codified at Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element (the Project); and Q. This Housing Element Update was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by law. R. The Planning Commission considered the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan and environmental review on January 19, 2022, 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. S. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-XX recommending that the City Council adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan, and EIR Addendum No. 2021-01 to the General Plan, based upon the findings set forth hereunder. T. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the 2021-2029 Housing Element (Sixth Cycle) of the General Plan 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. U. At the conclusion of the City Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the City Council adopted the EIR Addendum No. 2021-01 to the General Plan and the 2021-2029 Housing Element (Sixth Cycle) of the General Plan, Long Range Planning Project No. LR18-1620 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. V. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council, in adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update hereby finds, determines and declares that: General Plan Amendment A. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update has been designed to be consistent with State Housing Law, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for local agencies under jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and to be internally consistent with the other elements of the Temecula General Plan with implementation of the identified programs. B. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan will not have a significant impact on the character of the built environment; The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update is compatible with the nature, condition and development of existing uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the existing or planned uses, buildings, or structures. The Housing Element Update contains the goals, policies, and programs that will help guide the production of future housing within the City, in concert with other elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element Update will provide flexibility and opportunity in the development of residential uses to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community within the City. The specific programs of the Housing Element Update will provide opportunity for affordable housing through the identification of appropriate sites and density, provisions for density bonus law, provisions for transitional, supportive, and employee housing, as well as establishment of development standards for emergency shelters. The Housing Element and the City's current General Plan have adequate capacity to accommodate all units. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. C. The nature of the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update will promote the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the City and its residents through the goals, policies, and implementation programs geared towards ensuring adequate housing for all income levels in the community. The proposed Housing Element Update complies with all statutory requirements and is internally consistent with the other elements of the General Plan with implementation of the identified programs. The proposed Housing Element will not expose people to an increased risk of negative health or public safety impacts and potential impacts related to the health, safety and general welfare of the community were analyzed in the environmental review and determined to be less than significant as a result of this project. The Housing Element and the City s current General Plan have adequate capacity to accommodate all units. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. Section 3. Further Findings. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element has been prepared to meet the requirements of State law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with the other elements of the current Temecula General Plan. Section 4. Environmental Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the recommendation for approval of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan, Long Range Planning Project No. LR18-1620. A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the General Plan certified by the City Council on April 12, 2005 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003061041), including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Staff has also reviewed the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019070974), Altair Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013061012). B. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR (Addendum 2021-01) was prepared in August 2021 which concludes that the draft General Plan Housing Element does not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. No new development is permitted under the draft Housing Element where it is not currently permitted in the General Plan, and all new development analyzed in the draft Housing Element is in areas already designated for residential or mixed use. In addition, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since the certification of the General Plan EIR. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. The draft Housing Element was amended in response to HCD's comments. The 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update, as revised in response to HCD's comments, does not create any new program or policy that would permit residential development where it is not otherwise permitted. As such, it was determined that the revisions to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated, and that it is still appropriate for the City to rely on Addendum 2021-01. It was determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR do not need to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and that no further environmental review is required. C. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the City Council herby adopts General Plan Addendum 2021-01 prepared for this project. Section 4. Adoption. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and General Plan Addendum 2021-01 in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit "A" 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of February, 2022. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk --- - ___u 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT February 2022 City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 httDS://temeculaca.aov/ "low � � w. craY,•r"_ _-.._ _ . _.. � __�.-+�'.�� -•---- -=-- -- .y`Y'-=•--,•�frsailiri"-'+1�: �.°=T w.._ �. i. r�lt'_'°v'�a. FINAL HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PREPARED FOR: CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 PREPARED BY: DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 180 E Main Street Suite 108 Tustin, CA 92780 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT ORGANIZATION Part 1: Housing Plan Part 1 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the City's "Housing Plan", which includes the goals, policies, and programs the City will implement to address constraints and needs. The City's overarching objective is to ensure that decent, safe housing is available to all current and future residents at a cost that is within the reach of the diverse economic segments which comprise Temecula. Part 2: Background Report Part 2 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the "Background Report" which identifies the nature and extent of Temecula's housing needs, including those of special populations, potential housing resources (land and funds), potential constraints to housing production, and energy conservation opportunities. By examining the City's housings, resources, and constraints, the City can then determine a plan of action for providing adequate housing, as presented in Part 1: Housing Plan. In addition to identifying housing needs, the Background Report also presents information regarding the setting in which these needs occur. This information is instrumental in providing a better understanding of the community, which in turn is essential for the planning of future housing needs. Appendix A: Housing Sites Inventory The Housing Element must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the City's regional housing need by income level. Appendix B: Glossary The Housing Element includes, as Appendix B, a glossary of key terms and phrases. Appendix C: Public Engagement Summary As part of the Housing Element Update process, the City hosted numerous opportunities for the community and key stakeholders to provide feedback on existing housing conditions, housing priorities, priority areas for new residential growth, and topics related to fair housing. Public engagement was facilitated in both English and Spanish to further engage the Temecula community. Public participation played an important role in the refinement of the City's housing goals and policies and in the development of new housing programs, as included in Part 1: Housing Plan. The public's input also helped to validate and expand upon the contextual information included in Part 2: Background Report. The City's efforts to engage the community in a meaningful and comprehensive way are summarized in Appendix C. Appendix D: 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing In 2017 the City of Temecula prepared an Assessment of Fair Housing. This Assessment provides the foundation and context for the City's Assessment of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, as included in Part 2 of the Housing Element. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN (C ET",J EP,A L P LAI CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE This page intentionally left blank. is CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-2 I. INTRODUCTION The eight -year plan is the centerpiece of the 2021-2029 Housing Element for Temecula. The Housing Plan sets forth the City's goals, policies, and programs to address the identified housing needs. Housing programs included in this plan define the specific actions the City will take to achieve specific goals and policies. The City's overall strategy for addressing its housing needs has been defined according to the six goals: 1. Providing adequate housing sites; 2. Assisting in development of affordable and special needs housing; 3. Removing constraints to housing production; 4. Conserving and improving existing housing stock; 5. Affirmatively furthering fair housing; and 6. Promoting public participation. A. Goals and Policies Provide Adequate Housing Sites Goal 1 Provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula. Discussion The City provides for a mix of new housing opportunities by designating a range of residential densities and promoting creative design and development of vacant land and reuse of developed land. By providing for the construction of a range of housing, the needs of all sectors of the community can be met. Policy 1.1 Provide an inventory of land at varying densities sufficient to accommodate the existing and projected housing needs in the City. Policy 1.2 Encourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density, unit size, configuration, and type, and presents the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-3 Policy 1.3 Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their pedestrian orientation and diversity. Policy 1.4 Support the use of innovative site planning and architectural design in residential development. Policy 1.5 Encourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles. Policy 1.6 Encourage the development of compatible mixed -use projects that promote and enhance the village concept, facilitate the efficient use of public facilities, support alternative transit options, and provide affordable housing alternatives by establishing a program of incentives for mixed -use projects. Policy 1.7 Where feasible, use City -owned or City -controlled land for affordable housing projects. Policy 1.8 To the extent feasible, make use of the tools available to the City to assemble land or sell land at a write -down for affordable housing. Policy 1.9 Maintain adequate capacity to accommodate the City's unmet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for all income categories throughout the planning period. Policy 1.10 Allow by -right approval for housing developments proposed for non -vacant sites included in one previous housing element inventory and vacant sites included in two previous housing elements, provided that the proposed housing development consists of at least 20 percent lower income and affordable housing units. Assist in Development of Affordable and Special Needs Housing Goal Provide housing for people of different economic segments and with special needs. Discussion The City of Temecula works to provide a variety of affordable housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. By coordinating with other government agencies and nonprofit organizations to access funding sources for affordable housing and to partner in the creative provision of affordable housing, the City CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-4 helps provide safe and affordable housing for all residents in the community. The City is also committed to ensuring that adequate housing opportunities are available for persons with special needs, such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, large families, single -parent households, and the homeless. Policy 2.1 Promote a variety of housing opportunities that accommodate the needs of all income levels of the population, and provide opportunities to meet Temecula's fair share of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate- income housing by promoting the City's program of density bonuses and incentives. Policy 2.2 Support innovative public, private, and nonprofit efforts in the development of affordable housing, particularly for special needs groups. Policy 2.3 Encourage the use of nontraditional housing models, including single -room occupancy (SRO) or Efficiency Unit Housing structures and manufactured housing, to meet the needs of special groups for affordable housing, temporary shelter, and/or transitional housing. Policy 2.4 Pursue all available forms of private, local, state, and federal assistance to support development and implementation of the City's housing programs. Policy 2.5 Require that all new affordable housing developments incorporate energy- and water -efficient appliances, amenities, and building materials to reduce overall housing -related costs for future low- and moderate -income households and families. Policy 2.6 Establish and maintain a City database to monitor trends in the economy and Temecula's demographics to be able to anticipate shifts in trends, while continuing to provide relevant affordable housing. Policy 2.7 Develop and coordinate multi -agency, regional, and cross - jurisdictional approaches to homelessness and special needs housing, including transitional housing. Policy 2.8 Explore the possibility of a housing trust partnership with the Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG). Policy 2.9 Explore a voluntary outreach program with private entities to solicit donations to fund affordable housing programs, possibly in cooperation with a nonprofit. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-5 Remove Constraints to Housing Production Goal 3 Reduce and/or remove governmental and non- governmental constraints in the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible. Discussion The City's goal is to reduce or remove constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing to ensure the provision of housing affordable to all members of the community. Governmental requirements for the development and rehabilitation of housing often add to the cost of the provision of affordable housing and may result in fewer opportunities for housing affordable to lower -income households. Although nongovernmental constraints like the cost of land, construction costs, and the availability of financing are primarily market - driven and generally outside direct government control, Temecula can influence and offset the negative impact of nongovernmental constraints through responsive programs and policies. Policy 3.1 Expedite processing procedures and fees for new construction or rehabilitation of housing. Policy 3.2 Consider mitigating development fees for projects that provide affordable senior housing, and special needs. Policy 3.3 Periodically review City development standards to ensure consistency with the General Plan and to ensure high -quality affordable housing. Policy 3.4 Monitor State and federal housing -related legislation, and update City plans, ordinances, and processes as appropriate to remove or reduce governmental constraints. Policy 3.5 Regularly identify and evaluate the impact of nongovernmental constraints on housing development and implement programs to reduce negative impacts. Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock Goal 4 Conserve the existing housing stock with an emphasis on affordable housing. Discussion Along with providing for new affordable housing opportunities, the City also has a goal to preserve existing affordable housing opportunities for residents. By providing incentives and programs to maintain both the affordability and the structural integrity of existing units, CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-6 the City ensures that affordable housing opportunities are preserved as the housing stock ages. Policy 4.1 Monitor the number of affordable units eligible for conversion to market -rate units and continue the means to minimize the loss of these units. Policy 4.2 Develop programs directed at rehabilitating and preserving the integrity of existing housing stock for all income levels. Policy 4.3 Support the efforts of private and public entities in maintaining the affordability of units through implementation of energy conservation and weatherization programs. Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Goal Affirmatively further fair housing, providing equal housing opportunity for all residents in Temecula. Discussion In order to make provisions for the housing needs of all segments of the community, the City must affirmatively further fair housing and ensure that equal and fair housing opportunities are available to all residents. Policy 5.1 Encourage and support the enforcement of laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination in lending practices and insurance practices to purchase, sell, rent, and lease property. Policy 5.2 Support fair housing efforts to ensure that all income segments of the community have unrestricted access to appropriate housing. Policy 5.3 Encourage housing design standards that promote the accessibility of housing for persons with special needs, such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, large families, single -parent households, and the homeless. Policy 5.4 Encourage and consider supporting local private nonprofit groups that address the housing needs of the homeless and other disadvantaged groups. Policy 5.5 Prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on age, familial status, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics for all housing projects approved by the City. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-7 Policy 5.6 Encourage the equitable spatial distribution of affordable housing throughout the City, particularly where adequate support facilities exist (i.e. alternative transportation, jobs, etc.). Policy 5.7 Educate the public on lower -income and special needs housing through existing annual reports or other forms of media. Policy 5.8 Assist in affirmatively furthering and enforcing fair housing laws by providing support to organizations that provide outreach and education regarding fair housing rights, receive and investigate fair housing allegations, monitor compliance with fair housing laws, and refer possible violations to enforcing agencies. Policy 5.9 Accommodate persons with disabilities who seek reasonable waiver or modification of land use controls and/or development standards pursuant to procedures and criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Promote Public Participation Goal Encourage collaboration between housing developers and neighborhood organizations on affordable housing projects and addressing neighborhood concerns. Discussion The promotion of public participation in the planning process is an important responsibility for local agencies. Residents and other stakeholders like the development community and neighborhood organizations are all influenced by the City's housing plans and programs and their input must be considered and reflected in the City's decision - making process. Policy 6.1 Use the public participation process to educate the public on lower -income and special needs housing through existing annual reports or other forms of media. Policy 6.2 Strengthen opportunities for participation in the approval process for all housing projects, including affordable housing. B. Housing Programs The goals and policies contained in the Housing Plan address Temecula's identified housing needs and are implemented through a series of housing programs. Housing programs include both programs currently in operation in the city and new programs that have been introduced to address the unmet housing needs, affirmatively further fair housing, and CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-8 ensure that Temecula's housing goals, policies, and programs are aligned with federal and state requirements. This section provides a description of each housing program and future program goals, along with identifying the program funding sources, responsible agency, and time frame for implementation. Provide Adequate Housing Sites (Goal 1) A key element in satisfying the housing needs of all segments of the community is the provision of adequate sites for housing of all types, sizes, and prices. This is an important function in both zoning and General Plan designations. 1. Land Use Policy and Development Capacity The Land Use Element of the Temecula General Plan and the City's Development Code designates land within the city for a range of residential densities that support residential development suitable for all income levels. The City of Temecula received a RHNA of 4,193 units for the 2021- 2029 RHNA period. After credits for eanstfueted units constructed after Tune 30, 2021 (27) and units approved after -June 30, 2021 (132) are taken into consideration, the City of Temecula has a remaining 2021- 2029 RHNA of 4,034 units, including 1,327 extremely/very low-income, 702 low-income, 757 moderate -income and 1,249 above moderate -income units. The residential sites inventory consists of accessory dwelling units, vacant residential land exclusive of Specific Plan areas, and vacant residential land inside Specific Plan areas. Together, these resources have the capacity to accommodate at least 9,347 new units at all income levels. These sites can accommodate the remaining RHNA for all income levels through year 2029. The City will continue to maintain an inventory of available sites for residential development and will continue to make it available on the City's website; it will also be provided to prospective residential developers upon request. The inventory will be monitored on an ongoing basis as part of the development review process; the inventory will be updated as -needed (based on project approval) and findings will be made consistent with No Net Loss requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 (see Program 2 for further information). Eight -Year Objectives • The City will ttg2hffl�—annually monitor the availability of sites zoned for residential uses to ensure sufficient capacity exists to accommodate Temecula's Regional Housing Need Allocation at all income levels for the duration of the planning period. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-9 • The City will continue to maintain an inventory of sites suitable for residential development and provide that information online and to interested developers. The City will encourage the reservation of land that is currently designated for multiple -family development by providing the multi -family sites inventory to multi -family housing developers to solicit development interest. The City will update the multi -family sites inventory at least once a year. The City will continue to allow residential mixed use to be permitted at a density of at least 30 units per acre to encourage the construction of multi -family housing by right. In addition, the City will continue to provide appropriate flexible development standards such as increased building height and shared parking opportunities for developments with minimum densities of 20 dwelling units per acre in the Zoning Ordinance. The City will continue to promote its Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning District, which is applicable to over 100 acres in the City and has resulted in the approval of multiple affordable housing projects during the prior planning period. Information related to the AHO will continue to be provided online and proactively to affordable housing developers working in and around the City of Temecula. As part of preapplication meetings (which are provided at no charge), the City will continue to educate the development community on the AHO and highlight the opportunities to develop affordable housing in the City of Temecula. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timeframe • Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-10 2. Maintain Adequate Sites Throughout the Planning Period The City will monitor the consumption of residential acreage, including review of proposed General Plan amendments, Zoning map amendments, and development projects, to ensure an adequate inventory is available to meet the City's 2021-2029 RHNA obligations. The City will develop and implement a monitoring procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 and will make the findings required by that code section if a site is proposed for development with fewer units or at a different income level than shown in the Housing Element. Should an approval of development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the remaining need for lower income, moderate, or above moderate income households, the City will identify and, if necessary, rezone sufficient sites within 180 days to accommodate the shortfall and ensure "no net loss" in capacity to accommodate the RHNA, consistent with State law. Any site rezoned will satisfy the adequate site requirements of Section 65583.2 and will be consistent with the City's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. Eight -Year Objectives Review each housing approval on sites listed in the Housing Element and make findings required by Government Code Section 65863 if a site is proposed with fewer units or a different income level than shown in the Housing Element. If insufficient suitable sites remain at each income level, identify and, if necessary, rezone sufficient sites within 180 days. Identify additional sites that may be required to be upzoned to meet "no net loss" requirements for Housing Element adoption in 2025 (a mid -cycle review). Any site identified to be upzoned will satisfy the adequate site requirements of Section 65583.2 and will be consistent with the City's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. • Report as required through the HCD annual reporting process. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-Il Timebrame • Ongoing implementation, at time of approval of a project on a site listed in the Housing Element, and annual reporting throughout the planning period 3. Public Property Conversion to Housing Program The City will maintain a list of surplus City -owned lands, including identification of address, APN, General Plan land use designation, zoning, current use, parcel size, and status of surplus land or exempt surplus land. The City will work with non -profits and other public agencies to evaluate the feasibility of transferring surplus City -owned lands identified to be feasible for conversion to affordable housing and not committed to other City purposes for use in the development of affordable housing by the private sector. The City will also outreach to developers to advertise available sites, as they are identified. The inventory will be updated annually in conjunction with the APR (Program 1). Any disposition of surplus lands shall be conducted consistently with the requirements of Government Code Section 54220 et. seq. Eight -Year Objectives • Maintain an accurate list of surplus City -owned lands for the duration of the planning period • Collaborate with developers of affordable housing to explore opportunities to develop affordable housing at City -owned lands_ • By October 2024, the City will solicit a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of affordable housing project s on the City -owned site(s). Prior to disposing of any of the City -owned sites, the City shall comply with the Surplus Land Act and Surplus Land Act Guidelines issued by HCD, and consult with HCD �regarding any questions. The City will evaluate whether to sell the site(s) or ground lease them to one or more *R-affordable housing developers. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget and federal and State technical assistance grants CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-12 Timeframe • Annually 4. Replacement of Affordable Units Consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2(g), development projects on sites in the housing inventory (Appendix A) that have, or have had within the past five years, residential uses restricted to rents affordable to low or very low income households or residential uses occupied by low or very low income households, shall be conditioned to replace all such units at the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on the site and such replacement requirements shall be consistent with Section 65915(c)(3). Eight -Year Objectives • Identify need for replacement for all project applications and ensure replacement, if required, is carried out Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget; replacement costs to be borne by development of any such site Timeframe • Ongoing 5. Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units QADUs) help meet the City's housing needs for all income levels and also provide a housing resource for seniors and low- and moderate -income households throughout the entire community, not just in any single geographic area. The City will continue to apply Development Code regulations that allow accessory units (also known as second units or granny flats) by right in all residential zones, in accordance with State law. The City of Temecula will continue to amend the ordinance based on future changes to State law and work with HCD to ensure continued compliance with State law. The City will also continue to monitor the CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-13 extent of ADU production to ensure that the ordinance modifications are successful and that the Housing Element goals can be met. Eight -Year Objectives Survey and evaluate potential methods to encourage ADU development throughout the community and adopt appropriate procedures, policies, and regulatory provisions. AnnjLaU N ;monitor State law for future updates to ADU regulations and update the City's Development Code to be consistent with future updates as needed. Continue educating the community on the opportunity to develop ADUs and promote the development of ADUs affordable to lower -income households. • Prepare and adopt "permit ready" ADU plans and make them available to the public free of charge to promote the development of ADUs in all geographic areas of the City. • Annually monitor ADU production, as part of the City's Housing Element Annual Progress Report Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timeframe • Adopt "permit ready" ADU plans by December 31, 2022; ongoing education of ADU development options and distribution of material online and at City Hall 6. Large Sites The City will provide for the inclusion of mixed -income housing in future new growth areas of the city through development agreements, specific plans, and other mechanisms. To facilitate the development of affordable housing on large parcels that can accommodate approximately 40 to 270 lower income units, the City will routinely sir v�e high priority to processing subdivision maps that include affordable housing units. Also, an expedited CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-14 review process will be available for the subdivision of larger sites into buildable lots where the development application can be found consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan, and program environmental impact report(s). The City will offer incentives for the development of affordable housing on large sites, which may include, but is not limited to: • Streamlining and expediting the approval process for land division for projects that include affordable housing units, • Deferral of fees related to the subdivision for projects affordable to lower -income households. and • Providing technical assistance to acquire funding, Eight -Year Objectives • Identification and consolidation of available incentives by April 2022; distribution of Large Site Incentives Factsheet to the development community by October 2022; and provide incentives as projects are submitted. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Tim eframe • Identification of incentives by April 2022 and distribution to development community by October 2022; Ongoing implementation and education as part of biennial outreach to developers Assist in the Development of Affordable and Special Needs Housing (Goal 2) New construction is a major source of housing for prospective homeowners and renters. However, the cost of new construction is substantially greater than other program options. Incentive programs, such as density bonuses, offer a cost-effective means of providing affordable housing. Other programs, such as the County's First Time Home Buyer CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-15 Pra ;r-am rtga e Credit Certificate Program, increase the affordability of new and existing housing. Additionally, the programs to work with the development community to promote the production of housing suitable for persons with special needs can help ensure that equal opportunities are available for persons of different economic backgrounds and housing needs. 67. Density Bonus Ordinance The City will provide for density bonuses consistent with State law, including provisions for density bonuses and incentives for projects that contain 100% very low and low income units. The City Attorney his responsible for regularly monitoring State law updates which impact density bonuses. This review will occur at least annually, and the City *ad will update local plans and programs as necessary to comply with State law. At least annually, the City will proactively reach out to developers in the region to encourage use of the City's density bonus ordinance. Eight -Year Objectives Annual outreach to developers in the region to Gcontinue to encourage density bonus opportunities which increase the total allowable density for senior and affordable housing projects. • Monitor State law, at least annually, for updates to density bonus regulations and update the City's Development Code as needed. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timeframe • Annual monitoring of potential State law 111dates, G ongoing implementation 78. Land Assemblage and Affordable Housing Development The City can utilize CDBG funds to purchase land for the development of lower- and moderate -income housing. The City will conduct biennial outreach to the development community to identify potential opportunities for land assemblage and advertise o1212ortunity sites for CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-16 affordable housing development. To incentivizes developers, the City will offer a free pre -application review process and unified permit center to facilitate a clear and streamlined application and review process. The City will also post available development sites to the City's website and advertise the availability of sites for development through direct contact to developers in the region on a biennial basis. Eight -Year Objectives • The City will continue to acquire land for use in the provision of affordable housing. The City will facilitate the development of housing units affordable to lower -income households by publicizing its density bonus program and its incentives, and by making this information available to developers and nonprofit housing agencies through the development application process. • The City will offer free pre -application review and a unified permit center to incentivize the development of affordable housing sites and will, annually, review additional incentives available to further support this program. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • CDBG Funds Timeframe Ongoing, as projects are processed through the Planning Department. The City will publicize program incentives on the City's website on an on -going basis. The City will acquire land if, and when, the City has available funds to do so. The City will begin a project if and when funds are secured to do so. • Biennial outreach to developers • Annual review of additional potential incentives 89. Housing for Extremely Low -Income Households Under state law, the City shall identify zoning to encourage and facilitate housing suitable for extremely low-income- LI� households, CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-17 such as supportive housing and efficiency unit housing. The City currently allows Efficiency Unit Housing in the Medium and High Density Residential zoning districts and conditionally permits them in the Community Commercial and Professional Office zones. The Ci will amend its municipal code to provide that supportive housing is a permitted use in all residential zones (see Program 15 . The City encourages the development of housing for extremely low- income households through a variety of activities, such as performing outreach to housing developers on at least a biennial basis,12roviding technical assistance, providing expedited processing, identif)ing grant and funding opportunities, apply�ng for or supporting at2blications for funding on an ongoing basis, reviewing and prioritizing local funding at least twice in the planning period, and/or offering additional incentives beyond the density bonus such as fee deferral or reimbursement. The needs of larger ELI households may not be adeduately addressed by the availability of Efficiency Unit Housing, which is best -suited to address the needs of single -person or smaller households. The City will outreach to developers of affordable and special needs housing to educate developers on the need to provide larger units affordable to extremely -low income households. The City will share data and statistics included in the Housing Element Background Report regarding larger households earning 30% or less of the area median income and encourage the inclusion of larger units affordable to this household income level as part of new affordable housing protects. Eight -Year Objectives The City will continue to encourage the development of housing for extremely low-income households through a variety of activities, such as continuing to conducting outreach to housing developers on an annual basis, provideing financial assistance (when feasible) or in -kind technical assistance or land write -downs, provideing expedited processing, identifying grant and funding opportunities, applying for or supporting applications for funding on an ongoing basis, reviewing and prioritiz j* local funding at least twice in the planning period, and/or offering additional incentives beyond the density bonus. The City will educate the development community on the need for larger units suitable for larger ELI households. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-18 Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timeframe • Ongoing, as projects are processed through Planning Department and annual biennial outreach with local developers 910. Special Needs Housing Construction Special needs housing developers work to ensure housing opportunities are available that are accessible to and supportive of persons and households with special needs, such as persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, seniors, single -parent households, lower income households, and persons at -risk of homelessness. The City will continue to encourage qualified housing developers to pursue development of housing that addresses populations with special housing needs in the City. The City will continue to collaborate with housing developers, specifically special needs housing developers, to identify potential sites, write letters of support to help secure governmental and private -sector funding, and offer technical assistance related to the application of City incentive programs (e.g., density bonus). The City will advertise the o1212ortunity for development fee deferral/reimbursement (see Program 13), density bonus incentives (see Program 7) and other incentives to special needs housing developers as a way to further encourage the production of special needs housing in Temecula. The City will also continue to work closely with the Office of the State Fire Marshal (through Cal Fire and the Riverside County Fire Department, which is responsible for ensuring the safety of group home with seven or more residents, to ensure that this coordination does not constrain future development of special needs housing, Eight -Year Objectives The City will advise developers regarding the community's special needs populations and work with developers to promote the inclusion of product types and units that meet the needs of the City's special needs groups. • The City will advertise, on a biennial basis as part of the City's regular outreach efforts, incentives available to encourage the production of special needs housing, CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-19 Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Tim eframe Contact with developers at least anftttaHy�bienniallv and on an ongoing basis to implement the above objectives • Advertise available incentives on the City's website by June 2022 -1A11. Mortgage Credit Certificate Program The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) program is administered countywide by the County of Riverside Economic and Development Agency (EDA) and is a way for the City to further leverage homeownership assistance. MCCs are certificates issued to income - qualified first time home buyers authorizing the household to take a credit against federal income taxes of up to 20% of the annual mortgage interest paid. This tax credit allows the buyer to qualify more easily for home loans as it increases the effective income of the buyer. The City of Temecula already promotes use of the MCC program on the City's website and through handouts and will continue to implement the program on an ongoing basis throughout the planning period as long as the County continues to fund the program. Eight -Year Objectives The City will continue to promote the regional Mortgage Credit Certificate program throughout the planning period to assist an average of ten households annually by publicizing the program and making the program known to developers and nonprofit housing agencies. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-20 Timeframe • Ongoing 1-112. Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency The City will encourage the use of energy conservation features in residential construction and remodeling. Eight -Year Objectives • The City will partner with Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) to promote energy -saving programs such as the Residential Multifamily Energy Efficiency Rebate program, the Heating and Cooling Rebate program, and incentives of up to $4,000 available to SCE and SoCalGas residential customers. • The City will annually ensure that local building codes are consistent with state -mandated green building standards. • The City will be responsible for implementing the state's energy conservation standards (e.g., Title 24 Energy Standards). This includes checking building plans and other written documentation showing compliance and inspecting construction to ensure that the dwelling units are constructed according to those plans. Applicants for building permits must show compliance with the state's energy conservation requirements at the time building plans are submitted. • The City will review the General Plan to determine if updates are needed to support and encourage energy efficiency in existing and new housing, especially in areas of the City with lower CalEnviroScreen scores which may suffer from elevated levels of environmental burdens. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-21 Timebrame • Ongoing, as programs are available. Annually review local building codes, as projects are processed through Planning Department and annual outreach with local developers Remove Constraints to Housing Production -(Goal 3) Under state law, the Temecula Housing Element must address, and where appropriate and legally possible remove, governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. The City must also consider the role of nongovernmental constraints to housing development and, to the extent feasible, develop programs to reduce the impacts of nongovernmental constraints. The following programs are designed to lessen constraints to housing development. -1213. Development Fees Developers of affordable/senior housing may qualify to receive from the City of Temecula a deferral of development fees or a reimbursement of development fees paid by the developer. Typically, developers of affordable/senior housing pay the City the required development fees. If the development qualifies for a deferral of development fees or a reimbursement of development fees, the developer enters into a contract with the City or other agency, which then sets the terms of the deferral or reimburses the developer for the fees paid. The City will outreach to developers on a biennial basis to discuss development opportunities in the City and will include, as part of this outreach, a discussion of development fees and advertise the potential for deferral and/or reimbursement of development fees. The City will consider the deferral and/or reimbursement of development fees for qualified projects throughout the planning period. Eight -Year Objectives The City of Temecula will continue to enter into development agreements with qualifying senior/affordable housing projects on a case -by -case basis throughout the planning period to provide deferral and/or reimbursement of development fees. • Advertise the City's development fee deferral and/or reimbursement opportunities to the development community on a biennial basis as part of the Ci , 's regular biennial outreach efforts and post information to the City's website. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-22 Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Tim eframe Ongoing, as projects are processed through the Planning Department • Advertise available incentives on the City's website by June 2022 1-314. Expedite Processing of Affordable Housing Projects Under state housing law, residential projects with an affordable component have priority processing when it comes to the provision of water service from water purveyors. Similarly, the City of Temecula will continue to expedite processing of affordable housing projects. The Ci will prepare, adopt, and begin implementing objective design standards by March 1, 2022. The City will proactively outreach to developers biennially to provide education on the City's objective design standards, as part of the City's regular biennial outreach efforts. Eight -Year Objectives • The City will continue to implement expedited review to all projects with an affordable housing component. • The City will ~e�odevelop, adopt, and begin implementing objective edesign standards to evaluate aff9rdable projects; including affordable housing projects, to qualify them expedited processing by March 1, 2022. The City will continue to prioritize projects based on the level of affordability being proposed in order to meet its regional housing need. • The Cit�: mill proactively educate the development community on the City's objective design standards on a biennial basis as part of the City's regular development community outreach efforts. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-23 Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timeframe • Develop, adopt and implement new objective design standards for applicable projects by March 1, 2022 • Ongoing, as projects are processed through the Planning Department. The City already prioritizes affordable housing project processing. The City will advertise via the City's website. -1415. Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing The Temecula Development Code provides for the provision of emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing within the City ___:a.. State i ___ Emergency shelters are permitted in Medium and High Density Residential zones and the City has identified sufficient sites available to accommodate emergency shelters within these zones. The Development Code shall be revised as necessary to ensure that transitional and supportive housing are allowed in residential and mixed -use zones in accordance with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), and to allow eligible supportive housing in zones where multi -family and mixed uses are permitted in accordance with Government Code Sections 65650 through 65656. Eight -Year Objectives • The City will eentinu-&-�jj date the Development Code to permit emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing" identified in the Development Code consistent with Government Code requirements Sections 65650 through 65656 by December 31, 2022. • The City will continue to work with public agencies and private entities to provide adequate resources for the community's homeless population. The City will also, to the extent feasible, participate in efforts to unite organizations and entities that provide services to the homeless. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-24 Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timeframe • Update to the Development Code by December 31, 2022. • Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period 1516. Periodic Consistency Review of General Plan, Municipal Code, and State Law To minimize governmental constraints due to inconsistencies between the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, California codes, state law, or regulatory requirements, the City will conduct a biannual review of the Municipal Code and General Plan to ensure internal consistency and to ensure consistency with legislative and regulatory amendments, adoption of new state laws, and policy changes resulting from case law. Eight -Year Objectives • City staff will track and stay abreast of changes in state housing law and work with the City Attorney to incorporate changes into the General Plan and Municipal Code in order to reduce or remove housing constraints. • The City Attorney will advise staff on significant case law interpretations that may cause the need to amend the General Plan or Municipal Code. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timeframe • Biannually review for consistency CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-25 -1617. Zoning Development Code Amendments — Housing Constraints The City shall update the Development Code to remove constraints to a variety of housing types and ensure the City's standards and permitting requirements are consistent with State law. The update shall address the following: A. Low barrier navigation centers: The Wig -Development Code shall be updated to define and permit low barrier navigation centers consistent with the requirements of Government Code Sections 65660 through 65668, including treating low barrier navigation centers as a use by right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses. B—Employee Housing and Agricultural Worker Housing: The Development Code will be updated to comply with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5, .6, .8. Specifically, the City will only refer to it as employee housing and not make a distinction between agricultural worker versus employee housing types. The Zoning Code wiH be up-d-st 9 17021.6. The Zonifig Code will also be updated to provide for meets the re.tlif rr alth and SafetyCode Seetio 4 702 Q illllfl7NI711iYi1iYi�7 D-.C. Streamlined and ministerial review for eligible affordable housing projects: The Development Code will be updated to ensure that eligible multifamily projects with an affordable component are provided streamlined review and are only subject to objective design standards consistent with relevant provisions of SB 35 and SB 330 as provided by applicable sections of the Government Code, including but not limited to Sections 65905.5, 65913.4, 65940, 65941.1, 65950, and 66300. State law defines objective design standards as those that "involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-26 benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submittal." £iD. Emergency shelter parking: The Development Code will be updated to require sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, in compliance with AB 139. EAccessory Dwelling Units in PDO Zones: The City will amend Planning Development Ordinance Zones 2 and 7 to specifically allow for Accessory Dwelling Units consistent with State law. F. Permanent Supportive Housing. The Development Code will be updated to address permanent supportive housing pursuant to AB 2162. G. Residential Care Facilities. The City will analyze its Residential Care Facilities requirements by December 31, 2022 and amend the Development Code as needed to ensure that it permits residential care facilities consistent with State law. F— Eight-Year Objectives Ensure that the City's Development Code is consistent with State law and update the Development Code as needed to comply with future changes. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timebrame • Analysis of Residential Care Facilities requirements by December 31, 2022 Development Code Amendments adopted by February 2023 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-27 18. Provide Adequate Sites for Lower Income Households on Nonvacant and Vacant Sites Previously Identified The City of Temecula will allow developments by -right pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2W when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on sites identified in Appendix A to accommodate the lower income RHNA that were previously identified in past housing elements (vacant sites identified in two prior cycles and nonvacant sites identified in one prior cycle). The City has identified 60 sites, allof which are vacant, to accommodate a portion of the City's lower -income RHNA. Of these 60 sites, 14 have been included in two prior housing elements. All of these 14 sites are already designated with the City's Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) and already allow by -right approval consistent with Government Code section 65583.2(i). I£ during the course of the planning period, the City should identify additional sites/replacement sites to accommodate a portion of the City's lower -income RHNA, and if the site is vacant and has been included in two prior cycles or is occupied and been included in one prior cam, this program requires that the site be added to the City's AHOZ thereby providing for by -right development when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households consistent with Government Code section 65583.2(i). Eight -Year Objectives • Allow developments by -right pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on sites identified in Appendix A that were previously identified for both the 5`' and 4t' cycle housing elements through implementation of the City's Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-28 Timeframe • Ongoing implementation during the planning period. 19. Mitigation of Nongovernmental Constraints The City of Temecula takes a number of proactive steps to address non- governmental constraints. This includes implementing the City's Affordable Housing Overlay, providing a fee deferral/reimbursement program, and streamlining processes. Temecula provides a free pre- appllcation process where a developer can receive no cost feedback from all City departments during conceptual, due diligence, and pre -submittal timeframes. Eight -Year Obiectives • Continue to help implement the City's Affordable Housing Overlayby issuing an RFP for development of City -owned sites within three years of Housing Element adoption • Continue to implement fee deferral/reimbursement opportunities Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Tim eframe • Issue RFP for City -owned sites for development of affordable housing within three years of Housing Element adoption. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-29 Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock (Goal 4) A community's existing affordable housing stock is a valuable resource that should be conserved and, if necessary, improved to meet habitability requirements. -1720. Preserve At -Risk Housing Units The City of Temecula will implement the following programs on an ongoing basis to conserve the community's affordable housing stock. a. Monitor Units At Risk. • Monitor projects at risk of converting to market rate within the planning period. b. Work with Potential Purchasers: Establish contact with public and nonprofit agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing units at risk. c. Tenant Education: The California Legislature passed AB 1701 in 1998, requiring that property owners give a nine -month notice of their intent to opt out of low-income restrictions. The City will work with tenants of at -risk units and provide them with information regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures. The City will also provide tenants with information regarding Section 8 rent subsidies through the Riverside County Housing Authority and other affordable housing opportunities. The City will implement State Preservation Notice Law (Gov. Code 65863.10, 65863.11, 65863.13) which requires owners to provide tenants and affected public entities (including the City notices regarding expiring rental restrictions starting three years before expiration. d. Proactive Contact: The City will contact property owners of units at risk of converting to market -rate housing within one year of affordability expiration to discuss the City's desire to preserve complexes as affordable housing. Participation from agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing at -risk units will be sought. Coordinate with owners of expiring subsidies to ensure tenants receive the required notices at 3 years, 6 months, and 12 months, per California law. eel. Assist Tenants of Existing Rent -Restricted Units to Obtain Priority Status on Section 8 Waiting List. • Work with the Riverside Housing Authority to place tenants displaced from at -risk units on a priority list for Section 8 rental assistance. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-30 Eight -Year Objectives • The City will monitor the status of affordable projects at risk of converting to market rate. • The City will identify nonprofit organizations as potential purchasers/managers of at -risk housing units. • The City will explore funding sources available to preserve the affordability of projects at risk of converting to market rate or to provide replacement units. • The City will assist qualified tenants to apply for priority status on the Section 8 voucher/certificate program immediately should the owners of the at -risk project choose not to enter into additional restrictions. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department and Riverside Housing Authority Funding Sources • CDBG Funds, and Section 8 Vouchers/ Certificates Timeframe • Annually monitor CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-31 1821. Code Enforcement While the majority of the existing housing stock in Temecula is less than 30 years old, there is a need to enforce housing maintenance for some of the older housing units. The City implements a code enforcement program to correct housing and building code violations. The City has adopted and enforces the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Eight -Year Objectives • The City will continue to seek voluntary compliance for code - related issues and violations to enforce the UBC and offer information regarding the City's housing rehabilitation programs to low- and moderate -income households cited for code violations. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timeframe • Ongoing 1922. Residential Improvement Program The City adopted a Five -Year Consolidated Plan and became a CDBG Entitlement City as of July 2012. The Five -Year Consolidated Plan includes funding a new Residential Improvement Program with CDBG funds. The City will apply for funding on an annual basis. Eight -Year Objectives The City will utilize CDBG funds or other funds, as available, to provide financial assistance for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by lower -income homeowners. Eligible repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry work. • Apply for funding on an annual basis. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-32 Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • CDBG Funds Titneframe • Ongoing, as funding is available 2023. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program The Section 8 rental assistance program extends rental subsidies to very low-income families and the elderly that spend more than 30% of their income on rent. The Section 8 certificate subsidy represents the difference between the excess of 30% of the monthly income and the actual rent (up to the federally determined Fair Market Rent (FMR)). Most Section 8 assistance is issued to recipients as vouchers, which permit tenants to locate their own housing and rent units beyond the FMR, provided the tenants pay the extra rent increment. The City contracts with the Riverside County Housing Authority to administer the Section 8 Certificate/Voucher Program. Eight -Year Objectives • The City will continue to contract with the County of Riverside to administer the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and provide rental assistance to at least 105 very low-income Temecula households. • The City will support the County of Riverside's applications for additional Section 8 allocation. • The City will promote the Section 8 program to second unit owners by publicizing this program and making the information known to City and County agencies and to housing nonprofits. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • HCD Section 8 allocations CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-33 Timeframe • Ongoing 2424. Mobile Home Assistance Program (MPAP) To preserve affordable housing opportunities found within mobile home parks, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provides financial and technical assistance to low- income mobile home park residents through the Mobile Home Assistance Program (MPAP). The MPAP provides loans of up to 50% of the purchase price plus the conversion costs of the mobile home park so that low- income residents or organizations formed by low-income residents can own and/or operate the mobile home park. Heritage Mobile Home Park is the only mobile home park in Temecula. The owners have indicated that they intend to operate the park indefinitely. In the event that the owners decide to close the park, the City will work with the tenants to acquire funding through the MPAP program. Eight -Year Objectives The City will provide technical assistance to Heritage Mobile Home Park residents in pursuing MPAP funds in the event that the owners propose to close the mobile home park. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Tim eframe • Ongoing, as funding is available CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-34 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (Goal 5) The City of Temecula is committed to implementing programs that affirmatively further fair housing. 2225. Equal Housing Opportunity In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the housing program must include actions that affirmatively further fair housing and promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, family size, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, age, disability, or other protected characteristics. The Riverside County Consortium, of which the City is a member, has adopted an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice and has conducted fair housing planning to implement the recommendations identified in the AI. The Fair Housing Program of Riverside County maintains a comprehensive approach to affirmatively further and ensure equal access to housing for all persons. The three major components of this approach are education, training/technical/consultant assistance, and fair housing rights assistance. The Fair Housing Program of Riverside County is also an advocate for affordable housing, legislative reform, local compliance, and research projects relative to fair housing and human rights issues. The agency works with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and HUD in the referral, enforcement, and resolution of housing discrimination cases. In 2017, the City prepared an Assessment of Fair Housing which included a thorough analysis of fair housing issues and goals and programs related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. This Assessment is included as Appendix D to the Housing Element and provides a detailed roadmap for addressing fair housing issues. The Housing Plan includes the City's 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing by reference and directs the City to implement the programs identified therein in accordance with the Assessment's direction. As part of its 6" Cycle Housing Element, the City has further analyzed fair housing issues in Temecula and assessed the City's commitment to affirmatively furthering fair housing. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-35 Eight -Year Objectives General • Implement the programs identified in the City of Temecula 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing. Outreach, Enforcement, and Education Temecula will continue to participate in the Riverside County Consortium in implementing the fair housin lap. • The City is committed to annual outreach, enforcement, and education and will place fair housing brochures at City counters, public libraries, the Temecula Community Center, and the Temecula Community Recreation Center. Material will be provided in English and Spanish. Copies will also be made available for other venues as requested or identified at later dates. • The City will continue to post information regarding fair housing services on the Cite website. Information will be provided in Eny_lishSpanish, Future fair housing workshops can also be advertised on the City website. • The Citv will continue to provide referral services to the Fair Housing Program of Riverside County for residents inquiring about fair housing issues. • The City will continue to update its fair housing brochures to conform to state law. • The City will undertake ongoing efforts to educate the public about �6 affordable housing. • The City will work with the Fair Housing Program of Riverside F County to identifiZ,by October 2022 any specificr hiareas in the Cite which have higher levels of discrimination claims and will target outreach and education to these areas. • The City will continue to utilize CDBG funds to affirmatively further fair housing choice through the provision of fair housing education, counseling, anti -discrimination and landlord -tenant mediation services and to provide eaual housing opportunities for protected classes. Housing Mobility Enhancement CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-36 • Implement Program 1, Land Use Policy and Development Ca aci • ImPlement Program 8, Land Assemblage and Affordable Housing Development • Implement Program 10, Special Needs Housing Construction • ImPlement Program 17, Development Code Amendments • Implement Program 19, Mitigation of Nongovernmental Constraints New Housing Choices and Affordability in High Opportunity Areas • Implement Program 1, Land Use Policy and Development Ca aci • Implement Program 3, Public Property Conversion to Housing Program • Implement Program 5, Accessory Dwelling Units • Implement Program 6, Large Sites • Implement Program 14, Expedite Processing of Affordable Housing Projects Place -Based Strategies for Community Preservation and Revitalization • Implement Program 4, Replacement of Affordable Units • Implement Program 20, Preserve At -Risk Housing Units • Implement Program 21, Code Enforcement • Implement Program 22, Residential Rehabilitation Program • Implement Program 24, Mobile Home Assistance Program Displacement Protection • Implement Program 4, Replacement of Affordable Units • Implement Program 27, Economic Displacement Risk Analysis • Implement Program 28, Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-37 Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • CDBG,, General Funds, other grant funding sources Timeframe • Quarterly check -ins with fair housing service providers to review quarterly reporting information and identify anspecific areas of concern • Annual coordination with fair housing service providers and other organizations as part of the City's CDBG planning process CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-38 • At least quarterly fair housing advertisements to the City's social media accounts directly the public to available resources • OngeingBiennial coordination with the development community • Identify, by October 2022, anyspecific geographic areas in the City which have higher levels of discrimination claims and target outreach and education to these areas by March 2023 • Various Program -specific implementation timeframes specified therein 2326. Housing Referral Directory The City provides housing referral services through its Housing Referral Directory. People contacting the City are provided information on housing projects offering housing specific to a person's needs. Eight -Year Objectives The City will continue to offer housing referral services through its Housing Referral Directory. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timeframe • Ongoing, as funding is available 2427. Economic Displacement Risk Analysis The City of Temecula can reduce the impact of displacement when it occurs by preventing practices that increase or enable displacement. To determine if market force economic displacement is occurring due to development of new housing, increased housing costs, or other factors, the City will conduct a study to determine if individuals and families are being displaced and to evaluate local conditions that may contribute to displacement. The study will analyze gentrification locally and will assess CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-39 how new development and community investments may potentially influence displacement. If this study shows that displacement is occurring, the City will develop an action program based on the identified causes of displacement, including specific actions to monitor and mitigate displacement. Annual review of the action program may result in modifications to further reduce displacement risk. This program addresses the fair housing issue of disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. This program addresses one of the prioritized contributing factors (high demand for affordable housing, due to the high costs in the community and the region) identified in the Fair Housing Analysis included in the Background Report. To address this contributing factor, the City will monitor how new development has the potential to further exacerbate the high cost of land and identify strategies and programs to reduce or prevent economic displacement. Given that the sites identified for new residential development are currently vacant and already zoned to accommodate residential uses, the City anticipates that new development will not have a significant impact on the cost of land but will monitor this condition. Eight -Year Oblectives Conduct a Displacement Risk Analysis Study to identify the local conditions that lead to displacement and develop and implement an action program based on the results. Identify potential partners to participate in the study that specialize in eviction -related topics related to displacement. Annually monitor program effectiveness. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timeframe Conduct study by December 31, 2023 and begin to establish resulting programs by June 1, 2024. Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-40 28. Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel The City of Temecula is committed to analyzing and improving fair housing issues in the City. Based on the results of the analysis conducted for the City's 6' Cycle Housing Element Update and the findings of the City's 2017 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Report, the City will assemble a new Technical Assistance Panel (TAPI to annually monitor the City's existing fair housing programs, identify any areas of concern, and make recommendations for program improvements to better address the concerns of the community. This will include an evaluation of programs included in the Housing Plan as well as other corresponding efforts including future updates to the City's Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, C-BDGCDBG planning, CIP planning, the budget planning, and use of other grants and outside funding. The TAP is expected to include the participation of the City Counc gril Finance Subcommittee, community oups, nonprofits, and/or other advisory groups to ensure that community interests are well -represented. The City will work diligently to specifically engage panelists focused on the issues of lower -income communities and communities with special needs, including persons with disabilities and persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness. TAP will meet in conjunction with the City's CDBG annual program review (this is composed of nonprofits, stakeholders, and agencies which are conducted near the end of each calendar year (near the APR timeframe). As specified in the Housing Element Background Report, the City has identified the three key contributing factors, in order of priority. These factors are identified below with a summary of how this program will help address these factors. 1. Increased demand of This program will bring together affordable housing with providers of affordable housing and supportive services to providers of supportive services for serve special needs special needs populations. Together, the populations. TAP will consider issues of fair housing holistically and identi ,: ol2l2ortunities to better support the developers/providers of these services. By linking the timing of the TAP meeting with the City's CDBH annual program review, the City can identify specific issues and opportunities in real time and make recommendations CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-41 on how the City can better support thethe development of affordable housing with supportive services to serve special needs populations. 2. High demand for The City has identified affordable housing, due nongovernmental constraints such as to the high housing high housing costs in the community costs in the community and the region as a priority contributing and the region. factor to fair housing. The City has a number of other programs, including implementation of the City's Affordable Housing Overlay, which help to address this contributing factor. As part of this program, the TAP will consider ways that the City can help to reduce nongovernmental constraints or provide additional funding or opportunities for the development of more affordable housing options. This could include targeted use of the City's CDBG funds in a manner consistent with reducing nongovernmental constraints and addressing the demand for additional more affordable housing options in Temecula. 3. Lack of resources for The TAP will provide input, guidance, fair housing agencies and administrative resources for fair and organizations. housing agencies and organizations serving Temecula. Specifically, the TAP is expected to serve as a resource to gain input on fair housing issues as well as serve as ambassadors for the Ci , 's fair housing programs. This process will help enhance the administrative resources available for fair housing agencies and organizations by expanding the City's education program and integrating different partners into the fair housing planning process. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-42 Eight -Year Ob>ectives • Assemble a TAP and meet annually to consider fair housing issues and identify opportunities to better meet the needs of the Temecula community. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget Timeframe • Meet with the TAP annually in conjunction with the City's CDBG annual program review Promote Public Participation (Goal 6) The City of Temecula values the role the public plays in planning for fair and equitable housing options for current and future residents. 2-529. Housing Element Monitoring and Reporting To ensure that the housing programs identified in this Housing Element are implemented and achieve their goals, an accurate monitoring and reporting system is required. Service agencies receiving CDBG funding from the City are required to report on their program accomplishments at least annually. Records from service agencies help the City assess the extent of housing and supportive service needs, particularly regarding special needs populations. The City is also required to submit annual reports to the state addressing its success in implementing the General Plan and Housing Element. These reports provide decision -makers with useful information regarding how successful the housing programs are in meeting the needs of the community. Eight -Year Objectives The City will continue to require that service agencies report their accomplishments annually. This information will be used by the City to assess the community's housing needs and how well these needs are being met by the existing programs. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-43 • The City will continue to submit annual reports to the state assessing the implementation of the General Plan and Housing Element. Responsible Agencies • Planning Department Funding Sources • Departmental Budget and CDBG Funds Tim eframe • Annually CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-44 II. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES State law requires the Housing Element to include quantified objectives for the maximum number of units that can be constructed, rehabilitated or conserved. Policies and programs establish the strategies to achieve these objectives. The City's quantified objectives are described under each program, and represent the City's best effort in implementing each of the programs. Assumptions are based on past program performance and funding availability, construction trends, land availability, and future programs that will enhance program effectiveness and achieve full implementation of the City's housing goals. The new construction objectives shown in the table are based on the City's RHNA for the 2021-2029 planning period for very low-, low and moderate -income housing, historic trends, and expectations for new second units. Rehabilitation and conservation objectives are based on specific program targets, including such programs as use of Section 8 rental housing vouchers. The table below summarizes the City's quantified objectives for housing during the 2021-2029 planning period. Table 1: Quantified Objectives 2021-2029 Income Category New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/ Preservation Extremely Low 136 0 40256 Very Low 136 35 Low 240 0 Moderate 622 0 0 Above Moderate 1,004 0 0 Totals 2,138 35 U0256 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-45 This baa intentionally let blank. �i 12 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART l: HOUSING PLAN HP-46 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT PART 2: BACKGROUND REPORT CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Tbispage intentionally left blank. F TABLE OF CONTENTS Cycle 6 Housing Element Update....................................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 A. Community Context...................................................................................................................................1 B. State Policy and Authorization...................................................................................................................2 C. Organization of the Housing Element Background Report and Policy Document.....................................3 D. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements...........................................................................................4 E. Data Sources and Glossary.......................................................................................................................4 F. Public Participation....................................................................................................................................5 Il. Accomplishments Under the 5th Cycle Housing Element............................................................... 1 1 A. Review of 5th Cycle Housing Element.....................................................................................................11 B. Housing Production During 5th Cycle RHNA Period...............................................................................11 C. Appropriateness and Effectiveness of 5th Cycle Housing Element.........................................................12 III. Housing Needs Assessment........................................................................................................26 1. Introduction and Background...................................................................................................................26 2. Population Trends and Characteristics....................................................................................................27 C. Household Characteristics.......................................................................................................................32 D. Income..................................................................................................................................................... 34 E. Housing Characteristics...........................................................................................................................38 F. Housing Costs.........................................................................................................................................43 G. Future Housing Needs.................................................................................................................................52 H. Special Needs Groups.................................................................................................................................53 I. Units at Risk of Conversion............................................................................................................................68 J. Estimates of Housing Need...........................................................................................................................73 IV. Constraints on Housing Production........................................................................................... 74 A. Potential Non -Governmental Constraints................................................................................................74 B. Governmental Constraints.......................................................................................................................78 C. State Tax Policies and Regulations.......................................................................................................128 D. Infrastructure Constraints......................................................................................................................129 E. Environmental Constraints....................................................................................................................130 V. Housing Resources............................................................................................................. 135 A. Regional Housing Need.........................................................................................................................135 B. Progress Towards the RHNA................................................................................................................136 C. Sites for Housing Development.............................................................................................................139 C. Housing, Financial, and Services Resources........................................................................................154 D. Administrative Resources......................................................................................................................159 E. Environmental Constraints....................................................................................................................161 F. Energy Conservation and Climate Change...........................................................................................161 G. Consistency with the General Plan............................................................................................................162 H. Relationship to Other City Plans and Policies............................................................................................163 I. Priority for Water and Sewer........................................................................................................................164 VI. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Analysis................................................................ 165 A. Fair Housing Needs Assessment..........................................................................................................166 B. Analysis of Available Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge.........................................168 C. Disproportionate Housing Need............................................................................................................245 D. Displacement Risk.................................................................................................................................262 E. Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues in Temecula.............................................267 F. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686....................................................................................................271 G. Analysis of Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Priorities and Goals...............................................274 l 1� I 01 I"Ah1\( I I I \11 \I li1\0U\I� I�11\ Ili, LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation - 5th Cycle Progress...............................................................12 Table 2: 5th Cycle Program Evaluation.............................................................................................................15 Table 3: Population Trends - Neighboring Jurisdictions................................................................................27 Table 4: Population by Age (2018).....................................................................................................................28 Table 5: Race and Ethnicity(2018).....................................................................................................................29 Table 6: Job Growth and Employment Status...................................................................................................29 Table7: Jobs by Industry ...................................................................................................................................30 Table8: Jobs by Occupation..............................................................................................................................31 Table 9: Travel Time to Work(2018)...................................................................................................................31 Table 10: Commute Method(2018).....................................................................................................................31 Table 11: Households by Tenure and Age (2018).............................................................................................33 Table 12: Household Size by Tenure (2018)......................................................................................................34 Table 13: Median Household and Per Capita Income.......................................................................................34 Table 14: Household Income for All Households and by Tenure(2018).........................................................35 Table 15: Households by Income Group(2017)................................................................................................36 Table 16: Occupations with Wages for Extremely Low to very Low -Income Households (2020).................37 Table 17: Housing Stock by Type and Vacancy (2020)....................................................................................38 Table 18: Vacancy by Type(2018)......................................................................................................................39 Table 19: Housing Stock Conditions (2018)......................................................................................................40 Table 20: Overcrowding by Tenure(2018).........................................................................................................42 Table 21: Household Size by Tenure (2018)......................................................................................................42 Table 22: Number of Bedrooms by Tenure (2018)............................................................................................43 Table 23: Homes for Sale (May 2021).................................................................................................................44 Table 24: Median Home Value by Community..................................................................................................45 Table 25: Rental Costs(2018).............................................................................................................................45 Table 26: Rental Rates by Number of Bedrooms..............................................................................................46 Table 27: State Income Limits - Riverside County(2021)................................................................................47 Table 28: Housing Affordability by Income Group...........................................................................................48 Table 29: Households by Income Level and Overpayment (2017)..................................................................50 Table 30: Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units.......................................................................................51 Table 31: Mobile Home Parks in Temecula.......................................................................................................52 Table 32: Regional Housing Needs Allocation - 6th Cycle..............................................................................53 Table 33: Senior Population and Households (2010 and 2018).......................................................................54 Table 34: Householder Age by Tenure (2018)........................................................••••••................................•....55 Table 35: Disabilities by Disability Type(2018).................................................................................................57 Table 36: Disabled Persons by Employment Status (2018).............................................................................58 Table 37: Developmentally Disabled Persons by Residence Type(2018)......................................................59 Table 38: Facilities and Services for Disabled Persons................................................................................... 60 Table 39: Median Income By Household Size(2018)........................................................................................61 Table 40: Household Size versus Bedroom Size by Tenure(2018).................................................................62 Table 41: Families and Female Householder with Children Under 18 (2018)................................................. 63 Table 42: Homeless Facilities(2020)*................................................................................................................66 Table 43: Facilities and Services for the Homeless.......................................................................................... 67 Table 44: Summary of at -Risk Subsidized Housing Units............................................................................... 68 Table45: Summary of Needs.............................................................................................................................. 73 Table 46: Residential Development Standards.................................................................................................83 Table 47: Residential Development Standards - Old Town Specific Plan......................................................85 Table 48: Residential Development Standards - Planning Development Overlays.......................................86 Table 49: Parking Space Requirements.............................................................................................................87 Table 50: Permitted Housing By Zoning District...............................................................................................94 Table 51: Permitted Housing By Zoning District...............................................................................................96 Table 52: Housing Qualifying for Density Bonus..............................................................................................99 Table 53: Density Bonuses Allowed................................................................................................................100 Table 54: Planning Fee Schedule.....................................................................................................................107 Table 55: Development Impact Fees For The City of Temecula....................................................................109 Table 56: Total Processing and Fees for Typical Single- and Multi -Family Units........................................110 Table 57: Planning and Zoning Approval Authority.......................................................................................114 Table 58: Typical Processing Times for Single Family Units (Tract), Multi -Family Units, and Single -Family (Custom Homes)................................................................................................................................................124 Table 59: Projects with Zone Changes, General Plan Amendments & E/Rs*..............................................124 U I Y OI 1 LMLCULA C,LNLRAL PLAN HBR-II CYCLL 6 HOUSING LLLMLNT BACKGROUND RLPORT Table 60: Regional Housing Need Allocation, 2021-2029...............................................................................135 Table 61: Progress Towards Meeting the 2021-2029 RHNA...........................................................................136 Table 62: Remaining RHNA..............................................................................................................................138 Table 63: Vacant Residential Sites (Exclusive of Specific Plans).................................................................143 Table 64: Vacant Residential Land within Specific Plan Areas.....................................................................146 Table65: Large Lot Inventory ...........................................................................................................................151 Table 66: Capacity Adjustment Factors - Outside of Specific Plans............................................................152 Table 67: Capacity Adjustment Factors - Inside of Specific Plans...............................................................153 Table 68: Comparison of RHNA Candidate Sites Realistic Capacity and RHNA..........................................154 Table 69: Compliance with Fair Housing Laws...............................................................................................173 Table 70: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends..................................................................................................177 Table 71: Median Household Incomes.............................................................................................................206 Table 72: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity.......................................................................................218 Table 73: Overview of ROI Data Point Indicators............................................................................................219 Table 74: People -Based Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) Low and Lowest Opportunity Census Tracts, Temecula............................................................................................................................................................ 231 Table 75: Place -Based Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) Low Opportunity Census Tract, Temecula ...... 231 Table 76: Opportunity Resource Levels by Census Tract............................................................................. 233 Table 77: Lower Resource Census Tract Analysis.........................................................................................234 Table 78: Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs.........................................246 Table 79: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors..............................................................................274 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Median Home Sales Price for Existing Homes..................................................................................44 Figure 2 Vacant Developable Parcels in the City of Temecula......................................................................147 Figure 3: Census Tracts within Temecula.......................................................................................................171 Figure 4: Diversity Index by Census Block - City of Temecula.....................................................................183 Figure 5: Diversity Index by Census Block - Countywide..............................................................................185 Figure 6: Female -Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present - City of Temecula..................187 Figure 7: Female -Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present - Countywide ...........................189 Figure 8: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract - City of Temecula .........................191 Figure 9: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract - Countywide..................................193 Figure 10: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract - City of Temecula........................................195 Figure 11: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract - Countywide.................................................197 Figure 12: Median Household Income by Block Group - City of Temecula.................................................199 Figure 13: Median Household Income by Block Group - Countywide.........................................................201 Figure 14: Housing Choice Vouchers..............................................................................................................203 Figure 15: Racial Demographics 2010 - City of Temecula.............................................................................207 Figure 16: Racial Demographics 2018 - City of Temecula.............................................................................209 Figure 17: Racial Demographics 2010 - Countywide.....................................................................................212 Figure 18: Racial Demographics 2018 - Countywide.....................................................................................214 Figure 19: People -Based Opportunities by Census Tract- City of Temecula.............................................221 Figure 20: People -Based Opportunities by Census Tract- Countywide.....................................................223 Figure 21: Place -Based Opportunities by Census Tract - City of Temecula...............................................225 Figure 22: Place -Based Opportunities by Census Tract - Countywide........................................................ 227 Figure 23: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Map - City of Temecula.................................................................241 Figure 24: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Map - Countywide.........................................................................243 Figure 25: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group - City of Temecula..........................................................249 Figure 26: Cost -Burdened Renter Households by Census Tract - City of Temecula..................................251 Figure 27: Cost -Burdened Renter Households by Census Tract - Countywide...........................................253 Figure 28: Cost -Burdened Owner Households by Census Tract - City of Temecula..................................255 Figure 29: Cost -Burdened Owner Households by Census Tract - Countywide...........................................257 Figure 30: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract - City of Temecula.................................................259 Figure 31: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract - Countywide......................................................... 265 Figure 32: Displacement Risk - City of Temecula.......................................................................................... 269 I Bl" III APPENDICES Appendix A — Housing Site Inventory Appendix B — Glossary Appendix C — Public Engagement Summary Appendix D — 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing, Temecula CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-IV CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT , --I HOUSING ELEMENT I. INTRODUCTION A. Community Context Nestled in Temecula Valley in southwestern Riverside County, just north of the San Diego County line, sits the City of Temecula, which was incorporated in 1989. Having grown from a modest initial incorporated population of 27,099, the City of Temecula is currently home to approximately 112,000 residents in an area of roughly 30 square miles. The City is bounded by the City of Murrieta to the north, unincorporated areas within the County of Riverside to the east, west, and south, and unincorporated areas within the County of San Diego to the south. Regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 15, a north/south freeway that connects the Inland Empire region of Riverside and San Bernardino counties to San Diego County, and State Route 79, a primarily east/west highway (although it runs concurrent with I-15 through the City of Temecula) that links Interstate 10 with Interstate 15, and links Temecula to communities further east in unincorporated Riverside and San Diego counties. Since its early beginning, the Temecula Valley has always been a place where the combination of mild climate and beautiful rolling hills have attracted human settlement. The hillsides were the home of the Temecula Indians, the first residents of the area. Ancestors of the Temecula Indians were in this area as early as 900 A.D. The native people from here to the coast who shared the same language and culture became commonly known as the Luisenos, because many of their villages were once under the influence of Mission San Luis Rey. Temecula's modern European history began in the 1800s, when Old Town Temecula played an important role as a stop along the Butterfield Overland stagecoach line, which was to run between St. Louis and San Francisco. Old Town Temecula is the historic core of the City and is located in its western portion. Change from a small agricultural community to an urbanized City began in earnest in 1964 when Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical purchased the 87,500-acre Vail Ranch. Development of the ranch occurred under the design of a master plan that continues to influence the land use pattern and circulation system of Temecula today. While much of the City's development pattern has been guided by master plans over the past 50 years, as the City looks to CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-1 accommodate a new generation of residents, future development will occur in line with new master plans (including "Specific Plans") which set the framework for more diverse communities which offer a broader range of housing and lifestyle choices. Moreover, while there continues to be vacant land left to develop in Temecula, the majority of it is currently entitled, under construction, or undevelopable; looking forward, the City is excited to plan for and implement strategic programs which reflect this new development pattern. B. State Policy and Authorization State Housing Law (Government Code Section 65583) requires that a "housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory -built housing, and mobile homes, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community." This report is an update of the Housing Element adopted by the City in 2013. The assessment and inventory must include all of the following: Analysis of population and employment trends, documentation of projections, and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. Such existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 of the Government Code. • Analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. • An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship between zoning, public facilities, and city services to these sites. Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels and for persons with disabilities, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-2 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Analysis of potential and actual non -governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, requests to develop housing at densities below the minimum densities in the inventory of sites, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that hinder the construction of a locality's share of the regional housing need. • Analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly, disabled, including developmentally disabled, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. • Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. • Analysis of existing assisted multifamily rental housing developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing to market -rate during the next 10 years. C. Organization of the Housing Element Background Report and Policy Document The City faces important housing issues such as preserving the historic traditions of the community, ensuring that new development is compatible with the existing character, providing a range of housing that meets the needs of all residents, ensuring that affordable housing is available to all segments of the community, and balancing employment with housing opportunities. The Background Report of this housing element identifies the nature and extent of Temecula's housing needs, including those of special populations, potential housing resources (land and funds), potential constraints to housing production, and energy conservation opportunities. By examining the City's housing, resources, and constraints, the City can then determine a plan of action for providing adequate housing. This plan is presented in the Housing Plan, which is the policy component of the Housing Element. In addition to identifying housing needs, the Background Report also presents information regarding the setting in which these needs occur. This information is instrumental in providing a better understanding of the community, which in turn is essential for the planning of future housing needs. Since the update of the City's last Housing Element in 2013, statutory changes have occurred that must be included in the 2021-2029 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-3 Temecula Housing Element. These laws have been incorporated in the appropriate sections throughout this Background Report (Part 2 of the Housing Element) as well as in its accompanying Housing Plan (Part 1). D. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements The Temecula General Plan comprises the following 10 elements: (1) Land Use; (2) Circulation; (3) Housing; (4) Open Space/ Conservation; (5) Growth Management/Public Facilities; (6) Public Safety; (7) Noise; (8) Air Quality; (9) Community Design; and (10) Economic Development. Background information and policy direction presented in one element is also reflected in other General Plan elements. For example, residential development capacities established in the Land Use Element are incorporated within the Housing Element. The General Plan goals and policies were reviewed for consistency with proposals recommended in this Housing Element update. This Housing Element builds upon other General Plan elements and is consistent with the goals and policies set forth by the General Plan. City staff maintains a conscious effort to ensure that revisions to any element of the General Plan achieve internal consistency among all General Plan elements. The City also recognizes that recent changes to State laws require the updating of various elements of the General Plan, upon update of the Housing Element, to address the following issues: • Required amendment to address flood hazards and flood management, fire hazards, sea level rises, and other climate change -related issues. E. Data Sources and Glossary The data used for the completion of this Housing Element comes from a variety of sources, including the United States Census, the American Community Survey, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, various studies produced by the City of Temecula, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) approved data set, the California Department of Finance, the California Department of Employment Development, local newspapers, and local real estate agents. These data sources represent the best data available at the time this Housing Element was prepared. This Housing Element Background Report, along with the state - mandated requirements, includes a glossary of terms used in the element. This glossary has been included to allow readers to better CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-4 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT understand the terminology used in the Housing Element discussion; it can be found in Appendix B of this element. F. Public Participation State law requires that "the local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element ." (Government Code Section 65583). Residents of Temecula and other key community stakeholders have had, and will continue to have, several opportunities to provide input during the development of the Housing Element. In February 2020, the City launched its Housing Element Update website (TemeculaCA.gov/housing) to provide the community with an overview of the project, answer key questions, explain the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and host links for community surveys and workshops. Housing Survey • On March 26, 2020, the City released a robust bilingual Housing Survey (available in English and Spanish) to assess current conditions and better understand community priorities regarding housing in Temecula. By the time the survey was closed at the end of August 2020, the City had received over 850 responses. From March through August 2020, the City undertook the following activities to promote the Housing Element Update, educate the community regarding housing opportunities and challenges, and encourage participation in the Survey: Newsletter sent to every resident (approximately 33,000 addresses) which included an article about the Housing Element • Numerous social media posts using the hashtag #HouseThis? resulting in 52,000 social media impressions/views and 729 social media impressions generated • Emails sent to over 10,000 stakeholders • Targeted advertisements shared with the Temecula Chamber and Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors • Advertisements and educational material shared on Channel 3 (local broadcast) and the City's YouTube channel • To specifically reach out to lower income residents�Ppaper copies of the Housing Survey (in English and Spanish) were CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-5 made available at City Hall, the Senior Center, area laundromats, and through the City's Homeless Liaisons • The results of the above Public Participation were incorporated in the City's Housing Programs. Permit Ready ADUs, Missing Middle Housing Workshops, and affordable housing programs were all incorporated into the Housing Plan based on constituent feedback The results of the Housing Survey were summarized in a Community Survey Report which was finalized in October 2020 and posted to the City's website for public review and consideration; the Community Survey Report is included as Appendix C. Virtual Community Workshop In an effort to further educate the community regarding the Housing Element Update, the City hosted a live bilingual (English and Spanish) Virtual Community Workshop on September 23, 2020 using Zoom due to social distancing requirements related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Virtual Community Workshop consisted of a recorded presentation providing an overview of the project, local housing conditions and socioeconomic information, and key issues and opportunities which will be addressed in the City's updated Housing Element. Videos of the English- and Spanish -language presentations (which included translated PowerPoint presentations) were made available on the City's website following the live presentation. As of June 1, 2021, the presentation has been viewed 131 times. Through this process, the City received the following general types of feedback: • More affordable housing options should be available to meet the needs of all household incomes • The historic character of Temecula should be preserved • New residential growth shod be balanced with new infrastructure improvements • People who grow up in Temecula shod be able to afford to continue to live here Draft Housing Element Public Review The Draft Housing Element was circulated for a 30-day Public Review eirbeginning on August 17, 2021 and concluding on September 15, 2021). As part of this review period, the City hosted a community open house on August 17, 2021 to introduce the Draft Housing Element and solicit public feedback on the Housing Plan. The CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-6 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT community open house was advertised on social media in English and Spanish and flyers were posted throughout the community in both languages. Through this process, the City received the following feedback, which is also detailed in Appendix C: •_ Address the needs of missing middle housing • Promote the development of more affordable housing options in the Citv • Work collaboratively with regional partners to secure additional funding and plan for housing at a regional level • Work collaboratively with local employers to address the housing needs of people working in Temecula • Allow for mixed -use development • Be sensitive to existing neighborhoods As a result of public feedback received on the Draft Housing Element, two new policies olicies 2.8 and 2.9) were dcvcloped and included in the Housing Plan. Race, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Commission The Housing Element was presented to the City's Race, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (REDI) Commission on October 14, 2021. The Commission provided feedback on programs, and the outreach that the City conducted to ensure that the Housing Element incorporated programs and a process that included as many members of the community as possible. Stakeholder Engagement The City mailed or emailed meeting notification letters to numerous stakeholders and interested parties, with a special focus on parties presenting the needs of lower income residents, including: • Affirmed Housing • Amcal Housing • Assistance League of Temecula Valley • Atria Senior Living • Autism Society Inland Empire • Birth Choice • Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County • Bridge Housing • Building Industry Association • California Apartment Association Inland Empire • California State University San Marcos, Temecula • Canine Support Teams CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-7 Catholic Charities Chemo Buddies 4 Life Circle of Care Ministries City of Murrieta City of Temecula CityNet Coachella Valley Housing Coalition Community Access Center Community Mission of Hope Comprehensive Autism Center County of Riverside Department of Social Services County of Riverside Economic Development Agency County of Riverside Health Department Court Appointed Special Advocate of Riverside County Desert AIDS Economic Development of Southwest California Fair Housing Counsel of Riverside County, Inc. Foothill AIDS Go Banana GRID Alternatives Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley Health to Hope Hitzke Consulting Homeowners Associations Hospice of the Valleys Housing Authority of the County of Riverside Inland Regional Center John Stewart Company Ken Follis League of Women Voters Love of Christ Fellowship Church Michelle's Place Mission Village Apartments OC YMCA Our Nicholas Foundation Path of Life Ministries Pechanga Casino Project Touch Rancho Community Church Rancho Damacitas Rancho en Espanol Riverbank Village Apartments Riverside City and County CoC Riverside County Office on Aging Riverside County Sheriff Riverside Transit Agency Riverside County Veterans Services HBK-8 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT • Rose Again Foundation • SAFE Alternatives for Everyone • Safety Research Associates, Inc • Smart Moms • Solari Enterprises • Southern California Council of Governments • Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors • Southwest Workforce Development Center • St. Catherine's Catholic Church • State Council on Developmental Disabilities • State of California Department of Housing and Community Development • Temecula Homeless Coalition • Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission • Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce • Temecula Valley Historical Society • Temecula Valley Unified School District • Temecula Valley Union School District Adult Transition Program • Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association • The Center for Life Change • U.S. Vets Initiative • VA Loma Linda Healthcare • Various religious institutions • Voice of Children • Wells Fargo • Western Riverside Council of Governments Final Housing Element 3Prior to adoption the -of the Fina113r* t Housing Element a Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the local newspaper and a direct mailing sent to organizations representing the interests of low and moderate income households and persons with special needs. Other Comments Received The City has not yet received any other public comments on the Housing Element Update separate from those collected through the above mentioned engagement efforts. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-9 rj This page intentionally left blank. um CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-10 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT II. ACCOMPLISHMENTS CINDER THE 5TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT The following sections reviews and evaluates the City's progress in implementing the 5th Cycle (2014-2021) Housing Element. This section also analyzes the difference between projected housing need and actual housing production. A. Review of 51h Cycle Housing Element The 5th Cycle Housing Element program strategy focused on the accomplishment of policies and implementation of programs to provide adequate housing sites; assist in development of affordable housing; remove governmental constraints; conserve and improve existing affordable housing; and promote equal housing opportunity. The 5th Cycle Housing Element identified the following goals: GOAL 1: Provide Adequate Housing Sites Provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents. GOAL 2: Assist in Development of Affordable Housing Provide affordable housing for all economic segments of Temecula. GOAL 3: Remove Governmental Constraints Remove governmental constraints in the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible. GOAL 4: Conserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing Conserve the existing affordable housing stock. AL 5: Promote Equal Housing Opportunities Provide equal housing opportunities for all residents in Temecula. B. Housing Production During 5th Cycle RHNA Period The City's 5th Cycle Housing Element specifically addressed housing needs for the City from 2014 through 2021 and will continue to be implemented through October 2021, when the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element will be adopted. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR I Table 1 below shows the total number of housing units built in the City during the 5th RHNA cycle to date and compares these units with the units required to be accommodated under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). During the 2014-2021 RHNA period, 1,604 units were constructed in the City and another 291 are under construction and will be delivered on or before June 30, 2021, as shown in Table 1. Between units built and under construction, the City will have delivered 1,895 housing units, 127% of its 5`I' Cycle RHNA. Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation — 5th Cycle Progress 1 E 3 0 � x W -j y 7 3 y `T a p y > 0 0 a m o F RHNA 187 188 251 271 596 1,493 Allocation Built 7 8 0 15 1,574 1,604 Under 0 0 0 85 206 291 Construction/ Permitted Remaining 180 180 251 171 0 (Surplus 0 Allocation of 1,184 units) Source: City of Temecula, 2021 C. Appropriateness and Effectiveness of 5th Cycle Housing Element The overarching goals and policies of the 5th Cycle Housing Element continue to be appropriate to encourage the City's housing goals. While most goals, policies, and programs included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element continue to be appropriate to address the City's housing nccds, the Housing Plan will be updated to provide clearer guidance, to remove redundancies, and to provide more specific direction to encourage affordable and special needs housing at viable sites and affirmatively further fair housing. The Housing Plan will also be updated to streamline programs so that they are easier for staff to implement and to include a matrix of programs that includes mid -cycle timing priorities to make it easier to identify the applicability and timing of programs during the planning period. To improve the ease of use of the Housing Plan, the housing programs will be presented as a user- friendly table. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-12 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT As discussed in Table 2, most housing programs have been effective or are necessary. The intent of these programs will be kept in the Housing Plan, with revisions to address identified specific housing needs, constraints, affirmatively furthering fair housing, or other concerns identified as part of this update. The City implemented many of the housing programs in the last several years and anticipates that these changes will further encourage workforce, affordable, and special needs housing. The City of Temecula has a variety of affordable housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. By partnering with government agencies, non-profit organizations, and private property owners, it works to create safe and affordable housing for all residents of our community. All the affordable housing units located within the City of Temecula are owned and managed by private property managers. The City maintains a robust "Affordable Housing Brochure" which is available online and at City Hall which catalogs all the City's affordable multi -family rental units and provides the address, unit count, and contact information for each property. The Housing Plan, included as Part 1 to this 2021-2029 Housing Element includes modifications to make programs more effective, clarify objectives, and ensure that the programs are implementable. See the Housing Plan provided for the goals, policies, and programs of this Housing Element. While the City took a number of significant steps to promote housing during the prior planning period, including adopting General Plan Amendments that added over 3,000 additional residential units to the City's housing stock, the experience of Temecula and other small communities throughout the State demonstrates that it is very difficult for local governments to meet their fair share housing goals for lower and moderate income housing when working alone. All cities, including Temecula, have limited financial and staffing resources and require substantial state and/or federal assistance, which is not always available at the levels necessary to support the City's housing needs, as well as the technical assistance of area non-profit housing developers and agencies. Additionally, Temecula is also facing infrastructure constraints outside of its control, including an immediate need for I-15 improvements and other transportation improvements. As discussed below, the City has modified some of its existing programs to better reflect community priorities and meet state housing objectives, and has introduced a number of new programs to further address short- and long-term housing needs. In order to develop an effective housing plan for the 2021-2029 period, the City must assess the effectiveness of its existing housing programs and determine the continued appropriateness of such programs in CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-13 addressing housing adequacy, affordability, and availability issues. This section evaluates the accomplishments of each program against the objectives established in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, explains any discrepancy in program achievements, and recommends programmatic changes to the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Cumulative Efforts to Address Special Housing Needs Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, -policies, and related actions to meet the community's special housing needs e.g.. low income households, elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers, persons experiencing homelessness, and non-English speakers). As shown in Table 2, during the 2014-2021 RHNA period, the City worked diligently to continuously promote housing for special needs groups in a variety of ways by: • Adoption of the City's Affordable Housing Overlay to expand housing opportunities for lower income households; • Continuing to permit emergency shelters in accordance with State law and providing resources to persons experiencing homelessness seeking shelter; • Assisting low income and elderly residents that apply for Section 8 rental assistance; • Amending the Municipal Code to require that transitional/supportive housing be subject to the same permit processing procedures as other housing in the same zone and to require single room occupancy type -units SROs) to be permitted by right within all residential zones; • Adoption of an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to allow for the development of a unique housing option well -suited to meet the needs of the City's lower -income and elderly populations; • Continuing to support and provide resources for individual homeowners requesting exemptions to zoning and development standards in order to accommodate a disability thereby assisting persons with disabilities; • Providing bilingual handouts and other materials on fair housing to assist non-English speakers. The City has considered the cumulative efforts to address special housing needs and finds that the City's existing programs to address the community's 's special housing needs, particularly for lower income households, the elderly, persons experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, and non-English speakers, continue to be relevant and will be continued in the next planning�2eriod. Through this review, the CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-14 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT City has identified the need to amend specific Housing Programs to more thoroughly address the needs of large households, female headed households, and farmworkers. Programs 9 (Housing for Extremely Low -Income Households),10 (Special Needs Housing Construction), 17 (Development Code Amendments), and 25 (Equal Housing 012portuniW have been amended to further address the community's special housing needs. The City will continue to review progress towards addressing these needs as part of each Housing Element Annual Progress Report. Table 2: 5th Cycle Program Evaluation Program Eight -Year Objective Progress/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/ Delete Provide Adequate Housing Sites 1. Land Use Element • The City will monitor the The City continues to monitor the Continue and Development Code availability of sites zoned for availability of sites suitable for residential uses to ensure residential development and has sufficient capacity exists to maintained adequate capacity for accommodate Temecula's the duration of the current planning Regional Housing Need period. Allocation. The City maintains an inventory of • The City will maintain an suitable housing sites, including inventory of sites suitable for whether the site is developed of residential development vacant, and provides this inventory (including underutilized to the development community via commercial sites) and the City's online GIS dataset, which provide that information to includes identification of vacant interested developers. land. This includes multi -family sites • The City will encourage the that are updated at least once a year. reservation of land that is The City continues to allow currently designated for residential mixed use projects to be multiple -family development developed at densities of at least 30 by providing the multi -family units per acre. sites inventory to multi- family housing developers to In 2018 the City adopted its solicit development interest. Affordable Housing Overlay The City will update the (AHO) Zoning District (Chapter multi -family sites inventory 17.21 of the Temecula Municipal at least once a year. Code). The purpose of the AHO is • The City will continue to to facilitate the development of allow residential mixed use to affordable multifamily housing, be permitted at a density of enable the city to meet its housing 30 units per acre to goals, and ensure that affordable encourage the construction housing developments will be of multi -family housing by compatible with surrounding land right. In addition, the City uses by establishing an affordable will continue to provide housing overlay zoning district. A appropriate flexible property designated within the development standards such affordable housing overlay may be as increased building height developed either in the manner and shared parking Provided by the AHO or in the opportunities for manner provided in the underlying developments with minimum zoning district. Projects that comply densities of 20 dwelling units with the requirements of the AHO per acre in the Zoning are permitted by right. Two projects Ordinance. have been entitled in the AHO CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-15 • The City will address Zoning Zoning District and are moving and General Plan Land Use forward with construction. Designation inconsistencies. The City will continue to provide • To accommodate Temecula's appropriate flexible development regional housing need for standards such as increased building units affordable to lower- height and shared parking income households totaling opportunities for developments 2,007 (1381 4th cycle with minimum densities of 20 unaccommodated plus 626 dwelling units per acre in the for the 5th planning period), Zoning Ordinance. the City will establish an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) on the sites identified in Appendix B, applicable to at least 100 acres. After establishment of the AHO, sites identified in Appendix B will require the following: o Minimum densities of 20 units per acre with a maximum allowable density of 30 units per acre under the AHO 0 50 percent of the remaining need (1,003 units) will be accommodated on sites allowing exclusively residential uses where no commercial or mixed used development is allowed. o Multifamily uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed by right, without a CUP, planned development permit or other discretionary action pursuant to GC Section 65583.2 (h) and (i) o If needed, the City will amend existing development standards to accommodate the increased allowable densities within the overlay areas. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-16 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT 2. Sites for Emergency • The City will continue to The City continued to work with the Continue Shelters permit emergency shelters as Riverside County Continuum of identified in the Care and other nonprofit Development Code. organizations to provide resources • The City will continue to for homeless persons seeking work with public agencies shelter. Several nonprofit agencies and private entities to continue to provide referrals to provide adequate resources housing facilities for the homeless in for the community's the Temecula Valley area. homeless population. The The City has utilized CDBG funds City will also, to the extent to Support a continuum of services feasible, participate in efforts in Riverside County to prevent and to unite organizations and eliminate homelessness including, entities that provide services but not limited to, homelessness to the homeless. prevention programs, emergency • The City will develop shelter programs and transitional standards for emergency housing. Since July 1, 2017, the City shelters consistent with has funded $71,647 of CDBG funds Government Code Section towards the program administered 65583. through the Temecula Help Center and collaborative efforts to local Community Based Organization (CMOH — Community Mission of Hope). During the City's Consolidated Plan Cycle, which the City is in its 4th year of its 5-year plan the Program has assisted 453 persons on a projected goal of 350 persons for the 5-year cycle. The City has continued to focus on this need and continues to place the high importance on addressing the City's residents facing homelessness and those at risk of being homeless. Additionally, the City provides funding to help support Project TOUCH, a winter shelter operated out of the Roadway Inn in Temecula. For the 2020-2021 season, the City of Temecula provided financial assistance in the amount of $10,000 and the facility provided shelter for 10-12 individuals per night. The City will continue to permit emergency shelters in accordance with State law and is in the process of development standards for these shelters. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-17 3. Sites for • The City will amend the In April 2013 City amended the Modify: The City has Transitional/Supportive Temecula Municipal Code to Municipal Code to require amended its Municipal Housing ensure that supportive and transitional/supportive housing to Code as specified in transitional housing are be subject to the same permit the prior planning period's program. treated as residential uses processing procedures as other However, the City will subject only to the same housing in the same zone and to amend this program to restrictions that apply to require SROs to be permitted by recognize that further other residential dwellings of right within residential zones. In amendments are the same type in the same April 2013, the City Council necessary to comply zone. adopted an Ordinance permitting with State law. The transitional and supportive housing, as well as efficiency unit housing in City will identify new residential zones. objectives to ensure that sites continue to be available for transitional/ supportive housing. Assist in Development of Affordable Housing 4. Density Bonus Ordinance • The City will establish a density bonus program In 2018 and 2020, the City adopted a density bonus program consistent Continue consistent with State Density with State Density Bonus Law Bonus Law (Government (Ordinance 18-10 and Ordinance Code Section 65915). No. 2020-05). • The City will inform The City continued to encourage residential development density bonus opportunities which applicants through the pre- increase the total allowable density application process and/or for senior and affordable housing through the Development projects. Review Committee meeting of opportunities for density increases. 5. Land Assemblage • The City will continue to The City approved one deed- Continue and Affordable acquire land for use in the restricted affordable housing Housing Development provision of affordable developments during the 2017 housing. calendar year. The project resulted • The City will facilitate the in the construction of 15 new very development of housing low-income units. The City units affordable to lower- income households by publicizing its density bonus approved two deed -restricted affordable housing developments during the 2020 calendar year. program and its incentives, Together, they will result in the and by making this construction of 131 affordable information available to units. developers and nonprofit housing agencies through the The City issued a Request for Proposals to develop various city - development application owned sites. One land purchase is process. underway (Uptown Sports District) for affordable housing development. The City actively participates in events and seminars with the development community in order to advertise and communicate our incentives. The City also promotes its Pre -application development process in which incentive information is provided in the initial planning of a future project. 6. ADUs • The City will continue The City continued to allow and Continue to allow and promote the promote the construction of CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-18 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT construction of affordable affordable second units. The City second units to result in the has developed a comprehensive construction of ten new website dedicated to sharing second units. The City will information about the opportunity also promote the program by to develop second units and is publicizing the program and currently working on preparing notifying owners of permit -ready ADU plans (not yet underutilized residential complete). property. 7. Mortgage Credit • The City will continue to The City continued to promote the Continue Certificate Program promote the regional MCC Program administered by the Mortgage Credit Certificate Riverside County Economic program to assist an average Development Agency (EDA). Two of ten households annually households were assisted under this by publicizing the program program between 2014 and 2020. and making the program The City actively provides known to developers and information about the MCC nonprofit housing agencies. Program to the general public when inquiries about homebuyer assistance programs are received. Participation in the County s MCC Program is approved by the City Council on an annual basis. Last year, an article about the program was published in a local newspaper. 8. First Time Home • The City will work with The City studied the opportunity to Delete Buyer (FTHB) Program Riverside County to establish participate in the County's FTHB a consortium to participate in program but ultimately participation the County's FTHB program. was not feasible. The City will also review state Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) as they are released in an effort to participate in the state FTHB program. 9. Housing for • The City will encourage the The City conducts regular Continue Extremely Low -Income development of housing for inspections of affordable housing Households extremely low-income units, and provides them with any households through a variety resources they may request. The of activities, such as City has also syndicated Mission conducting outreach to Village Apartments with a 55-year housing developers on an covenant, rehabilitation, and project annual basis, providing wide solar equipment to reduce financial assistance (when climate impacts. Additionally, feasible) or in -kind technical Rancho California Apartments re - assistance or land write- upped their convent for 55 years, downs, providing expedited rehabbed the project, and made processing, identifying grant energy improvements. and funding opportunities, The City hosts an annual Temecula applying for or supporting Trekkers program to educate real applications for funding on estate agents on the City's zoning an ongoing basis, reviewing process, permitting process, and and prioritizing local funding available support and services. at least twice in the planning The City offers a free pre - period, and/or offering application all developers to assist additional incentives beyond withwithdue diligence. ence. the density bonus. The City conducted an affordable housing RFP. Two projects are in the pipeline (Rancho Highlands and Las Haciendas). Both projects used CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-19 10. Energy Conservation The City will partner with Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) to promote energy -saving programs such as the Residential Multifamily Energy Efficiency Rebate program, the Heating and Cooling Rebate program, and incentives of up to $4,000 available to SCE and SoCalGas residential customers. The City will annually ensure that local building codes are consistent with state - mandated green building standards. The City will be responsible for implementing the state's energy conservation standards (e.g., Title 24 Energy Standards). This includes checking building plans and other written documentation showing compliance and inspecting construction to ensure that the dwelling units are constructed according to those plans. Applicants for building permits must show compliance with the state's energy conservation requirements at the time building plans are submitted. streamlining, (AHOZ and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan). One additional affordable project, Vine Creek has also been entitled. The City has promoted energy conservation in a variety of ways, including: • 2014 newsletter mailer that included energy efficiency tips • Nov. 7 2012 Energy Upgrade California Workshop held at library • Flex Alerts on August 18, 2020 • Oct. 24, 2019 Wildfire Safety Energy Alert • July 8, 2018 Wildfire Safety Alert • November 9, 2020 Recycling Day The City continues to review local building codes to ensure they are consistent with state -mandated green building standards. The City also continues to implement the state's energy conservation standards and requires applicants for building permits to demonstrate compliance at the time building plans are submitted. Continue Remove Governmental Constraints I 11. Development Fees Reimbursement 12. Expedite Processing • of Affordable Housing Projects The City of Temecula will continue to enter into development agreements with qualifying senior/affordable housing projects on a case -by -case basis to provide development fee reimbursement. The City will continue to implement expedited review to all projects with an affordable housing component. The City will need to develop objective criteria to evaluate affordable housing projects to qualify them for expedited The City continues to approve Owner Participation Agreements to assist with the development of affordable housing and reimbursement of City fees as appropriate. The City continued to implement shorter processing times for affordable housing projects. Three affordable housing projects received expedited review and processing during the 2014-2021 planning period. The City continues to implement expedited review to all projects with an affordable housing component. Continue Continue CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-20 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT • The City will continue to prioritize projects based on the level of affordability being proposed in order to meet its regional housing need. 13. Periodic • Consistency Review of General Plan, Municipal Code and State Law City staff will track and stay abreast of changes in state housing law and work with the City Attorney to incorporate changes into the General Plan and Municipal Code. The City Attorney will advise staff on significant case law interpretations that may cause the need to amend the General Plan or Municipal Code. Conserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing 14. Preserve At - Risk Housing Units • The City will monitor the status of affordable projects at risk of converting to market rate. • The City will identify nonprofit organizations as potential purchasers/managers of at - risk housing units. • The City will explore funding sources available to preserve the affordability of projects at risk of converting to market rate or to provide replacement units. • The City will assist qualified tenants to apply for priority status on the Section 8 voucher/certificate program immediately should the owners of the at -risk project choose not to enter into additional restrictions. The City also establishes priority based on the level of affordability being proposed in order to further meet the RNHA. As part of the City's new Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning District (adopted in 2018), the City established Regulations and Development Standards applicable to projects developed pursuant to the AHO. The City is currently undertaking an update to its Zoning Code to identify potential issues related to objective/subjective design standards and will update the Code to create consistent objective design standards in accordance with State law. The City continued to track and stay abreast of changes in state housing law which would require amendments to the General Plan and Municipal Code. There were several housing -related amendments made to the code during the 2014-2021 planning period, including amendments related to accessory dwelling units, short-term rentals, and density bonus. The City also facilitates weekly meetings with the City Attorney, Staff receives training from the City Attorney, and the City Attorney prepares opinion letters. The City continued to work with interested parties to renew the covenants on any expiring affordable restrictions. Specifically, the Rancho California Apartments have been rehabilitated and upgraded and the property's Section 8 contract, which was set to expire in 2013, has been renewed for 55 years (through 2068). The City has also worked closely with Mission Village as well. City staff continues to assist the general public and tenants with Section 8 rental information. The City continues to work with the Riverside County Housing Authority regarding displaced tenants. The City will continue to explore funding sources available to preserve the affordability of projects Continue Continue CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-21 at risk of converting to market rate or to provide replacement units. The City will continue to assist qualitied tenants to apply for- -far priority status on the Section 8 voucher/certificate program immediately should the owners of the at -risk project choose not to enter into additional restrictions 15. Code Enforcement • The City will continue to seek The City continued implementation Continue voluntary compliance for of Weed Abatement and code -related issues and Abandoned Vehicle Abatement violations to enforce the programs. Annually during the UBC and offer information 2014-2021 planning period, the City regarding the City's housing generally conducted 20,444 rehabilitation programs to complaint -driven code case low- and moderate -income inspections, 22,015 proactive code households cited for code case inspections, [6,488 weed violations. abatement cases, and 328 abandoned vehicle cases]. 16. Residential • The City will utilize CDBG Thirty-four households received Continue Improvement Program funds or other funds, as CDBG funds through the Habitat available, to provide financial for Humanity Critical Home assistance for minor repairs maintenance repair program and an of homes owned and additional five households were occupied by lower -income supported through the CRID homeowners. Eligible repairs Alternatives Solar Improvements. include plumbing, electrical, During the 2014-2021 planning painting, carpentry, roof period, the City has worked with repairs, and masonry work. Habitat for Humanity on rehabilitation programs. Additionally, CDBG-CV2 funds will be used for mortgage assistance. Since July 1, 2017, the City has funded $151,127.00 of CDBG funds towards the program administered through Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley. During the City's Consolidated Plan Cycle, which the City is in its 4th year of its 5-year plan the Program has assisted 18 households on a projected goal of 15 for the 5-year cycle. The City has continued to focus on this need and continues to place the high importance on assisting low-income residents with maintaining an affordable housing stock and ensuring that owners are able to address critical repairs needed to their homes through these grants. Eligible residents are eligible for $10,000 grants in address the critical needs necessary to their household. 17. Section 8 Rental • The City will continue to The Section 8 Rental Assistance Continue Assistance Program contract with the County of Program is administered by the Riverside to administer the Riverside County Housing Section 8 Rental Assistance Authority. The City assists qualified CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-22 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT 18. Mobile Home Assistance Program (MPAP) Program and provide rental assistance to at least 105 very low-income Temecula households. The City will support the County of Riverside's applications for additional Section 8 allocation. The City will promote the Section 8 program to second unit owners by publicizing this program and making the information known to City and County agencies and to housing nonprofits. The City will provide technical assistance to Heritage Mobile Home Park residents in pursuing MPAP funds in the event that the owners propose to close the mobile home park. Promote Equal Housing Opportunities 19. Equal Housing • Temecula will continue to Opportunity participate in the Riverside County Consortium in implementing the fair housing plan. • The City will place fair housing brochures at City counters, public libraries, the Temecula Community Center, and the Temecula Community Recreation Center. • The City will continue to post information regarding fair housing services on the City website. Future fair housing workshops can also be advertised on the City website. • The City will continue to provide referral services to the Fair Housing Program of Riverside County for residents inquiring about fair housing issues. • The City will continue to update its fair housing brochures to conform to state law. • The City will undertake ongoing efforts to educate the public about affordable housing. tenants to apply for the Section 8 voucher/certificate program and provides information about the Section 8 rental assistance voucher/certificate program. Since 2014, 758 units have been assisted. City staff provides information on handouts and on the City website regarding affordable housing and contact information for the Riverside County Housing Authority regarding Section 8. The City will provide technical assistance to Heritage Mobile Home Park residents in pursuing MPAP funds in the event that the owners propose to close the mobile home park. There are been no requests for this assistance during the 2014-2021 planning period. The City continued to participate in the Riverside County Consortium in implementing the fair housing plan, post information regarding fair housing services on the City website, and provide referral services to the Fair Housing Program of Riverside County. City staff placed posters at all affordable housing locations, City Hall, public libraries, the Community Center, and the Community Recreation Center. All brochures updated and provided to the City by the Fair Housing Council are placed at these locations for the public to access. The City actively maintains a website identifying affordable housing complexes in Temecula. To support and ensure equal access to housing opportunities, the City has utilizes CDBG funds to affirmatively further fair housing choice through the provision of fair housing education, counseling, anti- discrimination and landlord -tenant mediation services, and to provide equal housing opportunities for protected classes. Since July 1, 2017, the City has funded $76,838 of CDBG funds towards the program administered through Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. During the City's Consolidated Plan Cycle, which the City is in its 4th Continue Continue CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-23 year of its 5-year plan the Program has assisted 1,205 households on a projected goal of 1,750 households for the 5-year cycle. The City has continued to focus on this need and continues to place the high importance on assisting low-income residents with fair housing services for both residents and landlords. The City of Temecula is an entitlement City through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The CDBG program requires 5 year consolidated plans that include specific programming for Fair Housing. Additionally, the CDBG program requires annual reporting on annual accomplishments. The City also contracts with Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to provide services to residents. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County provides quarterly updates on Fair Housing trends, education, and other resources. 20. Housing Referral • The City will continue to The City continued to offer housing Continue Directory offer housing referral referral services through its Housing services through its Housing Referral Directory. Referral Directory. 21. Housing for • The City will continue to The City continues to implement Continue Persons with treat licensed residential care the Temecula Municipal Code Disabilities facilities and State -licensed which treats licensed residential care group homes serving six or facilities and State -licensed group fewer persons no differently homes serving six or fewer persons than other by right single- no differently than other by right family housing uses. In single-family housing uses. addition, the City will Implementation of the Municipal continue to allow residential Code also allows residential care care facilities with seven or facilities with seven or more persons more persons, by right in the by right in the High Residential zone High Residential zone district district and conditionally in all other and conditionally in all other residential zones. residential zones. The City continues to support and • The City will continue to provide resources for individual provide a formalized homeowners requesting exemptions reasonable accommodation to zoning and development process for individual standards in order to accommodate homeowners requesting a disability. exceptions to zoning and The City has updated Pala Park to development standards to be more accessible. Separately the accommodate a disability. City has invested in Eagle Soar Splash Pad, an accessible splash pad. The City also makes significant investments in specific programming for people with special needs and hybrid programming (helping people with disabilities interface with those people without disabilities). CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-24 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT 22. Employee Housing • The City will amend the The City has undertaken a number Continue Temecula Municipal Code to of updates to its Municipal Code define and permit employee during the past planning period to housing providing address State law. The City will accommodations for six or continue to implement amendments fewer employees. Employee to its Municipal Code to meet all housing shall be deemed a State law requirements. single-family structure with a residential land use designation. 0 The City will review, and if necessary amend the Temecula Municipal Code to comply with the other requirements of the Employee Housing Act detailed above. 23. Housing Element • The City will continue to The City continues to submit annual Continue Monitoring and require that service agencies reports to the state assessing the Reporting report their accomplishments implementation of the General Plan annually. This information and Housing Element. will be used by the City to assess the community's housing needs and how well these needs are being met by the existing programs. • The City will continue to submit annual reports to the state assessing the implementation of the General Plan and Housing Element. 0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-25 III. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction and Background The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and demographic conditions in Temecula, assess the demand for housing for households at all income levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various special needs populations. The Housing Needs Assessment also addresses whether assisted housing projects are at risk of converting to market rate projects. The Housing Needs Assessment is intended to assist Temecula in developing housing goals and formulating policies and programs that address local housing needs. Several sources of data were used to describe existing demographic and housing conditions, including the following: • Pre -Certified Local Housing Data package for the City of Temecula developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and pre -certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for use in 6th cycle housing elements. Data from the 2010 U.S. Census, 2014-2018 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS), California Department of Finance (DOF), California Employee Development Department (EDD), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is included to provide information on population, household, housing, income, employment, and other demographic characteristics. • Regional information from the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. • Other sources of economic data such as information from the websites Zillow.com and Apartments.com, and other published data are used where current Census, ACS, DOF, HUD, and other standard data sources do not provide relevant data. • Interviews with key agencies and organizations were conducted to obtain information on housing needs and, in particular, needs of populations with special housing needs. Research and data related to fair housing, including Census Scope, Social Science Data Analysis Network, the UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, N.A., and the California Fair Housing Task Force. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-26 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT • California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Guidebook on online data viewer • City of Temecula 2017 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Due to the use of multiple data sources (with some varying dates), there are slight variations in some of the information, such as total population and total household numbers, presented in this document. However, these variations do not significantly affect the discussion of overall housing trends and changes. 2. Population Trends and Characteristics Population Growth Table 3 shows population growth for Temecula and other jurisdictions in the region from 2000 through 2020. According to data prepared by the California DOF, the population of Temecula in 2020 was 111,970 persons, an increase of approximately 11.9% since 2010. During the previous decade (2000 to 2010), the City's population increased by 73.4%. Temecula's growth rate has been higher than the countywide growth rate, with Riverside County experiencing significantly lower population growth rates than Temecula during the 2000 to 2010 period, and slightly lower population growth rates than Temecula during the 2010 to 2020 period, as shown in Table 3. Factors for growth include its affordable housing (compared to Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego County) desirable climate, high quality education system, and geographical features. The rapid growth in Temecula during the 2000 to 2010 period can be partially attributed to the annexation of Vail Ranch in 2001, and Redhawk in 2005. A neighboring jurisdiction, the City of Murrieta, had both the greatest numeric change in population (71,279 persons) and the largest percentage change in population (161%). Table 3: Population Trends - Neighboring Jurisdictions Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020 Change 2000-20 %Change 2000.20 Temecula 57,716 100,097 111,970 54,254 94.0% Lake Elsinore 28,928 51,821 63,453 34,525 119.4% Hemet 58,812 78,657 85,175 26,363 44.8% Perris 36,189 68,386 80,201 44,012 121.6% Murrieta 44,282 103,466 115,561 71,279 161.0% Riverside County 1,545,387 2,189,641 2,442,304 896,917 58.0% Sources: US Census, 2000; DOF, 2020 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR--27 Age Changes in the age groups can indicate future housing needs. Table 4 compares age cohort sizes in 2018 for Temecula and Riverside County. In Temecula, children under 15 comprise 22.9% of the City's population, teens and young adults (15 - 24) represent 14.3%, and adults in family -forming age groups (25 - 44) comprise 26.5%. Adults aged 45 to 64 represent 26.1% of the population and seniors (65 and over) comprise 10.3%. In 2018, the median age in Temecula (34.8 years) was half a year lower than that of Riverside County (35.3 years) and a year and a half lower than the statewide median age (36.3 years). The median age of City residents increased, up from 32.8 years in 2010. Table 4: Population by Age (2018) Age Temecula Number Percent Riverside County Number Percent Under 5 Years 7,165 6.4% 158,008 6.6% 5 to 9 8,474 7.6% 169,403 7.1 % 10 to 14 10,027 8.9% 177,796 7.5% 15 to 19 8,768 7.8% 177,697 7.5% 20 to 24 7,232 6.4% 170,153 7.1 % 25 to 34 14,834 13.3% 328,917 13.8% 35 to 44 14,957 13.3% 303,627 12.7% 45 to 54 17,390 15.5% 303,884 12.8% 55 to 64 11,849 10.6% 265,192 11.1 % 65 to 74 7,363 6.6% 186,772 7.8% 75 to 84 3,039 2.7% 101,900 4.3% 85 and Over 1,132 1.0% 39,937 1.7% TOTAL 112,230 100% 2,383,286 100% Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS Race and Ethnicity Table 5 shows the ethnic composition of Temecula's population. More than two-thirds (69.2%) of the City's population identify as White. The next largest racial group is "other race" (9.30/o), followed by Asian (8.6%), "two or more races" (6.7%), Black or African American (5.1 %), American Indian or Alaska Native (0.60/o), and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (0.6%). More than one quarter of the population (29.6%) is of Hispanic or Latino origin. Temecula is a less ethnically diverse community than the County as a whole, which can influence buying preferences and the demand for special needs housing (e.g., multigenerational housing). CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-28 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 5: Race and Ethnicity (2018) Race/Ethnicity Temecula Number Percent Riverside County Number Percent White 77,689 69.2% 1,450,134 60.8% Black or African American 5,675 5.1% 153,545 6.4% American Indian or Alaska Native 639 0.6% 19,281 0.8% Asian 9,656 8.6% 152,130 6.4% Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 624 0.6% 6,843 0.3% Some Other Race 10,440 9.3% 495,241 20.8% Two or More Races 7,507 6.7% 106,112 4.5% TOTAL 112,230 100% 2,383,286 100% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 33,194 29.6% 1,154,517 48.40% Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS Employment One of the factors that can contribute to an increase in demand for housing is expansion of the employment base. Table 6 shows the employment and unemployment rates for persons 16 years and older that were in the labor force in 2010 and 2018. In 2018, ACS data indicated that there were 56,371 employed persons in the Temecula labor force and that the unemployment rate was approximately 6.7%, a decrease from 8.6% in 2010 as the City (and country) emerged from the Great Recession. According to the labor report data compiled by the California EDD, the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario Metropolitan Area's average annual unemployment rate in 2018 was estimated at 4.3%, Riverside County's rate was 4.5%, while California's was 4.1%. Table 6: Job Growth and Employment Status 2010 Number Percent 2018 Number Percent Total Persons in Labor Force 49,321 100% 56,371 100% Employed 45,094 91.4% 52,619 93.3% Unemployed 4,227 8.6% 3,752 6.7% Sources: US Census, 2006-2010 ACS and 2014-2018 ACS CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-29 Industry and Occupations Of Temecula's employed residents, the "Educational services, health care and social assistance" industry employed the most people at 20.7%. The second largest employment sector was the "Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, food services" industry, which had 16.1% of the total employed persons in Temecula. The top two employment categories in Riverside County were the "Educational services, health care and social assistance" industry at 20.7% and the "Retail trade" industry at 12.9%. Table 7: Jobs by Industry Industry Number Percent Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, mining 228 0.4% Construction 3,348 6.5% Manufacturing 4,564 8.8% Wholesale trade 1,326 2.6% Retail trade 6,067 11.8% Transportation, warehousing, utilities 2,872 5.6% Information 1,131 2.2% Finance and insurance, real estate and rental and leasing 3,013 5.8% Professional, scientific, management, administrative, waste mgmt. 5,356 10.4% Educational services, health care and social assistance 10,691 20.7% Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, food services 7,300 14.2% Other services 2,470 4.8% Public administration 3,210 6.2% TOTAL (Civilian Labor Force) 51,576 100% Armed Forces 1,043 100% Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS The City's workforce holds a variety of types of jobs as shown in Table 8, with the largest sector (38.8%) working in management, business, science, and arts occupations, followed by 24.1% in sales and office occupations. Employment and occupation trends play an important role in defining housing needs. This relationship extends beyond the impact of employment growth on housing demand in the City and includes how wage levels and median earnings affect the type of housing affordable to workers and households in Temecula. There is a significant gap, for example, between the median earnings of a resident employed in management and a resident employed in a service occupation, and this translates into the type of housing that is needed in the City. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-30 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 8: Jobs by Occupation Occupation Number Percent Median Earnings* Management, business, science, and arts occupations 20,013 38.8% $72,450 Service occupations 10,783 20.9% $22,418 Sales and office occupations 12,429 24.1% $32,454 Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 3,622 7.0% $47,230 Production, transportation, and material moving 4,729 9.2% $35,390 *Median earnings in previous 12 months prior to survey Sources: SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package; US Census, 2014-2018 ACS Travel to Work Approximately 53% of Temecula workers 16 years and over travelled less than 30 minutes to work. Comparatively, more than a quarter (25.5%) of workers drive more than 60 minutes to work, which reflects the fact that many individuals working in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties live in Temecula due to its relatively more affordable home prices. Most Temecula workers, 78.0%, drive alone to work and 11.4% carpool. Table 9 identifies travel time to work and Table 10 identifies commute methods for Temecula workers in 2018. Table 9: Travel Time to Work (2018) Number Percent Less than 10 minutes 5,726 12.1% 10-19 minutes 13,544 28.6% 20-29 minutes 5,702 12.0% 30-44 minutes 5,710 12.0% 45-59 minutes 4,625 9.8% 60 + minutes 12,092 25.5% Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS Table 10: Commute Method (2018) Number Percent Drive Alone 39,867 78.0% Carpooled 5,827 11.4% Public Transportation 50 0.1% Walk 611 1.2% Other 1,044 2.0% Work at Home 3,716 7.3% Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-31 C. Household Characteristics According to the Census, a household is defined as all persons living in a housing unit. This definition includes families (related individuals living together), unrelated individuals living together, and individuals living alone. A housing unit is defined by the Census as a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. People living in retirement homes or other group living situations are not considered "households" for the purpose of the U.S. Census count. The household characteristics in a community, including household size, income, and the presence of special needs households, are important factors in determining the size and type of housing needed in the City. Table 11 below identifies the ages of householders in Temecula and Riverside County in 2018 based on ACS data from 2014-2018. Homeowner households are generally headed by residents early middle-aged to middle-aged, with 56.4% of homeowner households headed by a resident 35-59 years of age; however,13.5% of homeowner households are headed by someone 65-74 years. Households who rent their homes trend slightly younger; about 74% of renter households are headed by a person aged 25-54. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-32 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 11: Households by Tenure and Age (2018) Temecula Riverside County Number % Number % Total: 33,889 - 718,349 Owner Occupied: 22,127 65.3% 472,401 65.8% Householder 15 to 24 years 172 0.5% 2,850 0.4% Householder 25 to 34 years 2,425 7.2% 43,381 6.0% Householder 35 to 44 years 3,843 11.3% 77,261 10.8% Householder 45 to 54 years 5,896 17.4% 101,801 14.2% Householder 55 to 59 years 2,742 8.1 % 54,048 7.5% Householder 60 to 64 years 2,214 6.5% 49,348 6.9% Householder 65 to 74 years 2,977 8.8% 80,773 11.2% Householder 75 to 84 years 1,384 4.1 % 46,189 6.4% Householder 85 years and older 474 1.4% 16,750 2.3% Renter Occupied: 11,762 34.7% 245,948 34.2% Householder 15 to 24 years 565 1.7% 12,648 1.8% Householder 25 to 34 years 2,604 7.7% 56,200 7.8% Householder 35 to 44 years 3,037 9.0% 60,241 8.4% Householder 45 to 54 years 3,039 9.0% 47,171 6.6% Householder 55 to 59 years 966 2.9% 18,293 2.5% Householder 60 to 64 years 403 1.2% 14,055 2.0% Householder 65 to 74 years 809 2.4% 21,041 2.9% Householder 75 to 84 years 239 0.7% 10,839 1.5% Householder 85 years and older 100 0.3% 5,460 0.8% Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Data Profile (Table B25007) Table 12 identifies the household sizes by housing tenure. In 2018, the majority of households consisted of 2 to 4 persons, which is consistent with the County's profile although Temecula's percentage was higher (70.5% vs. 60.3%). Large households of 5 or more persons made up 15.6% of the total households in Temecula. The average household size was 3.31 persons in Temecula, compared to 3.27 persons for the County. Additionally, the average household size in 2018 for an owner - occupied unit was 3.34 persons per household and 3.25 persons per household for a renter -occupied unit. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-33 Table 12: Household Size by Tenure (2018) Temecula Riverside County Number % Number % Owner Households 22,127 100.0% 472,401 100.0% Householder living alone 2,659 12.0% 94,214 19.9% Households 2-4 persons 16,040 72.5% 297,075 62.9% Large households 5+ persons 3,428 15.5% 81,112 17.2% Average Household Size 3.34 persons 3.25 persons Renter Households 11,762 100.0% 245,948 100.0% Householder living alone 2,065 17.6% 61,899 25.2% Households 2-4 persons 7,852 66.8% 135,765 55.2% Large households 5+ persons 1,845 15.7% 48,284 19.6% Average Household Size 3.25 persons 3.3 persons Total Households 33,889 100.0% 718,349 100.0% Householder living alone 4,724 13.9% 156,113 21.7% Households 2-4 persons 23,892 70.5% 432,840 60.3% Large households 5+ persons 5,273 15.6% 129,396 18.0% Average Household Size 3.31 persons 3.27 persons Sources: SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 ACS; 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Data Profile (Table B25009) D. Income Household Income From 2000 to 2018, the median household income increased by 52.8% to $90,964 and the per capita income increased by 58.3% to $34,135. From 2010 to 2018, there was an increase in both per capita and median household incomes. Table 13 identifies the per capita and median household incomes. Table 13: Median Household and Per Capita Income 2000 2010 2018 Median Household Income $59,516 $77,850 $90,964 Per Capita Income $21,557 $29,089 $34,135 Sources: US Census, 2000; US Census, 2014-2018 ACS In 2018, the majority (76.9%) of Temecula's households earned in excess of $50,000 per year. The incidence of households earning less than $35,000 per year was significantly higher among renter households (25.5%) than owner households (9.7%). Table 14 identifies household income by tenure. As shown in Table 14, the median income of owner households is approximately $43,000 more than renter households. Compared to the County, median household incomes are higher for both owner and renter households - by 37.6% and 50.9%, respectively. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-34 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 14: Household Income for All Households and by Tenure (2018) Income All Households Number Percent Owner Households Number Percent Renter Households Number Percent Less than $5,000 485 1.4% 195 0.9% 290 2.5% $5,000 to $9,999 328 1.0% 65 0.3% 263 2.2% $10,000 to $14,999 706 2.1% 327 1.5% 379 3.2% $15,000 to $19,999 707 2.1% 256 1.2% 451 3.8% $20,000 to $24,999 901 2.7% 268 1.2% 633 5.4% $25,000 to $34,999 2,008 5.9% 1,026 4.6% 982 8.3% $35,000 to $49,999 2,706 8.0% 1,391 6.3% 1,315 11.2% $50,000 to $74,999 5,585 16.5% 3,250 14.7% 2,335 19.9% $75,000 to $99,999 5,173 15.3% 3,331 15.1% 1,842 15.7% $100,000 to $149,999 7,904 23.3% 5,770 26.1% 2,134 18.1% $150,000 or more 7,386 21.8% 6,248 28.2% 1,138 9.7% Median Household Income - Temecula $90,964 $107,349 $64,060 Median Household Income - Riverside County $63,948 $77,991 $42,445 Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS Households by Income Group A special aggregation of 2013-2017 ACS data performed by HUD - tided the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data - provides a breakdown of households by income group by tenure. The number of households in extremely low, very low, low, and moderate/above moderate -income groups is shown in Table 15. Nearly 80% of all households are at or above moderate income. The HUD CHAS data indicates the extremely low-income group represents 5.6% of households, and a higher proportion are renters (1,315) than owners (565). The very low-income group represents 6.6% of households and the low-income group represents 10.4% of households. The City's RHNA (see Table 32) identifies the City's share of regional housing needs for extremely low, very low, and low-income .........:.. ouseholds, as well as for moderate and above moderate -income households. As shown in Table 15, there is a larger proportion of renters in the extremely low, very low, and low-income groups, while there is a larger proportion of moderate and above moderate -income groups in owner households. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-35 Table 15: Households by Income Group (2017) Income Group Total Owner Renter Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent Extremely Low (<30% AMI) 1,880 5.6% 565 2.6% 1,315 10.9% Very Low (31-50% AMI) 2,210 6.6% 705 3.3% 1,505 12.5% Low (51-80% AMI) 3,510 10.4% 1,900 8.8% 1,610 13.4% Moderate and Above Moderate (>80% AMI) 26,050 77.4% 18,430 85.3% 7,620 63.3% TOTAL 33,645 100% 21,600 100% 12,045 100% Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017 Available: https:Ilwww.huduser.gov/portalldatasetslcp.ht7nl Poverty Levels The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that 1,632 (5.9%) of all Temecula families and 7,678 individuals (6.9%) had incomes at or below the poverty level. According to the ACS data, poverty rates are disparate between races and economic indicators are greatest for those identified as Black or African American. In 2018, those identified as Black or African American had a poverty rate of 11.8% compared to 9.2% for American Indian and Alaska Natives, 8.7% for "some other race alone," 7.8% for Hispanics/Latinos, 7.0% for Asians, and 6.4% for Whites. The level of poverty in a jurisdiction often influences the need for housing to accommodate those persons and families in the very low and low-income categories. The U.S. Census Bureau measures poverty by using a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition of who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. For example, the poverty threshold for a family of two with no children would be $17,120, a household of two with a householder aged 65 or older and no children has a poverty threshold of $15,453, and the poverty threshold of a family of four with two children under the age of 18 would be $25,926. (U.S. Census Bureau, 20>9�. Extremely Low -Income Households Extremely low-income (ELI) households are defined as those earning up to 30% of the area median household income. For Riverside County, the median household income in 2020 was $75,300. For ELI households in Temecula (and the rest of Riverside County), this results in an income of $26,200 or less for a four -person household or $15,850 for a one -person household. ELI households have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-36 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT receiving only public assistance, such as social security disability insurance or disability insurance, qualify as ELI households. Table 16 provides representative occupations with hourly wages that are close to, but not within, the ELI income range as reported by the Employment Development Department. Note that all occupations indicated median annual wages above the ELI income threshold for a one -person household, perhaps suggesting that any employment in Temecula could lift a household out of the extremely low-income group. As shown in Table 15, ELI households make up 5.6% of all households in Temecula. Based on Table 29, 86.4% of ELI households in Temecula pay more than 30% of their incomes for housing. Table 16: Occupations with Wages for Extremely Low to very Low -Income Households (2020) Occupation Title Median Hourly Wage Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment $12.67 Bartenders $12.64 Gaming Change Persons and Booth Cashiers $12.63 Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop $12.59 Cooks, Fast Food $12.58 Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials $12.57 Amusement and Recreation Attendants $12.56 Waiters and Waitresses $12.56 Dishwashers $12.40 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $12.36 Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products $12.33 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $12.32 Gaming Dealers $12.23 Door -to -Door Sales Workers, News and Street Vendors, and Related Workers $12.20 Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse $12.20 Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers $12.15 Source: Employment Development Department, Long -Term Occupational Projections 2018-2028 (accessed May 2021) Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), 50% of Temecula's very low-income regional housing needs assigned by HCD are projected to be extremely low-income households. As a result, from the very low-income need of 1,359 units (see Table 32), the City has a projected need of 679 units for extremely low-income households (i.e., households earning 30% or less of the area median income). Based on current figures, extremely low-income households will most likely be CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-37 facing an overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard housing conditions. Some extremely low-income households could include individuals with mental or other disabilities and special needs. To address the range of needs of ELI households, the City will implement several programs including the following programs (refer to the Housing Element Policy Doettmentplan for more detailed descriptions of these programs): • Program 4: Replacement of Affordable Units • Program -8: Land Assemblage and Affordable Housing Development • Program 89: Housing for Extremely Low -Income Households • Program 810: Special Needs Housing Construction • Program 4-415: Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing • Program 4-720: Preserve At -Risk Housing Units • Program 2923: Section 8 Rental Assistance Program • Program 2225: Equal Housing Opportunity • Program 2326: Housing Referral Directory • Program 2427: Economic Displacement Risk Analysis • Program 28: Fair Housing Assistance Panel E. Housing Characteristics Housing Type Table 17 identifies the types of housing units in Temecula in 2020. The table summarizes total housing stock according to the type of structure. As shown in the table, the majority of housing in Temecula is single- family detached housing, which accounted for 78.5% of units in 2020. Mobile homes represent 0.4% of the housing stock. Multifamily units represent 17.5% of the housing stock, with duplex through fourplex units accounting for 2.3% and multifamily developments with five or more units accounting for 15.2%. Single-family attached homes represent 7.2% of housing units. Table 17: Housing Stock by Type and Vacancy (2020) Total Single Family Multifamily Mobile Homes Occupied Vacant Detached Attached 2-4 5 +Units Units 36,550 28,701 1,300 847 5,540 162 34,511 2,039 Percent 100% 78.5% 7.2% 2.3% 15.2% 0.4% 94.4% 5.6% Sources: SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package; DOF E-5 Report 2020 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-38 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Vacancy Rate Table 18 also shows the number and percentage of occupied units and the percentage of vacant units. It is important to note that these counts include all vacant units, including those units that are newly constructed but not yet occupied. In order for the housing market to function properly in a city there should always be some level of housing vacancy, otherwise rents or housing prices could skyrocket. The 5.6% vacancy in Temecula is in line with the historical equilibrium in California (5.5% for rental vacancy and 1.2% for homeownership vacancy). 1 The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that there were 2,047 vacant units in 2018. As shown in Table 18, of the total vacant units in 2018, 717 were for rent, 169 were for sale, 180 were rented or sold but not yet occupied, and 503 were for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. The overall vacancy rate in Temecula in 2018 was 6.0%, a rate which has fluctuated since 2010. Table 18: Vacancy by Type (2018) Vacancy Type Number Percent For rent 717 35.0% Rented, not occupied 117 5.7% For sale only 169 8.3% Sold, not occupied 63 3.1% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 503 24.6% For migrant workers 0 0.0% Other vacant 478 23.4% TOTAL 2,047 100% Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS Housing Conditions The U.S. Census provides only limited data that can be used to infer the condition of Temecula's housing stock. In most cases, the age of a community's housing stock is a good indicator of the condition of the housing stock. Moreover, many federal and state programs also use the age of housing as one factor in determining housing rehabilitation needs. Typically, housing over 30 years of age is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include plumbing, roof repairs, electrical repairs, foundation rehabilitation, or other significant improvements. The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that only a small percentage (1.9%) of the housing in the City is greater than 50 years old (i.e., built before 1970). Another 5.3% of units were built between 1970 and 1979. The majority of housing in the city (92.8%) was built after 1980. The age of 1 "California's low residential vacancy rates signal more construction," First Tuesday Journal (February 15, 2021). CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-39 the housing stock indicates that while the need for maintenance and rehabilitation assistance may grow during the planning period, it will likely be attributable to only a small proportion of total housing. Units built prior to 1970 may require aesthetic and maintenance repairs including roof, window, and paint improvements and some units in this age range may also require significant upgrades to structural, foundation, electrical, plumbing, and other systems. When examining a housing stock to determine what condition it is in, there are certain factors that the Census considers. For example, older units may not have plumbing that is fully functional or the plumbing might be substandard. Table 19 indicates that a small percentage of occupied dwelling units (0.2%) lacked complete plumbing facilities in 2018. Table 19: Housing Stock Conditions (2018) Year Structure Built Owner -Occupied Number Percent Renter -Occupied Number Percent Total Number Percent 2014 or later 539 2.4% 108 0.9% 647 1.9% 2010 to 2013 879 4.0% 390 3.3% 1,269 3.7% 2000 to 2009 7,136 32.3% 4,406 37.5% 11,542 34.1% 1990 to 1999 7,643 34.5% 3,470 29.5% 11,113 32.8% 1980 to 1989 4,516 20.4% 2,356 20.0% 6,872 20.3% 1970 to 1979 1,004 4.5% 808 6.9% 1,812 5.3% 1960 to 1969 226 1.0% 71 0.6% 297 0.9% 1950 to 1959 93 0.4% 50 0.4% 143 0.4% 1940 to 1949 27 0.1 % 44 0.4% 71 0.2% 1939 or earlier 64 0.3% 59 0.5% 123 0.4% TOTAL 22,127 100% 11,762 100% 33,889 100% Plumbing Facilities (Occupied Units) Units with Complete Plumbing Facilities 22,095 99.9% 11,727 99.7% 33,822 99.8% Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 32 0.1 % 35 0.3% 67 0.2% Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS (Table B25036) As noted, the City's housing stock is relatively new with only 7.2% of dwelling units in Temecula having been constructed prior to 1980. As such, while structural deterioration and maintenance problems may exist, only a small portion is likely to require rehabilitation. To supplement the Census information regarding housing conditions, the City of Temecula included specific questions pertaining to the quality of the City's housing stock in its Housing Element Update community survey, which was available on the City's website from March 26 through September 30, 2020 (this is further detailed in Appendix B). When asked to rate the physical condition of the CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-40 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT residence they lived in, the majority (46.4%) responded that their home shows signs of minor deferred maintenance such as peeling paint or chipped stucco, while 33.2% indicated that their home was in excellent condition. Another 12.6% of respondents indicated that their home was in need of a modest repair (like a new roof or new siding) and only 5.0% reported that their home needed a major repair (such as new foundation, complete new plumbing, or complete new electrical). Homeowners were more likely than renters to respond that their residence was in excellent condition (40% to 16%). Community members were also asked to report the type of home improvements they have considered making to their homes. The most popular answers that applied were improvements for painting, "does not apply" (meaning they are not considering any improvements at this time), solar, and new heating and air conditioning (HVAC). Additionally, the City's Planning Division has identified homes built prior to 1990 as potentially in need of rehabilitation and multifamily homes built prior to 2000 may be in need of energy efficiency retrofits and other rehabilitation. The City will continue to implement it-R Program --,Residential Improvement Program, using CDBG funds to help lower -income homeowners to rehabilitate substandard housing. Overcrowding Typically, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 persons per room. Table 20 summarizes overcrowding data for Temecula. It should be noted that kitchenettes, strip or Pullman kitchens, bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, half -rooms, utility rooms, unfinished attics, basements, or other space for storage are not defined as rooms for Census purposes. Overcrowded households are usually a reflection of the lack of affordable housing available. Households that cannot afford housing units suitably sized for their families are often forced to live in housing that is too small for their needs, which may result in poor physical condition of the dwelling unit. In 2018, 994 housing units (2.9% of the total occupied units) were overcrowded, which represented 2% of owner units and 4.7% of renter units. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-41 Table 20: Overcrowding by Tenure (2018) Persons per Room Owner Number Percent Renter Number Percent Total Number Percent 1.00orless 21,682 98.0% 11,213 95.3% 32,895 97.1% 1.01 to 1.50 378 1.7% 396 3.4% 774 2.3% 1.51 or more 67 0.3% 153 1.3% 220 0.6% TOTAL 22,127 100% 11,762 100% 33,889 100% Overcrowded 445 2.0% 549 4.7% 994 2.9% Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS As shown in Table 21, the average household size in Temecula was 3.31 persons in 2018, which was slightly higher than the City's average household size in 2010 (3.15). Table 21 shows Temecula's household sizes for owner, renter, and all households. The average household size was higher for owners (3.34 persons). Renter households had an average size of 3.25 persons. The majority (72.5%) of owner households had two to four persons, compared to 66.8% of renter households that were two to four persons in size. Table 22 identifies bedrooms by tenure. Although large owner households and large renter households are proportionally equivalent (15.5% vs. 15.70/o), the proportion of larger homes (4 or more bedrooms) is significantly higher for owner households. Table 21: Household Size by Tenure (2018) Household Size Owner Number Percent Renter Number Percent Total Number Percent 1-person 2,659 12.0% 2,065 17.6% 4,724 13.9% 2-person 6,974 31.5% 3,182 27.1% 10,156 30.0% 3-person 4,326 19.6% 2,137 18.2% 6,463 19.1% 4-person 4,740 21.4% 2,533 21.5% 7,273 21.5% 5-person 2,300 10.4% 1,334 11.3% 3,634 10.7% 6-person 749 3.4% 325 2.8% 1,074 3.2% 7-or-more-person 379 1.7% 186 1.6% 565 1.7% TOTAL 22,127 100% (65.3% of total) 11,762 100% (34.7% of total) 33,889 100% Average Household Size 3.34 3.25 3.31 Source: SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-42 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 22: Number of Bedrooms by Tenure (2018) Bedroom Type Number Owner Percent Renter Number Percent Total Number Percent No bedroom 65 0.3% 172 1.5% 237 0.7% 1-bedroom 6 0.0% 1,396 11.9% 1,402 4.1% 2-bedroom 1,375 6.2% 3,941 33.5% 5,316 15.7% 3-bedroom 8,416 38.0% 3,177 27.0% 11,593 34.2% 4-bedroom 9,090 41.1% 2,348 20.0% 11,438 33.8% 5 or more bedroom 3,175 14.3% 728 6.2% 3,903 11.5% TOTAL 22,127 100% 11,762 100% 33,889 100% Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS F. Housing Costs As shown in Figure 1, between 2000 and 2018, median home sales prices in Temecula increased 134% while prices in the SCAG region increased 151%. The 2018 median home sales price in Temecula was $460,000, down from a high of $491,500 experienced in 2006. Prices in the City have ranged from a low of 76.5% of the SCAG region median in 2008 to a high of 97.4% in 2004. In May 2021, there were 172 homes listed for sale on Zillow.com with prices ranging from $79,000 (manufactured home) to $6,900,000 for a 9 bed/10 bath home. Of these homes, there were 149 detached single- family homes with sales prices beginning at $429,999. As shown in Table 23, most homes for sale are in the $700,000+ price range (55.2%), with 32.6% of homes in the $500,000 to $699,999 range and 12.2% of homes priced under $500,000. Zillow identified the April 2021 median sales price as $586,159. While the median sales price is not affordable to lower and moderate -income households (see Table 28), the City's home sales prices, which are more than $100,000 higher compared to Riverside County (Zillow reported a median home sales price of $475,454 for the County in April 2021), could result in demand from the above -moderate income group who seek higher priced units that may offer more space or amenities than other homes in the southern California region, including Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties. Additionally, the long-term home cost impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic remain to be seen. While it is possible that some price impacts are temporary (i.e., higher than average rental rates), it is possible that the pandemic will leave a permanent impact on the housing market; the City will continue to monitor these changes and work proactively to address issues related to home availability and cost as defined in the Housing Plan. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-43 Table 23: Homes for Sale (May 2021) Price Homes Percent $700,000 and more 95 55.2% $600,000 - $699,999 27 15.7% $500,000 - $599,999 29 16.9% $400,000 - $499,999 20 11.6% $300,000 - $399,999 0 0% $200,000 - $299,999 0 0% $100,000 - $199,999 0 0% $0 - $99,999 1 0.6% Source: Zillow.com, 2021 Figure 1: Median Home Sales Price for Existing Homes $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 & Oti O`L 03 O� Oh 00 01 O$ O°' y0 titi yti y3 ,A tih ,yr° ,y1 If ry0 �O �o ry0 ,ti0 �O �o ry0 ry0 �O �O ry0 ry0 �O �O ryo ry0 �O tTemecula tSCAG — — —Temecula Percentage ofSCAG Price Source: SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package 120.0% 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Housing costs are affected by supply and demand and can affect the affordability of the housing in the City of Temecula. Table 24 shows the median home value in Temecula was $426,400 in 2018. Home values in Temecula are some of the highest in the region, highlighting the importance of Temecula's commitment to continue to provide additional opportunities for more affordable and attainable housing options. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-44 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 24: Median Home Value by Community Table 25: Rental Costs (2018) Jurisdiction Median Home Value Perris $261,000 Menifee $329,800 Murrieta $400,300 Temecula $426,400 Lake Elsinore $333,600 Riverside County $347,600 Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018. Rental Housing Table 25 summarizes rents paid in Temecula in 2018 by rental range. The range with the highest percentage of units rented was between $1,500 and $1,999 at 33.4% (3,809 units). Only 8.7% of rentals were under $1,000 per month. Almost one-third (35.7%) of all rentals were over $2,000 per month. Based on a review of rental ads on Zillow.com, Hotpads.com, and Apartments.com, the median rent in Temecula is $2,435 per month. There were 120 rentals available in May 2021. Rents ranged from $1,460 to $3,000 for 2 bed/2 bath homes to $2,400 and more for a four -bedroom home. It should be noted that this data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, when rental rates are at an all-time high due to limited supply, public health concerns, and renters' inability to secure other safe and affordable housing options. Table 25 below reflects rental costs as of 2018, which may be more indicative of long- term rental rates than the units specifically listed for rent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rent Range Number Percent Less than $500 215 1.9% $500 to $999 774 6.8% $1,000 to $1,499 2,520 22.1% $1,500 to $1,999 3,809 33.4% $2,000 to $2,499 2,575 22.6% $2,500 to $2,999 1,137 10.0% $3,000 or more 358 3.1 % Median (dollars) $ 1,787 Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-45 Table 26: Rental Rates by Number of Bedrooms Bedroom Type Rental Survey Units Available Range Average Rent Studio 0 N/A N/A 1 bed 7 $1,345 - $2,850 $1,632 2 bed 80 $1,460 - $3,000 $1,816 3 bed 20 $2,000 - $3,600 $2,290 4 bed or more 13 $2,400, N/A Sources: Zillow.com and Apartments.com, May 2021 Income Groups The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) publishes household income data annually for areas in California. Table 27 shows the maximum annual income level for each income group adjusted for household size for Riverside County. The maximum annual income data is then utilized to calculate the maximum affordable housing payments for different households (varying by income level) and their eligibility for housing assistance programs. • Extremely Low -Income Households have a combined income at or lower than 30% of area median income (AMI), as established by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). • Very Low -Income Households have a combined income between 30 and 50% of AMI, as established by HCD. • Low -Income Households have a combined income between 50 and 80% of AMI, as established by HCD. • Moderate -Income Households have a combined income between 80 and 120% of AMI, as established by HCD. • Above Moderate -Income Households have a combined income greater than 120% of AMI, as established by HCD. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-46 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 27: State Income Limits - Riverside County (2021) Income Group 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Extremely Low $16,600 $19,000 $21,960 $26,500 $31,040 $35,580 $40,120 $44,660 Very Low $27,650 $31,600 $35,550 $39,500 $42,700 $45,850 $49,000 $52,150 Low $44,250 $50,600 $56,900 $63,200 $68,300 $73,350 $78,400 $83,450 Moderate $65,100 $74,400 $83,700 $93,000 $100,450 $107,900 $115,300 $122,750 Above Moderate $65,100+ $74,400+ $83,700+ $93,000+ $100,450+ $107,900+ $115,300+ $122,750+ Source: HCD 2021 Riverside County Income Limits Housing Affordability Table 28 shows the estimated maximum rents and sales prices, respectively, that are affordable to very low, low, moderate, and above moderate -income households. Affordability is based on a household spending 30% or less of their total household income for shelter. Affordability is based on the maximum household income levels established by HCD (Table 27). The annual income limits established by HCD are similar to those used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for administering various affordable housing programs. Maximum affordable sales price is based generally on the following assumptions: 4% interest rate, 30-year fixed loan, and down payments that vary with income level, as described in Table 3- 25. Comparing the maximum affordable housing costs in Table 28 to the rental rates in Table 25 and Table 26, rental rates in Temecula as of mid-2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic which has increased housing costs across the board, are generally affordable to moderate - income and above moderate -income households. While there may be some units affordable to lower -income households, units are generally scarce. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Temecula, like cities all over the country, has seen limited supply and increased demand for safe and affordable housing. It can be expected that as the City recovers from the impacts related to COVID-19, housing options will increase to pre -pandemic levels and home costs may become more affordable. In May 2021, there were no rental units available under $1,345 a month - meaning available units are not affordable for extremely low or very low-income groups. Moderate and above moderate -income households can afford a broad range of available housing. Although there are homes for sale in Temecula available to very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income groups based on a comparison of Table 24 and Table 28, the majority of homes (i.e. in CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-47 the $700,000+ range) are affordable to only above moderate -income households. Table 28: Housing Affordability by Income Group One Person Two Person Four Person Six Person Income Group Home Sale Price* Monthly Rent or Housing Cost Home Sale Price* Monthly Rent or Housing Cost Home Sale Price* Monthly Rent or Housing Cost Home Sale Price* Monthly Rent or Housing Cost Extremely Low $55,163 $396 $63,941 $453 $92,887 $655 $126,874 $879 Very Low $100,051 $660 $114,682 $754 $143,945 $941 $167,550 $1,093 Low $165,423 $1,055 $188,833 $1,205 $235,848 $1,506 $270,347 $1,748 Moderate $255,004 $1,581 $290,315 $1,808 $360,740 $2,259 $417,119 $2,620 Above Moderate $255,004+ $1,581+ $290,315+ $1,808+ $360,740+ $2,259+ $417,119+ $2,620+ *Maximum affordable sales price is based on the following assumptions: 4.0% interest rate, 30-year fixed loan; down payment: $5, 000 — extremely low, $10, 000 — very low; $15, 000 — low, $25, 000 — moderate; property tax, utilities, and homeowners insurance as 30% of monthly housing cost (extremely low/very low), 28% of monthly housing cost (low), and 25% of monthly housing cost (moderate/above moderate). Homes sales prices are rounded to nearest $100. Source: De Novo Planning Group, 2021 Extremely Low-income Households As previously described, extremely low-income households earn less than 30% of the County Area Median Income (AMI). Depending on the household size, these households can afford rents between $396 and $879 per month and homes priced at $55,163 to $126,874. As of May 2021, there were no rental homes listed on Zillow or Apartments.com that would be affordable to extremely low-income households. However, based on US Census data, approximately 8% of renters pay monthly rents affordable to extremely low-income households. Extremely low-income households may be able to afford to purchase a mobile home in Temecula; however, real estate listings for these homes indicate that homes affordable at this price point may have age restrictions and are in very limited supply. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-48 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Very Low-income Households Very low-income households earn between 31 % and 50% of the County Area Median Income (AMI). Depending on the household size, these households can afford rents between $660 to $1,093 per month and homes priced at $100,051 and $167,550. As of May 2021, there were no rental homes listed on Zillow or Apartments.com that could be affordable to very low-income households. However, based on US Census data, approximately 9% of renters pay monthly rents affordable to very low-income households (inclusive of units also affordable to extremely low-income). Very low-income households may be able afford to purchase a mobile home in Temecula; however, even those affordable to very low-income households may have age restrictions and there continues to be a very limited supply. Low-income Households Low-income households earn between 51 % and 80% of the County Area Median Income (AMI). Depending on the household size, these households can afford rents between $1,055 to $1,748 per month and homes priced at $165,423 to $270,347. As of May 2021, some rentals listed on Zillow or Apartments.com would be affordable to low- income households; these units include one- and two -bedroom options. Based on US Census data, about one-third (30.8%) of renters pay monthly rents affordable to larger low-income households, meaning the rent is less than $1,748 per month. However, it should be noted that most renters are not six -person households, so the actual affordability by household size may be significantly more limited. Low- income households may be able to afford to purchase a mobile home in Temecula; however, even those affordable to low-income households may have age restrictions and there continues to be a very limited supply. Moderate income Households Moderate -income households earn between 80% and 120% of the County Area Median Income (AMI). Depending on the household size, these households can afford rents between $1,581 to $2,620 per month and homes priced at $255,004 to $417,119. As of May 2021, most rental units available were affordable to moderate -income households; these units included multifamily homes as well as single-family homes listed for rent by the homeowner. As of mid-2021, moderate -income households still cannot afford the vast majority of homes listed for sale as of May 2021 (which are primarily single-family detached homes), but may be able to afford other housing choices such as mobile homes and multifamily homes. This is further confirmed by US Census data. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-49 Overpayment As with most communities, the location of the home is one of the biggest factors with regard to price. Relative to Riverside County, housing in Temecula is more expensive. Furthermore, housing is generally not affordable to extremely low, very low, and low-income households of smaller sizes. As shown in Table 29, 49.9% of renters in Temecula and 29.7% of homeowners overpay for housing. The majority of renters that overpay are in the lower income groups, with 79.8% in the extremely low- income group and 73.1 % in the very low-income group severely overpaying for housing (over 50% of their monthly income). Comparatively, 77.9% of extremely low-income owners and 66% of very low-income owners are severely overpaying. Therefore, while overpayment is more predominate among lower income renter households, overpayment is an issue for both renter and owner households. More than one-third (37%) of all households in Temecula overpay for housing. Table 29: Households by Income Level and Overpayment (2017) Household Overpayment Renters Owners Total % of Income Category Extremely Low -Income Households 1,315 565 1,880 100% With Cost Burden >30% 1,115 / 84.8% 505 / 89.4% 1,625 86.4% With Cost Burden >50% 1,050 / 79.8% 440 / 77.9% 1,495 79.5% Very Low -Income Households 1,505 705 2,210 100% With Cost Burden >30% 1,300 / 86.4% 560 / 79.4% 1,855 83.9% With Cost Burden >50% 1,100 / 73.1% 465 / 66% 1,565 70.8% Low -Income Households 1,610 1,900 3,510 100% With Cost Burden >30% 1,375 / 85.4% 1,200 / 63.2% 2,580 73.5% With Cost Burden >50% 810 / 50.3% 770 / 40.5% 1,585 45.2% Total Extremely Low, Very Low, and 3,790 / 85.6% 2,265 / 71.5% 6,060 80% of lower income Low-Inco % households Moderate and Above Moderate -Income 7,620 18,430 26,050 100% Households With Cost Burden >30% 2,225 / 29.2% 4,160 / 22.6% 6,385 24.5% With Cost Burden >50% 210 / 2.8% 520 / 2.8% 735 2.8% 12,04 21,600 100% With Cost Burden >30% 6,015 / 49.9% 6,425 / 29.7% 12,445 37.0% With Cost Burden >50% 3,170 / 26.3% 2,195 / 10.2% 5,365 15.9% Note: Data is rounded to the nearest 5. Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-50 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Affordable Housing Inventory The City uses various funding sources to preserve and increase the supply of affordable housing through new construction and the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of renter -occupied units. Affordability covenants in Temecula include developments that hold federal subsidy contracts, received tax credits or mortgage revenue bonds, and/or were financed by redevelopment funds or non-profit developers. Table 30 shows assisted units with covenants that require rents to be maintained at affordable levels for various agreed upon periods of time. In 2020, Temecula had 759 total deed -restricted affordable units. A recorded deed restriction serves as an affordability covenant that restricts the income level of a person who occupies the property, and ensures the property will remain available for low to moderate -income persons through the foreseeable future. Table 30: Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units No. of No. of Total Project Name Address Type Restricted Units Units Cameron Historical Building 41925 5th St., Temecula CA Equal Opportunity 24 24 92590 Housing Cottages of Old Town Varies 17 17 Creekside Apts. 28955 Pujol St., Temecula CA 49 49 92590 Front Street Plaza 28693 Old Town Front St., Family/Seniors 23 23 Temecula CA 92590 Habitat I Varies 2 2 Habitat II Varies 7 7 Madera Vista Apts. 44155 Margarita Rd., Temecula Family/Seniors 110 110 CA 92592 Mission Village Apts. 28497 Pujol St., Temecula CA Family 75 76 92590 Oaktree Apts. 42176 Lyndie Ln., Temecula CA Family 44 45 92591 Palomar Heritage 41955 5th St., Temecula CA Family 22 22 Apartments 92590 Portola Terrace Apts. 28701 Pujol St., Temecula CA Family/Seniors 44 45 92590 Rancho California Apts. 29210 Stonewood Rd., Temecula Family 54 55 CA 92591 Rancho Creek Apts. 28464 Felix Valdez Rd., Temecula Family 30 30 CA 92590 Rancho West Apts. 42200 Main St., Temecula CA Family 150 150 92590 Riverbank Apts. 28500 Pujol St., Temecula CA Senior 65 66 92590 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-51 Temecula Reflections 31111 Black Maple Dr., Temecula Family 11 11 Townhomes CA 92592 Warehouse at Creekside 42081 Third St., Temecula CA Family 32 32 Apts. 92590 Total 759 764 Sources: California Housing Partnership, 2021; National Housing Preservation Database, 2021; US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2021 Mobile Homes Mobile homes offer a more affordable option for those interested in homeownership. The median value of a mobile home in Riverside County in 2018 was $60,200 (2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profile). Overall, 161 mobile homes are located in Temecula (DOF, Table 2: E- 5, 1 / 1 /2019). As shown by Table 31, there is one mobile home park in the City with a total of 196 permitted spaces. In addition to the cost of a mobile home, owners must either purchase a residential site or rent a mobile home space. And although they present a more affordable alternative, mobile home rents have risen steadily throughout southern California since 2009. z Table 31: Mobile Home Parks in Temecula Park Name/Address Operator MH Spaces HERITAGE MH COMMUNITY (33-0386-MP) 31130 S. CAREFREE COMMUNITIES CA, LLC 196 GENERAL KEARNY RD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 Total Mobile Home Spaces 196 Source: HCD 2019 Mobile Home Park Listings G. Future Housing Needs A Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) is mandated by the State of California (Government Code Section 65584) for regions to address housing issues and needs based on future growth projections for the area. The RHNP for Temecula is developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and allocates a "fair share" of regional housing needs to individual cities. The intent of the RHNP is to ensure that local jurisdictions address not only the needs of their immediate areas but also that needs for the entire region are fairly distributed to all communities. A major goal of the RHNP is to ensure that every community provides an opportunity for a mix of affordable housing to all economic segments of its population. Z Jeff Collins, "Soaring rents jolt senior tenants at mobile home park," OC Registrar (July 20, 2018). CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-52 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT As the regional planning agency, SCAG determines the City's fair share of housing through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. This Housing Element addresses SCAG's RHNA schedule for the 6th Cycle, from 2021 through 2029. The City will need to plan to accommodate 4,193 new units, which includes 679 extremely low- income units, 680 very low, 801 low, 778 moderate, and 1,255 above moderate -income units. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), 50% of Temecula's very low-income regional housing needs assigned by HCD are extremely low-income households, and hence the 679 ELI units. Table 32 summarizes Temecula's fair share, progress to date, and remaining units. Table 32: Regional Housing Needs Allocation — 6th Cycle Status Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above TOTAL Moderate RHNA Allocation 679 680 801 778 1,255 4,193 Constructed/ 0 0 0 21 6 27 Under Construction/ Permits Issued (Since 6/30/2021) Approved/Entitled/ 24 8 99 0 0 132 In Process Remaining Allocation 656 671 702 757 1,249 4,034 Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020; City of Temecula, 2021 H. Special Needs Groups Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires a housing element to address special housing needs, such as those of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. The needs of these groups often call for targeted program responses, such as temporary housing, preservation of residential hotels, housing with features to make it more accessible, and the development of four -bedroom apartments. Special needs groups have been identified and, to the degree possible, responsive programs are provided. A principal emphasis in addressing the needs of these groups is to continue to seek state technical assistance grants to identify the extent and location of those with special needs and identify ways and means to assist them. Local government budget limitations may act to limit effectiveness in implementing programs for these groups. Please refer to Section 6E of this Element for a discussion of agencies and programs that serve special needs populations in Temecula. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-53 Seniors Seniors are considered persons age 65 or older in this Housing Element. However, it must be noted that some funding programs have lower age limits for persons to be eligible for their senior housing projects. Seniors have special housing needs primarily resulting from physical disabilities and limitations, fixed or limited income, and health care costs. Additionally, senior households also have other needs to preserve their independence including supportive services to maintain their health and safety, in -home support services to perform activities of daily living, conservators to assist with personal care and financial affairs, public administration assistance to manage and resolve estate issues, and networks of care to provide a wide variety of services and daily assistance. Various portions of the Housing Element describe characteristics of the senior population, the extent of their needs for affordable housing, housing designated for seniors, and City provisions to accommodate their need. Senior household growth in Temecula from 2010 to 2018 is shown in Table 33. Table 33: Senior Population and Households (2010 and 2018) Population 2010 2018 Number 7,009 11,534 Percent Change - 64.6% Annual Percent Change - 8.1% Households 2010 2018 Number 3,694 5,983 Percent Change - 62.0% Annual Percent Change - 7.7% Source: HCD 2019 Mobile Home Park Listings The large increase in elderly persons is likely due to the residential growth experienced in Temecula as well as aging in place of Temecula's residents. Senior households increased by 62% from 2010 to 2018. While seniors represent approximately 10% of the City's population, senior households represent approximately 18% of total households, which is primarily due to the smaller senior household size. Table 34 summarizes senior households by age and tenure. The majority of senior households are owners, 4,835 or approximately 81%, whereas approximately 19% of senior households, 1,148, are renters. Temecula has a lower percentage of both owner -occupied elderly households than in Riverside County (14.3% vs. 20%) and renter - occupied elderly households (3.4% vs. 5.2%). Elderly renters tend to prefer affordable units in smaller single -story structures or multi -story CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-54 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT structures with an elevator, close to health facilities, services, transportation, and entertainment. During the planning period, senior households are anticipated to increase at a rate commensurate with overall population and household growth. Senior housing types can include market rate homes, senior single-family housing communities, senior apartments, and mobile homes. Table 34: Householder Age by Tenure (2018) Owners Renters Age Group Number Percent Number Percent 65-74 years 2,977 61.6% 809 70.5% 75-84 years 1,384 28.6% 239 20.8% 85 plus years 474 9.8% 100 8.7% TOTAL 80.8% 19.2% 4,835 1,148 (of total) (of total) Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS ("fable 6250W) The median income of households with a head of household that is 65 years and over is $64,955, significantly less (36.4%) than the median household income of $90,964. Senior Housing There is increasing variety in the types of housing available to the senior population. This section focuses on three basic types. Independent Living — Housing for healthy seniors who are self- sufficient and want the freedom and privacy of their own separate apartment or house. Many seniors remain in their original homes, and others move to special residential communities which provide a greater level of security and social activities of a senior community. Group Living — Shared living arrangements in which seniors live in close proximity to their peers and have access to activities and special services. Assisted Living — Provides the greatest level of support, including meal preparation and assistance with other activities of daily living. Temecula permits residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons by right in all residential zones, and those serving more than six persons by conditional use permit in residential and commercial zones. The California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division reports that as of May 2021, 18 residential care facilities serve the elderly in Temecula. Seniors and their caregivers also utilize larger CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-55 scale residential care facilities for the elderly. There are four commercially operating assisted living residential care facilities for the elderly in the City: • Highgate Senior Living -Temecula, 42301 Moraga Rd. — assisted living facility offering memory care and couples care • Temecula Memory Care, 44280 Campanula Way — memory care facility • Vineyard Ranch at Temecula, 27350 Nicolas Rd. — assisted living community offering memory care services • The Chateau at Harveston, 40024 Harveston Dr. — senior independent living with additional third party services Several programs address the non -housing needs of seniors in Temecula. Additional support for senior residents is provided by the city -operated Mary Phillips Senior Center (MPSC), which serves as the primary site for senior services programs offered by the City and non- profits. Some of the programs and services provided at the MPSC include nutrition/meal programs, health screening and general medical exams, transportation programs, library and computers with internet access, and recreational activities. The City also partners with RTA to provide senior transportation services, including Dial -A -Ride, throughout Temecula. Disabled Persons A "disability" includes, but is not limited to, any physical or mental disability as defined in California Government Code Section 12926. A "mental disability" involves having any mental or psychological disorder or condition that limits a major life activity. A "physical disability" involves having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects body systems. In addition, a mental or physical disability limits a major life activity by making the achievement of major life activities difficult including physical, mental, and social activities and working. Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities could prevent a person from working, restrict a person's mobility, or make caring for oneself difficult. Therefore, disabled persons often require special housing needs related to potential limited earning capacity, the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and higher health costs associated with disabilities. Additionally, people with disabilities require a wide range of different housing, depending on the type and severity of their disability. Housing needs can range from institutional care facilities to facilities that support partial or full independence (i.e., group care CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-56 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT homes). Supportive services such as daily living skills and employment assistance need to be integrated in the housing situation. Individuals with a mobility, visual, or hearing limitation may require housing that is physically accessible. Examples of accessibility in housing include widened doorways and hallways, ramps, bathroom modifications (e.g., lowered countertops, grab bars, adjustable shower heads, etc.) and special sensory devices including smoke alarms and flashing lights. Individuals with self -care limitations (which can include persons with mobility difficulties) may require residential environments that include in -home or on -site support services ranging from congregate to convalescent care. Support services can include medical therapy, daily living assistance, congregate dining, and related services. • Individuals with developmental disabilities and other physical and mental conditions that prevent them from functioning independently may require assisted care or group home environments. • Individuals with disabilities may require financial assistance to meet their housing needs because a higher percentage than the population at large are low-income and their special housing needs are often costlier than conventional housing. According to the 2014-2018 ACS, there were 9,442 persons with one or more disabilities in Temecula. Of the disabled population, 62.8% were aged 5 to 64, 36.1% were aged 65 and over, and 1.2% were aged 5 and under. Table 35 identifies disabilities by type of disability. Table 35: Disabilities by Disability Type (2018) Persons Ages 5.64 Persons Ages 65+ Total Type of Disability Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Hearing Difficulty 1,393 23.5% 1,552 45.59% 2,991 31.7% Vision Difficulty 821 13.9% 591 17.36% 1,479 15.7% Cognitive Difficulty 2,796 47.2% 648 19.04% 3,444 36.5% Ambulatory Difficulty 1,835 31.0% 1,937 56.90% 3,772 39.9% Self -Care Difficulty 953 16.1 % 741 21.77% 1,694 17.9% Independent Living Difficulty 1,628 27.5% 1,645 48.33% 3,273 34.7% Total Persons with One or 5,925 100% / 62.8% 3,404 100% / 36.1 % of 9,442 100% More Disabilities' of disabled disabled 'A person may have more than one disability, so the total disabilities may exceed the total persons with a disability Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-57 As shown in Table 36, the 2014-2018 ACS indicates that for individuals between the ages of 16 and 64, approximately 2,562 persons had some form or type of disability and were not in the labor force. This indicates that their disability may impede their ability to earn an adequate income, which in turn could affect their ability to afford suitable housing accommodations to meet their special needs. Therefore, many in this group may be in need of housing assistance. Table 36: Disabled Persons by Employment Status (2018) Ages 16 to 64 Percent Employed with Disability 2,190 42.8% Unemployed with Disability 369 7.2% Not in Labor Force with Disability 2,562 50% Total 5,121 100% Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS While recent Census data does not provide income levels or overpayment data for persons with a disability, the 2014-2018 ACS survey does report on indicators that relate to a disabled person's or household's income. The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that 733 persons with a disability are below the poverty level. It is likely that a portion of these disabled persons are in households that overpay for housing due to their limited income. The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that 24.8% of households receiving food stamps or similar assistance have a disabled member. Of the 6,932 households with a disabled member, 447 households receive food stamps or similar assistance. The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that the median earnings for males 16 years and over with a disability were $49,500 compared with $52,107 for males with no disability. Median earnings for females 16 years and over with a disability were $31,993 compared to $29,632 for females with no disability (which may be the result of disabled females receiving disability and SSI benefits). The persons in the "with a disability" category in Table 35 and Table 36 include persons with developmental disabilities. "Developmental disability" means "a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual." This term includes an intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, and disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disabilities or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability, but does not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature. While the U.S. Census reports on a broad range of disabilities, the Census does not identify the subpopulation that has a developmental disability. The California Department of Developmental Services CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-58 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT (DDS) maintains data regarding people with developmental disabilities, defined as those with severe, life-long disabilities attributable to mental and/or physical impairments. The DDS data is reported by zip code, so the data reflects a larger area than the City of Temecula; however, the data was joined at the jurisdiction level by SCAG to approximate the counts for Temecula. The DDS/SCAG data indicates that 272 developmentally disabled persons reside in zip codes 92592, 92591, and 92590. Table 37 breaks down the developmentally disabled population by residence type. Of these persons, the majority (262) live at home with a parent or guardian and only 5 live independently. Table 37: Developmentally Disabled Persons by Residence Type (2018) Home of Parent/ Independent/ Community Intermediate Foster/ Family Supported Care Facility Care Facility Home Other TOTAL Guardian Living Temecula* 262 5 0 0 5 0 272 *Data is for the Temecula portion ofzip codes 92592, 92591, and 92590 Sources: CA DDS, 2019; SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package Housing for Disabled Persons Households with a disabled member will require a mixture of housing units with accessibility features, in -home care, or group care housing facilities. Some of these households will have a member with a developmental disability and are expected to have special housing needs. Developmentally disabled persons may live with a family in a typical single-family or multifamily home, but some developmentally disabled persons with more severe disabilities may have special housing needs that may include extended family homes, group homes, small and large residential care facilities, intermediate care, and skilled nursing facilities and affordable housing such as extremely low/very low/low- income housing (both rental and ownership), Section 8/Housing Choice Vouchers, and single room occupancy -type units. Although there are no assisted living residential care facilities for adults with special needs, including physical, mental, and developmental disabilities in Temecula, there are a number of resources available throughout the County to serve the disabled residents of Temecula. Table 38 identifies some of the organizations in or near Temecula that specialize in providing services for the disabled and developmentally disabled population. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-59 Table 38: Facilities and Services for Disabled Persons Organization Name Type of Service Provided Homeless Population Served Towards Maximum Independence (TMI) Employment and family support Disabled adults services California Department of Rehabilitation Vocational rehabilitation, independent living Developmentally disabled adults Coyne & Assoc. Early start, behavioral services for 12 months to 12 years children Goodwill Industries of the Inland Counties Vocational evaluation, training, and Adults with physical, psychiatric, and employment opportunities developmental disabilities Inland Respite, Inc. Caregivers and companion care Developmentally disabled adults Maxim Homecare Services Home healthcare, autism services Mentally disabled persons Project T.O.U.C.H. (Together Our Unity Shelter and homeless services Disabled adults Conquers Homelessness) CARE Learning Center and Counseling Educational and counseling services Disabled children and adults Services A.C.C.E.S.S. Therapeutic services Developmentally disabled children and adolescents Community Access Center (CAC) Advocacy, assistive technology Disabled adults The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that for individuals between the ages of 5 and 64, approximately 1.6% of the total population of Temecula have an ambulatory difficulty, 0.7% have a vision difficulty, 1.2% have a hearing difficulty, and 1.5% have an independent living difficulty. These types of disabilities may impede their ability to find suitable housing accommodations to meet their special needs. Therefore, many in these groups may be in need of housing assistance. Households containing physically handicapped persons may also need housing with universal design measures or special features to allow better physical mobility for occupants. The 2014-18 ACS data also indicates that 6,932 households (20.5%) in Temecula had one or more disabled persons, including developmentally disabled persons. It is anticipated that this rate will remain the same during the planning period. Housing needed for persons with a disability during the planning period is anticipated to include community care facilities or at-home supportive services for persons with an independent living difficulty or self -care difficulty (approximately 4.9% of the population), as well as housing that is equipped to serve persons with ambulatory and sensory disabilities. Approximately 20.5% of the RHNA, 860 units, may be needed to have universal design measures or be accessible to persons with a disability. The City of Temecula is committed to improving the housing options for persons with special needs by proactively working with the development community. In 2015, a developer requesting a General CITY OF TEMECULA GLNERAL PLAN HBK-60 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Plan change was required to offer construction options on the development in order to provide better for -sale options for those who may need unique construction requirements (in the special needs community), but cannot afford expensive retrofits of existing units. These options included: • Sound absorbent ceilings and walls • Tempered glass windows and mirrors • Natural light with sky lights or sun tubes • Clerestory lighting • Bathrooms with 4' tiled walls and flooring with floor drains • Bathroom plumbing with scaled prevention • Fiberglass and Dutch doors • Automatic swinging door operations • Pre -wiring for security systems • Wider doors Large Family Households Large family households are defined as households of five or more persons. Large family households are considered a special needs group because there is often a limited supply of adequately sized housing to accommodate their needs. The more persons in a household, the more rooms are needed to accommodate that household. Specifically, a five - person household would require three or four bedrooms, a six -person household would require four bedrooms, and a seven -person household would require four to six bedrooms. In Temecula, 5,273 households, 15.6% of all households, have five or more persons as described in Table 21. Of the large households, 65% own their home and 35% rent. Typically, there are more owner - occupied large households that are cost burdened when compared to renter households and the population as a whole. However, the 2014- 2018 ACS survey does not provide data regarding overpayment for large households. Table 39 compares the median income for households with five or more persons to the citywide median income 'for 2018. For each large family category, the median household income was higher versus the citywide median of $90,964. Table 39: Median Income By Household Size (2018) Size Median Income 5-Person Households $109,958 6-Person Households $115,667 7 or More Person Households $113,556 Median Household Income (Ali Households) $90, 964 Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-61 Large families can have a difficult time finding housing units large enough to meet their needs. In Temecula, there appears to be a significant amount of both ownership housing and rental housing available to provide units with enough bedrooms for larger households. Table 40 identifies the number of large households by household size versus the number of large owner and rental units. While there are adequate units in Temecula to accommodate large owner and renter households, it does not mean that there is a match between housing units that exist and large families. As described in Table 20, 2% of owner -occupied homes and 4.7% of renter -occupied homes are overcrowded. Table 40: Household Size versus Bedroom Size by Tenure (2018) 5 Person Households 6 Person and Larger Households Tenure U BR 4+ BR Units Households Shortfall/ Households Shortfall/ Excess Excess Owner 1 8,416 2,300 6,116 12,265 1,128 11,137 Renter 3,177 1,334 1,843 3,076 511 2,565 Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS Large households require housing units with more bedrooms than housing units needed by smaller households. In general, housing for these households should provide safe outdoor play areas for children and should be located to provide convenient access to schools and child care facilities. These types of needs can pose problems particularly for large families that cannot afford to buy or rent single-family houses. Based on the proportion of the City's households that are at least five persons, it is anticipated that approximately 16% of the regional housing needs allocation units will be needed to accommodate large households and an emphasis should be placed on ensuring rental units are available to large households. The City has amended Program 10 to encourage the development of housing units sized appropriate for larger households. Single Parent and Female Headed Households Single parent households are households with children under the age of 18 at home and include both male- and female -headed households. These households generally have a higher ratio between their income and their living expenses (that is, living expenses take up a larger share of income than is generally the case in two -parent households). Therefore, finding affordable, decent, and safe housing is often more difficult for single parent and female -headed households. Additionally, single parent and female -headed households have special needs involving access to daycare or childcare, health care, and other supportive services. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-62 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT While the majority of households in Temecula are either two -spouse couples or single person households, 20.5% of family households are headed by a single male or single female. There are 1,393 male heads of household with no wife present and 581 of these households have children under 18. There is a larger number of female householders with no husband present — 4,296 households or 15.5% of family households — and 2,488 of these female -headed households have children under 18. Table 41 identifies single parent households by gender of the householder and presence of children. The median income of female -headed households (no husband present) is $53,651, 23.8% less than the median income of a male - headed, no wife present family ($70,432) and 41 % less than the median income of all households in the City ($90,964). Approximately 4.8% of all households are under the poverty level; 26.4% of female -headed households with related children under 18 are under the poverty level. Table 41: Families and Female Householder with Children Under 18 (2018) Category Number Percent Total Families 27,657 100% Male householder, no wife present 1,393 5% With children under 18 581 2% Female householder, no husband present 4,296 15.5% With children under 18 2,488 9% Source. US Census, 2014-2018 ACS As Temecula's population and households grow, there will be a continued need for supportive services for single parent households with children present. To address both the housing and supportive services needs of single parent households, additional multifamily housing should be developed that includes childcare facilities (allowing single parents to actively seek employment). In addition, the creation of innovative housing for female -headed households could include co -housing developments where childcare and meal preparation responsibilities can be shared. The economies of scale available in this type of housing would be advantageous to this special needs group as well as all other low-income household groups. Limited equity cooperatives sponsored by non-profit housing developers are another financing structure that could be considered for the benefit of all special needs groups. Farmworkers Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Agricultural lands have historically been one of Riverside County's CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-63 most important land uses and agriculture continues to play a large role in the local economy. While Riverside County has recently experienced an unprecedented level of population growth leading to a more diverse economic base that includes manufacturing, technology, and service - oriented sectors, it remains strongly tied to an agricultural base. Nonetheless, there are only two very minor agricultural operations in the City and no agricultural zoning district exists although agricultural uses are permitted in the residential districts. Despite this fact, the 2014-2018 ACS data estimates that only 228 (0.4% of the working population) of Temecula's residents were employed in agriculture (or related industries — forestry, fishing and hunting, mining) in 201 S. It is possible (although statistics are not available) that the number of residents employed in agriculture as opposed to those employed in forestry, fishing and hunting, or mining is smaller than 228. In addition, it is possible (although statistics are not available) that a number of active farmworkers are not full-time residents of Temecula, and migrate into the area depending on seasonal crop harvest. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that there were 1,684 migrant farmworkers in Riverside County in 2017. USDA estimates that 5,607 farmworkers worked seasonally (hired for a period of less than 150 da s) in Riverside County in 2017, while 5,758 farmworkers in Riverside Coun , were permanent (hired for a period of greater than or edual to 150 daysl. Such farmworkers may find temporary housing by living with relatives, or short-term rental of a single unit for several families, resulting in overcrowded conditions. Homeless Persons Government Codc Section 65583(a)(7) requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of the needs of homeless persons and families. Homeless persons are defined as those who lack a fixed and adequate residence. People who are homeless may be chronically homeless (perhaps due to substance abuse or mental health issues) or situationally homeless (perhaps resulting from job loss or family strife). Homeless people face critical housing challenges due to their very low incomes and lack of appropriate housing. Thus, State law requires jurisdictions to plan to help meet the needs of their homeless populations. The law also requires that each jurisdiction address community needs and available resources for special housing opportunities known as transitional and supportive housing. These housing types provide the opportunity for families and individuals to "transition" from a homeless condition to permanent housing, often with the assistance of supportive services to assist individuals in gaining necessary life skills in support of independent living. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-64 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Homeless Estimates Counting the homeless population is problematic due to their transient nature; however, through the efforts of the Riverside County Continuum of Care (CoC) estimates have been developed. The Riverside County CoC is a consortium of individuals and organizations with the common purpose of developing and implementing a strategy to address homelessness in Riverside County. The Riverside County CoC is responsible for managing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds for homelessness, and is uniquely positioned to identify system needs and take steps to address them with the collaboration and partnership of community stakeholders. As the primary coordinating body for homeless issues and assistance for the entire County, the Riverside County CoC accomplishes a host of activities and programs vital to the County, including an annual point -in -time "snapshot" survey to identify and assess the needs of both the sheltered and unsheltered homeless. Riverside County's 2020 Point -in -Time (PIT) Count was conducted on January 29, 2020 and was planned, coordinated, and carried out by County agencies, city municipalities, non-profit service providers, and volunteers, including those experiencing homelessness. The 2020 PIT Count identified 59 people in the City of Temecula experiencing homelessness, representing 2.0% of Riverside County's total homeless count (2,884 individuals)._ The 59 people identified in Temecula were unsheltered. For Riverside County, an estimated 729 (25.3%) of the 2,884 homeless individuals were sheltered and an estimated 2,155 (75%) were unsheltered. The County's 2020 count was 3% higher than the count in 2019. Compared to 2019, the sheltered count decreased 5%, while the unsheltered count increased 5%. In Riverside County from 2018 to 2019 there was a 21% increase in the overall number of homeless persons counted, from 2,316 to 2,811 in 2019. The count in the City of Temecula in 2019 was a total of 59 unsheltered homeless individuals. Housing Accommodations The Temecula Zoning Code allows emergency shelters by right in the Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential zones, subject to compliance with objective standards consistent with the requirements identified in Government Code Section 65583(a)(4). Emergency shelters are also permitted by way of conditional use permit in all other residential zones and in all commercial, office, and industrial districts. Likewise, transitional and supportive housing are allowed by right in the Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-65 zones and subject only to the same requirements for residential uses of the same type (e.g., single-family or multifamily) in the same zone. Transitional and supportive housing are also permitted by way of conditional use permit in all other residential zones and in all commercial, office, and industrial districts. Housing Program 4-6-17 will amend the Zoning Code to ensure that the Code complies with SB 745 and allows transitional and supportive housing by right in all zones allowing residential uses and are not subject to any restrictions (e.g., occupancy limit) not imposed on similar dwellings in the same zone. The Housing Plan includes policies and programs directed to encourage the provision of housing and services for the homeless population as well as persons and households at risk of homelessness. There are two emergency shelters operating in the City — Project T.O.U.C.H. (130 beds) and Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission. Furthermore, Temecula supports a regional effort to provide emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing among the various local agencies making up the Riverside County CoC. The most recent inventory of resources available within Riverside County for emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing units comes from the 2020 Housing Inventory reported to HUD by the Riverside County CoC. Table 42 shows the total beds offered by homeless facilities in the Riverside County CoC area. Table 42: Homeless Facilities (2020)* Facility Type Riverside City & County CoC Family Units Family Beds Adult -Only Beds Total Year -Round Beds Emergency Shelter 80 310 505 839 Transitional Housing 11 42 50 92 Permanent Supportive Housing 112 414 1,330 1,744 Rapid Re -Housing 69 238 80 318 TOTAL UNITS/BEDS 272 1,004 1,965 2,993 *Numbers are for the total Riverside County Continuum of Care region for which Temecula is a participating member Source: HUD 2020 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs, Housing Inventory Count Report Emergency Shelters — An emergency shelter is defined as housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less. Furthermore, no individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. • Transitional Housing — Sometimes referred to as "bridge" housing, provides housing accommodations and support services for persons and families, but restricts occupancy to no more than 24 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-66 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT months. In the Riverside County CoC region, a total of 92 transitional housing beds are provided. Permanent Supportive Housing — Supportive housing has no limit on length of stay and is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. A total of 1,744 permanent housing beds are provided in the Riverside County CoC region. • Rapid Re -Housing — Rapid re -housing provides short-term rental assistance and services. The goals are to help people obtain housing quickly, increase self-sufficiency, and stay housed. A network of local and regional service providers operates a number of programs to serve the needs of varied homeless subpopulations. Table 43 provides a list of emergency and transitional shelters and available services for the homeless population in and around Temecula. Table 43: Facilities and Services for the Homeless Organization Name Type of Service Provided Homeless Population Number of Beds Served Transitional housing, Project TOUCH - Temecula All 215 emergency shelter Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission - Temecula Emergency shelter All N.A. People with substance Transitional housing, abuse problems, 80 men; Set Free Ranch - Lake Elsinore substance abuse counseling people with mental 30 women illness, domestic - violence survivors Transitional housing, Salvation Army Emergency Shelter -Hemet All N.A. emergency shelter Valley Restart Shelter - Hemet Emergency shelter, All 35 Interfaith Community Services Coastal Service Transitional and permanent All, Center - Oceanside housing, emergency shelter, Veterans 49+ employment development Operation HOPE - Vista Emergency shelter Women and families N.A. Jericho House Transitional housing Men with substance abuse problems N.A. Social Work Action Group (SWAG) 90-day stabilization program Substance Problems 20 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-67 Assessment ofNeed Based on the available information, there is a countywide homeless population of 2,884 persons and 2,993 beds, indicating sufficient supply for homeless persons. It is noted that the 2020 point -in -time survey identified 729 sheltered homeless persons and 2,155 unsheltered homeless persons. The discrepancy between sheltered homeless persons and the county's total capacity to house homeless persons indicates a need for additional community services resources to assist and match the homeless population with the countywide shelter and housing resources. I. Units at Risk of Conversion Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion California housing element law requires jurisdictions to provide an analysis of low-income, assisted multifamily housing units that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years (2021-2031) due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use (Government Code 65583). These units risk the termination of various subsidy groups which could convert certain multifamily housing from affordable to market rate. State law requires housing elements to assess at -risk housing in order to project any potential loss of affordable housing. The California Housing Partnership (CHP) provides data on assisted housing units, including those in Temecula. Table 44 indicates the extent of subsidized multifamily rental housing in the City, the subsidy programs that are in place for each project, and the likelihood of current housing assisted projects to convert to market rate projects that would not provide assistance to lower income residents. Table 44: Summary of at -Risk Subsidized Housing Units Project/Address No. & Type of Type of Subsidy Current Owner Earliest Date of Risk Units Conversion Cameron Historical Building 41925 5th St. 24 Family RDA Loan WINCHESTER 12 2062 Low PARTNERS LP Temecula CA 92590 Cottages of Old Town Individual Property Address Varies 17 RDA Loan Owners 2047 Low LIHTC Creekside Apts. reek idePujis 48 Section 515, RC Investment Group 2040 Low Section 538, A — California LP Temecula CA 92590 Section 521 Front Street Plaza 28693 Old Town Front St. 23 Family & RDA Loan FRONT STREET 2069 Low Seniors PLAZA PARTNERS Temecula CA 92590 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-68 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT FT-02-029 32504 Strigel Court 1 LIHTC Individual Property 2027 MmderateLLig Owner h Temecula CA 92592 Habitat I & II 9 Land/Cash Individual Property 2047 Low Contribution Owners Madera Vista Apts. Summerhouse 44155 Margarita Rd. 110 Family & Seniors LIHTC Housing Associates 2068 Low Temecula CA 92592 LP Mission Village Apts. 28497 Pujol St. 75 Family LIHTC Affirmed Housing 2029 MmdeFateLLig Group h Temecula CA 92590 LIHTC Oaktree Apts. 42176 Lyndie Ln. 39 Family Section 5, Highland Property 2040 Low Section 53838, Development Temecula CA 92591 Section 521 Palomar Building 41955 5th St. 22 Family RDA Loan CROSSROADS AT 2062 Low WINCHESTER Temecula CA 92590 Portola Terrace Apts. 28701 Pujol St. 44 Family & Seniors LIHTC AMCAL Pujol Fund LP 2067 Low Temecula CA 92590 Rancho California Apts. 29210 Stonewood Rd. Temecula CA 54 Family LIHTC Rancho California LP 2067 Low 92591 Rancho West Apts. 42200 Main St. 150 Family RDA Loan WESTMINSTER 2708 2026 High HOLDING Temecula CA 92590 Rancho Creek Apts. 28464 Felix Valdez Rd. Temecula CA 30 Family RDA Loan 1717 SUNDSRT PLAZA 2026 High 92590 Riverbank Apts./Pujol Street Senior Apartments Corp for Better 28500 Pujol St. 65 Senior LIHTC Housing 2058 Low Temecula CA 92590 Temecula Reflections (Temecula Lane) Builder Individual Property 31111 Black Maple Dr. 11 Family Financed/Develo Owners 2065 Low pment Rights Temecula CA 92592 Warehouse at Creekside Apts. 42081 3rd St. 32 Family RDA Loan WAREHOUSE AT 2065 Low CREEKSIDE Temecula CA 92590 Sources: California Housing Partnership, May 2021; National Housing Partnership Database, 2021 Preservation Options Depending on the circumstances of the at -risk projects, different options may be used to preserve or replace the units. The following discussion highlights ways that the City's at -risk units could be preserved as affordable housing. All of the presented financial CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-69 alternatives are costly and beyond the ability of the City of Temecula to manage without large amounts of subsidy from federal and/or state resources; however, the City can engage in a number of organizational efforts to preserve at -risk units. Replacement Through New Construction The construction of new lower income housing units is a means of replacing the at -risk units should they be converted to market rate. The cost of developing new housing depends on a variety of factors such as density, size of units, location and related land costs, and type of construction. Assuming an average development cost of $143,000 per unit for multifamily rental housing (1,200 square foot unit), replacement of the 2564S9 high at -risk units would require approximately $25,736.6 million dollars, excluding land costs, which vary depending upon location. Purchase ofReplacement Units One preservation option is for a non-profit organization to purchase similar units. By purchasing similar units, a non-profit organization can secure lower -income restrictions and potentially enable the project to become eligible for a greater range of governmental assistance. The cost of purchasing similar units depends on a number of factors, including the market conditions at the time, occupancy rate, and physical conditions of the units to be acquired. Current market value for the at -risk units is estimated on the basis of the units' potential annual income, and operating and maintenance expenses. The actual market value at time of sale would depend on market and property conditions, lease-out/turnover rates, among other factors. According to Zillow. the average cost of a multifamily unit in Temecula as of April 2021 was $419,000. As previously discussed, the City has identified 256 high at -risk units: the cost to purchase replacement units would be approximately $107 million dollars. Purchase ofAffordability Covenants Another option to preserve the affordability of at -risk projects is to provide an incentive package to the owners to maintain the projects as affordable housing. Incentives could include writing down the interest rate on the remaining loan balance, and/or supplementing the subsidy amount received to market levels. To purchase the affordability covenant on these projects, an incentive package should include interest subsidies at or below what the property owners can obtain in the open market. To enhance the attractiveness of the incentive package, the interest subsidies may need to be CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-70 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT combined with rent subsidies that supplement the HUD fair market rent levels. Rental Assistance Tenant -based rent subsidies could be used to preserve the affordability of housing. Similar to Housing Choice Vouchers, the City, through a variety of potential funding sources, could provide rent subsidies to very low-income households. The level of the subsidy required to preserve the at -risk units is estimated to equal the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a unit minus the housing cost affordable by a very low- income household. AI2proximately $14,080 in rent subsidies would be required monthly (or $168,960 annually. Assuming a 55-year affordability period, the total subsidy is about $9.3 million. Cost Comparison In terms of cost effectiveness for preservation of the 256 at -risk units, 55 years' worth of rental subsidies ($9.3 million) appears to be the most effective financial option. While the cost of purchasing the affordability covenants is unknown, it is possible that it would provide a cost- effective strategy for preserving the at -risk units and should be explored to further support the City's preservation objectives. Nonprofit Entities with Capacity to Acquire and/or Manage At -Risk Units Nonprofit entities serving Riverside County, including Temecula, can be contacted to gauge their interest and ability in acquiring and/or managing units at risk of conversion. A partial listing of entities with resources in the Riverside County area includes: • Alternatives for Domestic Violence • Shelter from the Storm • Nexus for Affordable Housing • Catholic Charities • Coachella Valley Housing Coalition • Fair Housing Council of Riverside County • Family Service Association of Riverside County • Habitat for Humanity • Lutheran Social Services • BUILD Leadership Development Potential Funding Sources to Preserve At -Risk Units A partial list of potential federal, State, and local funding sources that can be used to preserve at -risk units include: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-71 • Predevelol2ment funds • Tax-exempt bonds • Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC� • Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) • SB 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (LPL" Grant • HOME funds • Local housing trust funds Organizational Efforts The City will develop procedures for monitoring and preserving at -risk units, which will include the follQwAd • Monitor the Risk Assessment report published by the California Housing Partnership Corporation; • Maintain regular contact with the local HUD office regarding early warnings of possible ol2t-outs; • Maintain contact with the owners and managers of existing affordable housing to determine if there are plans to ol2t out in the future and offer assistance in locating eligible buyers; • Develop and maintain a list of potential purchasers of at -risk units and act as a liaison between owners and eligible purchasers; and • Contact prol2eM owners of units at risk of converting to market -rate housing within one year of affordability expiration to discuss the City's desire to preserve complexes as affordable housing. Participation from agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing at -risk units will be sought. Coordinate with owners of expiring subsidies to ensure tenants receive the required notices at 3 years. 6 months, and 12 months,Ver California law. The City has included Program 20 to seek to preserve all at -risk units. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-72 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT J. Estimates of Housing Need Several factors influence the degree of demand, or "need," for housing in Temecula. The major needs categories considered in this Element include: • Housing needs resulting from the overcrowding of units • Housing needs that result when households pay more than they can afford for housing • Housing needs of "special needs groups" such as elderly, large families, female -headed households, households with a disabled person, farmworkers, and the homeless State law requires that cities quantify existing housing need in their Housing Element. Table 45 summarizes the findings. Table 45: Summary of Needs Summary of Households/Persons with Identified Housing Need Percent of Total Population/Households Households Overpaying for Housing: Renter Households Overpaying 11.3% of households Owner Households Overpaying 6.7% of households Extremely Low-income Households (0-30% AMI) Overpaying 4.8% of households Very Low-income Households (0-30% AMI) Overpaying 5.5% of households Low-income Households (0-30% AMI) Overpaying 7.7% of households Overcrowded Households: Overcrowded Renter Households 1.6% of households Overcrowded Owner Households 1.3% of households All Overcrowded Households 2.9% of households Special Needs Groups: Elderly Households 17.7% of households Disabled Persons 8.5% of pop. Developmentally Disabled Persons 0.2% of pop. Large Households 15.6% of households Female Headed Households 12.7% of households Female Headed Households with Children 7.3% of households Farmworkers 0.2% of pop. Homeless 0.05% of pop. Affordable Housing Units At Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Costs 480-256 units Sources: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS; Riverside County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-73 IV. CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING PRODUCTION Constraints to housing development are defined as government measures or non -government conditions that limit the amount or timing of residential development. Government regulations can potentially constrain the supply of housing available in a community if the regulations limit the opportunities to develop housing, impose requirements that unnecessarily increase the cost to develop housing, or make the development process so arduous as to discourage housing developers. State law requires housing elements to contain an analysis of the governmental constraints on housing maintenance, improvement, and development (Government Code, Section 65583(a) (4)). Non -governmental constraints (required to be analyzed under Government Code, Section 65583(a) (5)) cover land prices, construction costs, and financing. While local governments cannot control prices or costs, identification of these constraints can be helpful to Temecula in formulating housing programs. A. Potential Non -Governmental Constraints The City of Temecula takes a number of proactive steps to address non -governmental constraints. This includes implementing the City's Affordable Housing Overlay, providing a fee deferral/reimbursement program, and streamlining processes. Temecula provides a free pre - application process where a developer can receive no cost feedback from all City departments during conceptual, due diligence, and pre - submittal timeframes. Many cities charge thousands of dollars for this process, which adds to development costs and potentially discourages developers from evaluating projects. The City's digital review is another developer friendly process that is minimizing time and reducing costs for the development community. Prior to COVID-19, the City undertook extensive information system upgrades to enable digital reviews. The cost savings add up quickly, with printing cost and permit running costs reaching well over $10,000 just for printing. Temecula hosts Temecula Trekkers (annually), a multi -day educational session, that educates real estate agents on the Planning Department and provides a direct liaison for future projects. The City has included Program 19, Mitigation of Nongovernment Constraints, to address these constraints, to the extent feasible. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-74 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT 1. Land and Construction Costs A major cost associated with developing new housing is the cost of land. Most vacant residential parcels in Temecula have been subdivided, while others are contained within planned communities. The cost of to develop housing is influenced by the cost of the raw land, the cost of holding the land during the development process, and the cost of providing services to meet City standards for development. The cost of raw land is influenced by variables such as scarcity, location, availability of public utilities, zoning, general plan designation, and unique features like trees, water frontage, views, and adjoining uses. A review of lots for sale and recently sold indicates that land prices range from approximately $20,000 to $80,000 per acre for land approved for residential development based on a review of Zillow and Loopnet listings. A number of underdeveloped parcels with a single-family unit that could be redeveloped with larger, single-family homes (with ADUs) have been sold for $359,000 to $3.2 million or approximately $14 to $55 per square foot, largely depending on the location within the community. A review of multifamily developments for sale and recently sold using Zillow and LoopNet listings found several multi -family units: a condominium unit sold for $320.000 or approximately $81 per square foot; a townhome sold for $565,000 or approximately $177 per square foot; and a three -unit property sold for $1.3 million (approximately $433,333 per unit) or $111 per square foot. Construction cost is determined primarily by the cost of labor and materials. The relative importance of each is a function of the complexity of the construction job and the desired quality of the finished product. As a result, builders are under constant pressure to complete a job for as low a price as possible while still providing a quality product. This pressure has led (and is still leading) to an emphasis on labor-saving materials and construction techniques. The International Code Council (ICC) provides estimates for the average cost of labor and materials for typical Type VA protected wood -frame housing. Estimates are based on "good -quality" construction, providing for materials and fixtures well above the minimum required by state and local building codes. In the 2020 edition of the Building Safety Journal, the ICC estimated that the average per square -foot cost for good -quality housing in the region was approximately $118 for multi -family housing, $131 for single-family homes, and $148 for residential care/assisted living facilities. Although construction costs are a substantial portion of the overall development cost, they are consistent throughout the region and therefore are not CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-75 considered a major constraint to housing production. The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic social distancing guidelines may increase constructions costs for an unknown period. Construction cost increases, like land cost increases, affect the ability of consumers to pay for housing. Construction cost increases occur due to the cost of materials, labor, and higher government imposed standards (e.g., energy conservation requirements). The development community is currently producing market rate for -sale housing that is affordable to moderate and above moderate income households. Through Programs 3. 6 and 8, and--theand-the City will continue to make available City -owned land for affordable housing development to help alleviate potential constraints associated with land and construction costs. 2. Availability of Financing Financing is critical to the housing market. Developers require construction financing, and buyers require permanent financing. The two principal ways in which financing can serve as a constraint to new residential development are the availability and cost of construction financing and the availability and cost of permanent financing. • If financing is not easily available, then more equity may be required for developing new projects and fewer homebuyers can purchase homes, since higher down payments are required. • Higher construction period interest rates for developers result in higher development costs. For homebuyers, higher interest rates translate into higher mortgage payments (for the same loan amount), and therefore reduces the purchasing power of homebuyers. On February 25, 2021, the reported average rate for a 30-year mortgage was 2.97% with 0.6 points (FreddieMac, 2019). From 2005 through 2021, average monthly mortgage rates have ranged from a high of °6.76% in July 2006 to today's record lows. For homebuyers, it is necessary to pay a higher down payment than in the immediate past, and demonstrate credit worthiness and adequate incomes, so that loan applications meet standard underwriting criteria. While adherence to strict underwriting criteria was not required during the early and mid- 2000s, the return to stricter standards is consistent with loan standards prior to 2001. Interest rates at the present time are not a constraint to affordable housing. Financing for both construction and long-term mortgages is generally available in Riverside County subject to normal underwriting standards. A more critical impediment to homeownership involves both the affordability of the housing stock and the ability of potential CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-76 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT buyers to fulfill down -payment requirements. Conventional home loans typically require five to 20 percent of the sales price as a down payment, which is the largest constraint to first-time homebuyers. This indicates a need for flexible loan programs and a method to bridge the gap between the down payment and a potential homeowner's available funds. The availability of financing for developers under current economic conditions may also pose a constraint on development outside of the City's control. As described in Program 11, the City will continue to support the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program managed by the County of Riverside, a government assistance program, to help address this issue. 3. Affordable Housing Development Constraints In addition to the constraints to market rate housing development discussed above, affordable housing projects face additional constraints. While there is a range of sites available for potential affordable housing projects, as well as projects that focus on special needs populations, financial assistance for the development of affordable housing is limited and highly competitive. Multiple funding sources are needed to construct an affordable housing project, since substantial subsidies are required to make the units affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income households. It is not unusual to see five or more financing sources required to make a project financially feasible. Each of these sources may have different requirements and application deadlines, and some sources may require that the project has already successfully secured financing commitments. Since financing is so critical and is also generally competitive, organizations and agencies that provide funding often can effectively dictate the type and sizes of projects. Thus, in some years senior housing may be favored by financing programs, while in other years family housing may be preferred. Target income levels can also vary from year to year. This situation has worsened in recent years. Federal and state funding has decreased and limited amounts of housing funds are available and the process to obtain funds is extremely competitive. Tax credits, often a fundamental source of funds for affordable housing, are no longer selling on a one for one basis. In other words, once a project has received authorization to sell a specified amount of tax credits to equity investors, the investors are no longer purchasing the credits at face value, but are purchasing them at a discount. (Tax credits are not worth as much to investors if their incomes have dropped.) As described in Program 10, Special Needs Housing Construction, the City will continue to support the developers of affordable and special needs housing and encourage the expansion of these development types in the City. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-77 4. Building Permit Timing Typically, single family home developers apply for the first building permits for a subdivision upon receipt of a grading permit. For simple projects or projects that must remain static in their design, building permits may be processed concurrently with grading plan reviews. Building permits typically take 60-90 days, assuming two to three plan checks. Building permits can be issued in as few as 30 days if there are no corrections, but this is rarely the case for residential subdivisions or multifamily projects. Typically, it takes approximately 6-18 months between approval of a project and request for/issuance of building permits. This varies widely depending on the complexity of the project and required permits or environmental review. The City will continue to work proactively with applicants to ensure that applications for building permits are complete and can be reviewed and granted in an expeditious way. The City has identified Program 14 to expedite the processing of affordable housing projects and Program 17 to review key sections of its Zoning Code to evaluate and amend, if necessarv. provisions to further streamline the permit process. B. Governmental Constraints Housing affordability is affected by factors in both the private and public sectors. Actions by the City can have an impact on the price and availability of housing in Temecula. Land use controls, site improvement requirements, building codes, fees, and other local programs intended to improve the overall quality of housing may serve as a constraint to housing development. These governmental constraints can limit the operations of the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, making it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing and limiting supply in a region. All City zoning, development standards, specific plans, and fees are posted online and available to the public, consistent with the requirements of AB 1483 and Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1). In this section. the City has considered all relevant land use controls Visas potential constraints on a variety of housing types. In some cases, as described below, the City has identified a particular control as a constraint to housing development and has included Program 17 to modify the City's Zoning Code, as needed, to remove the constraint. 1. Land Use Controls The Land Use Element of the Temecula General Plan and corresponding Development Code provide for a range of residential types and densities dispersed throughout the City. The Land Use Element identifies an allowable range of dwelling units per net acre for each residential land use category (see Table 46). CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-78 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT The Land Use Element establishes target residential densitX levels for the following residential uses: • Hillside Residential (HR0.10 DU/Act • Rural Residential (RR(0.20 DU/Ac) • Very Low Density Residential (VL)(0.3 DU/Ac) • Low Density Residential-1 (L-1)(1.5 DU/Ac� • Low Medium Density Residential = (4.5 DU/Ac� The Land Use Element also establishes Mmaximum residential densitie as followsift • Hillside Residential (HR) (0.1 DU/A • Rural (RR(0.2 DU/Acl • Very Low Density Residential (VL(0.4 DU/Acl • Low Density Residential-1 -1)(2 DU/Acl • Low Medium Density Residential (LM(6 DU/Acl • Medium Density Residential DQ (12 DU/Acl Hiv,h Density Residential (H) (20 DU/Acl For residential projects, development at a density between the target and maximum levels may only occur €erin the Hillside, Rural, Very Low, Low and Low Medium designations, if the development meets the criteria set forth in Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.06.05OW, Residential Density Incentives, as determined by at the disere6" --r the Planning Commission and City Council. (a target level of density J. In accordance Temecula Development Code Section 17.06.0509454, the amount of the increased intensity shall not exceed the maximum of CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-79 the density range stated in the general Plan for the specific land use designation. In addition, the City Engineer must determine if the Project at the increased density does not create unmitigable impacts upon the traffic circulation in the area or overburden the utilities serving the area. The City Council shall consider the following factors in determining if an increase in the residential density is justified: 1. The project includes use(s) which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community. Examples include the provision of affordable housing with Proximity to convenient shopping and employment; accessibility to mass transit facilities, and creative mixtures of housing types and densities. 2. The Project provides exceptional architectural and landscape design amenities which reflect an attractive image and character for the city. Examples include extraordinary architectural design, landscaped entry features in the public right-of-way, public trail systems, or public plazas and recreational features in excess of what is required by this development code. 3. The project provides new public facilities which are needed by the city. Examples of such facilities include: the Provision of community meeting centers, needed transportation improvements, off -site traffic signalization, police or fire stations, public recreation facilities, and common parking areas or structures to serve the community. For the Medium and High density residential designations, the City does not impose a target density, but rather only relies on maximum density levels. As such, projects in Medium and High density residential designations are not subject to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.06.050. For purposes of determining capacity to accommodate the City's RHNA (Appendix A), the City has calculated capacity based on the target density (not maximum density) for residentially designated and zoned sites. During the prior planning period, no project approved bby the Planning Commission at a density between the target and maximum density_l beenwas appealed to the City Council. Moreover, the City has not received any feedback from the development community that recessthe process to increase the residential density above the target density creates a constraint to potential development and no applicant has changed their project proposal size, number of units, affordability level, etc.) because of this e target dens , review or approval process. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-80 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT The City has considered whether this process represents a constraint to development and has found that the plan review process, including the application of a target density, is not considered a constraint to housing. In 2022 the City initiated a comprehensive update to its General Plan; as part of this effort, the City will evaluate the use of target densities and will revise the Land Use Element as necessary to provide higher levels of approval certainty for projects seeking to achieve the maximum development capacity allowed within the City's residential land use areas. In addition, the Land Use Element includes a Mixed -Use Overlay that adds residential uses to permitted uses and increases the maximum density and target floor -to -area ratio (FAR). As stated in the General Plan Land Use Element, for each area, a daily trip cap is defined, based on the maximum number of daily trips permitted. Within the daily trip cap for each area, flexible, high -quality design and creative mixes of adjacent uses are encouraged. Development project proposals that exceed the specified trip caps will not be approved. Residential densities would average approximately 28 units per net acre. According to the Land Use Element, the total number of units possible in Mixed - Use Overlay areas ranges from approximately 1,173 to 2,348 units. The trip caps for each Mixed Use Overlay area are as follows: Area 1 — 15,000 trips; Area 2 — 30,000 trips; Area 3 — 6,000 trips. The total number of trips, 51,000, is equivalent to 8,500 residential dwelling units (at 6 trips per unit for high -density residential development), or 102 acres of commercial development (at 500 trips per acre), or a combination of the two. Residential uses are allowed in the Mixed -Use Overlay without a commercial component (i.e., 100% residential uses are allowed in the Mixed -Use Overlay). Approved and Built Densities While the City's regulations identify minimum and maximum densities that may be developed in the City (exclusive of most Specific Plans, including Old Town, Altair, and Harveston), individual developers may opt to build at the lower, mid -range, or higher end of allowed densities. Recent projects in Temecula that are built or are under construction are consistent with the densities anticipated by the City's General Plan, Specific Plans, and Zoning Code and typically built within 5% of the maximum allowable density. The City has received feedback from the development community that the maximum density levels are realistic and achievable, and the City expects to continue to see projects built at or around the maximum allowable density. Requests to Build at Lower Densities As discussed above, the vast majority of projects in Temecula develop at or within 5% of their maximum density. However, there have been a limited number of instances where projects have developed at lower densities, largely due to unanticipated site constraints or unusual market CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-81 conditions (i.e., the Great Recession, COVID-19, etc.). Rancho Highlands (Arrive) had the opportunity to develop at 30 units per acre, but the market and site topography determined that they could support 21.92 dwelling units per acre. The project of Roripaugh also initially anticipated developing at the lower end of the density range, but with recent modifications to the land use plan the project is expected to develop at within 5% of the maximum units allowed. The City of Temecula has no reason to expect that developers will request to develop at densities significantly below the allowable density. Short Term Rentals In 2017, the City identified illegal short-term rentals as a potential quality of life issue and housing affordability issue. At the start of the community outreach process, it was determined that over 350 short- term rentals existed in the market. Over 75% of the units were determined to be removing potential long term rental units. In 2020, Thethe eCi , adopted an ordinance re-affirmeding its existing ban on short-term rentals, and has reduced the number of illegal rentals to under 30 units. Literature reviews have postured that removing short- term rentals can reduce rental prices. More recent journals suggest that removing short-term rentals may reduce housing rental prices b The City's ordinance had a positive impact in returning housing stock to the market. 2. Residential Development Standards Temecula's residential development and parking standards are summarized in Tables 46 and 47through 49. The City's development standards are also available on the City's website. Residential standards have been adopted by the City to protect the safety and welfare of Temecula residents. The Development Code and General Plan allow for modification and flexibility in the development standards through the provision of a Mixed -Use Overlay, Village Center Overlay, Affordable Housing Overlay, and Planned Development Overlay. Flexibility in planning for overlay areas is allowed to promote a greater range of housing opportunities within the City, promote development of affordable housing options, and affirmatively further fair housing. Diversity of housing, including affordable housing, is one of the performance standards for the Village Center Overlay and is a central component of the City's Affordable Housing Overlay. The Planned Development Overlay zoning district also encourages the provision of additional housing opportunities for the community. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-82 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT a § \ \\ R a)/ °I /o oU-0c m co a) ® §\ Co5±/>8a te)+� 2 2 k ' \ 7 x \ \ � S0 ' con ° 8 ' ° 0 § / w / / w / e \ aR i CD co aN m \{, g r2 &� Q &§ ao � 4@ � / ao I ( v 0 o£ �a &� @® z%<e§�±b E & E\ \ //\�)zzz 7 f / )< z00-k a k a k 2 o - / CD � / d k d ® Cl)§ @ S / � } \7 3 ze ®$ e 2±$F*3 t � E � j § ƒ , / , \ , \ , \ , \ k k d k \ @ ? S 8 Cl) \ \ \ \ a a a a a @ \ 2 2 y $ @ m / k k / . a \ . & @ -° @ -° a 2 a /a /a /a ? a d /a /a /d @ ? - }@ co2(D / & 7 ]7=\$\§4LL < ] E& r- E 0) E E /CL =3 « \f k £ { £ L §zCL LL CL )A ]\ /\ \ \ \ \ @ » \ & � / \7 a \§ £ /�g�7}( .079 k t77E� 2 }% ° \ ° \ \ ° ' \ \ ® m ® / 2 \ CD / ® m ® / 2 m R a a k 2~ LO J j & a a a a g 2 / @ / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ a a a a & g LO g m - 0 ƒ E \ % \ ) E E\ E\ E 'E E 2 >} 37272ca -F ( a oo E1iu `oo E16 O'T 2-0 =o'er c N 'T o2-0 o- c N coO M O k � o o `o o E .'c� `o o E .'Z� O'T O-o O'T O-O -o =o 3 N M ° N M ° ct� o o 0 L M M LO O N cu col V � � N O O CL N 62 6-C 6 N L( CD N HGCWO LL _ ( n d _ N yQV aoL 'O NL U)t> yOC(V. lILnd ((((O oI_OO Q LO r 0 LO LO N Z 0 o Q M N Z 0 o Q 0 o N Z 0 o Q n co LO N LO N Z 0 o O O Lo co Lo co LO Cl) LO Cl) w LO co LO co CD E E X (0 2 0 LO M 0 CN N 0 LO N 0 0 N Lo O 0 LO N 0 O 0 0 O 0 O o r- 0 0 O Q Z C O o N a a) > C O. a cn ID o o ya-o o O @- @ a y N N UO @ O N O C o LN 6 N y L L -0.0 @ — L w ° o L fw wL@, o E c N U C O p C 7 @ @ C y T o W H L C N@ O w E @ O > N O C U O U _p aO O @ tl N @ T 6 @ N E C O p> N .p @ N C tl N > O N C@` N = 2 Na N'ycc Ey @ C d O) N a N O m y@ C YO a p C)y C @ � N Cp L y N V Q C •> 7 @ 3= N a 12 y 6 Olu 7 QL @ N C N N d @�O� N O C y COl r '0` Q c y�a3 a)a G 7 �O -@p @ 00 'o a W ` y C N y N a E @ C)a7 N L w N y 0 O a U@ O InCM 'O N y @ w L y 0 Cc '@O @ c .0 N— Y N @ y co N �p O OCO N UID y C_ Nco C O 0 -C p Nj4�) C:, @ N dLVU) @ L @@ N N O O @ z. y -p N E O N @U L Z OQ O N N G G1 'z f6 a> U N .� X E c o p a O@ !n N y N Q N o 0 y T .O- (O 3 -C@ N o y ..`m w' c @"O 'UO c U Y w >. > c _N 7 = � a SE °cYo� 2 T 'V Q _ 'C y a M @ 0. @ 7 N o N N O � > y -p a 3 c o m N 72 .N 2, O N U1 O d N L L a)-0T C O N O U C@ N L N V1 -CO fp y N w @ O y U '0 U ccN O 0 y` -ON — N Q () O) C_ O L @ N y y y 3 3'o -:2 a� m O "@O L N C L C T L y Co f y— p 'c Q y N p Y p@ O O L =@ N N N @ N 3 w @ N L N y -O p O 2ON @yy Qco NO@ UX' c aaWO o (n Z LM TmyyyO 42 l0 d" Pe c m Table 47: Residential Development Standards — Old Town Specific Plan District DTC RILMU NR Minimum Net Lot Area (square feet) 3,500 3,125 3,750 Minimum Average Net Lot Area per Dwelling Unit _ - _ Maximum Dwelling Units Per Acre' 70 70 35 Lot Dimensions Minimum Lot Frontage at Front Property Line 25 25 50 Minimum Lot Frontage for a Flag Lot at Front Property Line - - - Minimum Width at Required Front Setback Area 10 10 Minimum Average Width - - - Minimum Lot Depth 140 125 75 Setbacks Minimum Front Yard 20 20 20 Minimum Corner Side Yard - - 5 Minimum Interior Side Yard - - 5 Minimum Rear Yard 5 5 10 Other Requirements Maximum Height 50 50 50 Maximum % of Lot Coverage - - - Open Space Required - - - Private Open Space Per Unit 75-100 50-75 100 SOURCE: City Of Temecula, Old Town Specific Plan Notes: Rear yard setback is 0 feet where an alley occurs, or 5 feet in NR District. C I T Y O F T E M E C U L A G E N E R A L P L A N H-85 Table 48: Residential Development Standards — Planning Development Overlays PDO-2 PDO-5 PDO-6 PDO-7 PDO-10 PDO- PDO- 11 12 Residential Uses Permitted? (YIN) Y Y Y* Y Y Y Y Minimum Net Lot Area (square feet) 2,700 - 40,000 7,200 7,000 2,400 4,500 Minimum Average Net Lot Area per Dwelling 2,400 - - - - - - Unit Maximum Dwelling Units Per Acre 20 -Not -Not 12 -Not 10 2 specified specified specified Lot Dimensions Minimum Lot Frontage at Front Property Line 30 ft. - 60 ft. 30 ft. - - Minimum Lot Frontage for a Flag Lot at Front 12 ft. - - 20 ft. Property Line Minimum Width at Required Front Setback 40 ft. - 80 ft. 40 ft. Area Minimum Average Width 40 ft. - - 50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 45 ft. Minimum Lot Depth 55 ft. - 120 ft. 80 ft. 100 ft. 60 ft. 100 ft. Setbacks Minimum Front Yard 8 ft. 45 ft.' 20 ft.5 10 ft. - 5 ft. 15 ft. Minimum Corner Side Yard 0 ft. 45 ft.' - 15 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Minimum Interior Side Yard 0 ft. 45 ft.' 10 ft. - 5 ft. 5 ft. Minimum Rear Yard 5 ft. 45 ft.' 10 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. Landscape Setback - 25 ft. - - - - Other Requirements Maximum Height 35 ft. 28 ft./40 40 ft. 40 ft. 50 ft. 25 ft. 35 ft. ft.3 Maximum % of Lot Coverage 50% - 50% 35% 50% Floor Area Ratio -N/A 1.004 1.0- -N/A -2.0 -N/A -N/A Open Space Required 30% - 25% 25% - 20% Private Open Space Per Unit 120 sf - - 200 sf - 200 sf SOURCE: City of Temecula Municipal Code, Sections 17.22. Accessed June 2021. Notes: For Sub Area C along the eastern and southerly property line. A minimum 25-foot landscape buffer setback from the property line shall be provided in Sub Areas A and B along Rancho California Road and between Sub Area A and existing residential development to the east. 28 feet and 1 story in Sub Area A; 40 feet and 3 stories in Sub Area C. Maximum floor area ratio (with bonuses). Target floor area ratio is .50 10 feet on service and access roads and 25 feet adjacent to residentially zoned property. PDO-6 permits one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business. In all other overlays listed, residential development is allowed without a commercial component. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-86 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 49: Parking Space Requirements Land Use Required Parking Spaces Single -Family Unit Duplex, Triplex Multi -Family Units (12 units or less) — 3 or fewer bedrooms Multi -Family Units (13 or more units) Mobile Home Park Accessory Dwelling Units 2 enclosed spaces 2 covered spaces/units, plus 1 guest space/4 units 2-5 units: 2 covered spaces/units, plus 2 guest spaces per project 6-12 units: 2 covered spaces/unit, plus 3 guest spaces 1 covered parking space plus 0.5 uncovered parking space for 1 bedroom units. In addition, 1 guest space for every 6 units 1 covered parking space plus 1 uncovered parking space for 2 bedroom units. In addition, 1 guest space for every 6 units 2 covered parking spaces and 0.5 uncovered parking space for three bedroom (or more) units. In addition, 1 guest space for every 6 units A minimum of 4 guest spaces is required for all multifamily residential with 13 or more units 1 covered space/trailer site, plus 1 guest space/2 trailer sites 1 parking space per newly constructed detached ADU except as otherwise provided in Chapter 17.23. The parking space may be provided as tandem parking on the driveway Senior Citizens Housing Complex/Congregate '/2 covered space/unit, plus 1 Care uncovered guest space per 5 units Congregate Care Housing '/2 covered space/unit, plus 1 uncovered guest space per 5 units SOURCE: City of Temecula Development Code, 2021. Additional flexibility in development standards is also provided in the Development Code through the use of variable setbacks. This flexibility allows for creative site planning, especially for irregular sites. For example, the City adopted a Planned Development Overlay district for the Temecula Creek Village project to provide for mixed -use commercial/residential development. Residential uses for the Planned Development Overlay district include medium- and high -density multi- family uses. The Citv has not received anv meaningful feedback to suggest that the Citesparking standards are a constraint on residential development. Single -Family units are often developed with three covered parking spaces based on the developer's/market demands. Additionally, the feedback received from residents of multi -family units is that there is CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-87 not enough parking. The City continues to monitor parking requirements and provide flexibility, such as parking reductions for affordable housing projectsaffe fdab ttvit , as needed. The City also has a process to accommodate reductions in parking through a Minor Exception process up to 15% of the Code requirement. Affordable Housing Opportunities To provide additional opportunities for affordable housing, the Development Code and General Plan also allow senior housing, congregate care facilities, and affordable housing in some nonresidential zoning districts. Senior housing is also permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Community Commercial (CC), Service Commercial (SC), Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT), and Professional Office (PO) zoning districts. Congregate care facilities are allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts. Residential, multiple -family housing shall be allowed in the PO zone only if the affordable housing overlay (AHO) applies to the property and the proposed development complies with all requirements of Chapter 17.21. Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled to receive various incentives, provided the project meets the requirements of Section 65915 of the California Government Code. Affordable housing projects are entitled to receive qualifying density incentives through Section 17.10.020(M)(3)(a) of the Temecula Municipal Code and may also receive qualifying concessions through Section 17.10.020(M)(3)(b) of the Temecula Municipal Code. The types of concessions that may be offered for specific housing projects are discussed in detail in the Density Bonus and Incentive Law section of this Housing Element. Specific Plans A specific plan is a comprehensive planning document that guides the development of a defined geographic area in a mix of uses including residential, commercial, industrial, schools, and parks and open space. Specific plans typically include more detailed information than the General Plan about land use, traffic circulation, affordable housing programs, resource management strategies, development standards, and a comprehensive infrastructure plan. Specific plans are also used as a means of achieving superior design by providing flexibility in development standards beyond those contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council has adopted more than a dozen specific plans. Each one contains detailed regulations, conditions, programs, and design criteria unique to a defined geographic area within Temecula and is CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-88 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT intended to implement the General Plan. The adopted specific plans are consistent with the General Plan. Future specific plans, specific plan amendments, and development projects must be consistent with policies contained in the General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Elements. The following discussion summarizes three specific plans that will accommodate a significant portion of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) through the planning period. Old Town Specific Plan The Old Town Specific Plan was originally adopted in 1994 and subsequently comprehensively amended in 2010 to plan comprehensively for the revitalization of Old Town Temecula. The intent of the Old Town Specific Plan is to create a dynamic, walkable and pedestrian friendly mixed -use core in Old Town that consistent of attractive, high quality development, respectful of its existing historic buildings, while maintaining a unified design theme and unique architectural character. The Old Town Specific Plan is a form -based code and does not include minimum or maximum development standards. Although the Old Town Specific Plan allows for mixed -use development in horizontal and vertical formats, projects are allowed to be 100% residential. As included in the Regulating Plan for the Specific Plan, the Downtown Core area is expected to see development at densities between 40-70 du/ac, the Residential/Limited Mixed Use area is expected to see densities of 20-70 du/ac, and the Neighborhood Residential area is expected to see densities between 20-35 du/ac. Residential development in the Old Town Specific Plan area can occur at densities of at least 30 du/ac. During the past planning period, the City has seen significant development interest in the Old Town area. In particular, the Old Town area has been particularly attractive for affordable housing development, and the City recently approved two affordable housing projects in Old Town under the City's Affordable Housing Overlay, which applies to several properties within the Old Town Specific Plan. Harveston Specific Plan The Harveston Specific Plan is an approximately 550-acre planned community that was initially approved by the City of Temecula City Council in 2001. The Specific Plan was divided into 12 planning areas in an effort to create a distinct cluster of future uses/activities and to identify potential time frames for individual project development to occur in a timely manner within the overall Specific Plan concept. The Specific Plan proposed a maximum 1,921 dwelling units (1,621 single- family residences and 300 multi -family residences); a 110.4-acre service commercial area; a 17.3-acre lake/lake park facility; a 19.5-acre community park; a 13.9-acre arroyo park; a 2-acre paseo park; three mini parks totaling 1.5 acres; a 1.8-acre village green, trails, paseos, and CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-89 bike lanes; a 12-acre elementary school on a 550-acre site; and 63.9 acres of major streets. The Specific Plan also allowed for an approximately 13-acre mixed -use district overlay intended to function as the Village Center. This area allowed up to 20,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and office uses; a daycare facility; a congregate care facility; a worship site; an approximately 15,000 square -foot private club house with fitness center; and residential, educational, recreation, and park uses. The Harveston Specific Plan area has been mostly developed. However, in 2020, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation from Service Commercial to Specific Plan Implementation and add a residential overlay to approximately 87.54- acres of Planning Area 12, allowing for the future development of up to 1,000 additional residential units. At this time, the unit mix of single- family residences and multi -family residences is unknown as there are no specific detailed project plans or proposed project designs. For the purposes of this analysis, the residential overlay assumes 1,000 small lot detached single family homes that would be developed, the majority of which would be market -rate. However, the 1,000 units allowed for under the Residential Overlay may be distributed over any of the Residential Overlay parcels so that the net density of one parcel could be significantly greater than another parcel. The expected density range for parcels in the Residential Overlay varies from 7-20 du/ac, but the Specific Plan expressly states that densities may exceed this range, with no maximum density identified, so long as the total number of units allowed under the Residential Overlay does not exceed 1,000 units. This area, which has been identified as a key location to accommodate a portion of the City's RHNA, includes the lot south of the Audi Temecula car dealership, and the lot east of the Mercedes Benz of Temecula, which are currently vacant. The remaining planning areas of the Harveston Specific Plan are developed with single family and multi- family residences; the Ysabel Barnett Elementary School; the ABC Child Care Village; the Harveston Lake and Harveston Lake Park; the Harveston Community Park; and open space areas. Implementation of the additional residential development would require the construction of public facilities and services to serve the future development of up to 1,000 residential units. Services include: water, wastewater, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and solid waste disposal. The adequacy of these services were evaluated in the environmental document prepared to support the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment and specific CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-90 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT programs and improvements have been identified in order to support development of these new housing units. Altair Specific Plan The Altair Specific Plan applies to development of a 270-acre land parcel west of the Old Town planning area. Previously, the General Plan and Zoning Map had designated the majority of the project area as Specific Plan-8, Westside Specific Plan. However, this was a previously adopted document that never developed as a built project. In 2017, the City Council approved Specific Plan-15, Altair, to reimagine the site and plan for a new vibrant development area just outside of Old Town Temecula. Altair is envisioned as the complementary residential component to the Old Town Specific Plan area of the City of Temecula. The two plan areas are integral to a successful urban mixed -use environment. Altair is located directly adjacent to Old Town Temecula and its added residential population base will support the commercial uses of Old Town. There are few housing opportunities in Old Town currently, limiting the elientelleclientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore very dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The downtown area must also satisfy the intense parking demand of all of those visitors. Altair will provide up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income and demographics. The homes of Altair will be a pedestrian -oriented community within walking or cycling distance of Old Town. The dense design will attract residents looking for an urban lifestyle, a demographic that tends to patronize the type of restaurants and shops already in Old Town. These residents will broaden and stabilize the consumer base for Old Town businesses. Altair also provides public amenities close to Old Town. A central park, plazas, play field and an elementary school are proposed. A new Western Bypass links Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road, an important public benefit to alleviate traffic congestion in Old Town. Altair's attractive trails, vistas and parks will add to and diversify the tourism market of the vicinity. The Altair project area is comprised of two portions: the majority 215 acres (which will be developed) and a non-contiguous 55-acre site to the south that is designated for a use benefitting the public, predominantly through conservation. The site slopes dramatically, offering striking views from vantage points on the site as well as providing a visual backdrop to Old Town. A substantial portion of the site will be added to the wildlife corridor established under the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and will, therefore, be maintained in a natural state. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-91 The Altair Specific Plan lays out a vision to provide a range of housing types at different densities and intensities. In particular, the Specific Plan identifies the following allowable building types, at densities and intensities allowing for at least 30 du/ac: • Detached housing • Multiplex • Rowhouses • Live/Work • Micro Units • Multifamily Walk-up • Multifamily Podium The Altair Specific Plan does not set minimum or maximum density requirements. The Specific Plan identifies a range of appropriate densities for residential development by sub -planning area, which anticipates development to occur at densities ranging from 4 du/ac (in very limited areas adjacent to natural open space) to 33 du/ac (closer to Old Town). The density ranges identified for each sub -planning area may be increased by the transfer of unused development intensity from one village to another administratively, so long as the total number of dwelling units in the Altair Specific Plan is not exceeded. This approach allows for significant flexibility to respond to market trends and demands, accommodate affordable housing, provide a variety of housing types, and create connections to Old Town Temecula. Additionally, the City has seen significant development interest in building affordable housing in the Old Town area, and anticipating development of additional affordable housing in the Altair community reflects the City's vision to accommodate more affordable development near Old Town and adjacent to goods and services in a walkable, mixed -use environment. Uptown Specific Plan The Uptown Specific Plan, adopted in 2014, is intended to bring new life to the Jefferson Avenue corridor by encouraging residential, commercial and retail uses, and reducing development obstacles, such as environmental review, parking, and permit processing. The Uptown Specific Plan is a form based code, expecting residential densities of at least 30 du/ac. The recommended minimum density for all zoning districts within the Uptown Specific Plan area is 25 du/ac, and building heights range from 4- to 8-stories, for areas designated for residential development (as included in Appendix A). The Uptown Specific Plan does not include a maximum density or intensity for new development. The City has seen significant development interest in the Uptown Specific Plan area, with a special focus on affordable housing. These projects are attracted to the form based environment in Uptown and find that the proximity to goods and services coupled with the flexible CITY OF TEMECULA GLNERAL PLAN HBK-92 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT development plan allow for more affordable housing options to be developed in Temecula. As the City continues to promote Uptown as a desirable location for new affordable residential development, the City expects to continue to see development at densities of at least 30 du/ac (or higher), and finds that Uptown is a logical location to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA. 3. Provisions for a Variety of Housing Housing element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multi -family rental housing, agricultural employee housing, manufactured homes, senior and affordable housing, congregate care facilities, emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing, efficiency unit housing, second dwelling units, and housing for persons with disabilities. Table H-50 summarizes Temecula's permitted residential housing by zoning district and the following paragraphs describe the City's provision for these types of housing. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-93 LLI z 0 N a i I 1 a 1 a U a U a U a U I x x 1 a a a s U a a a a a a a a a O Co U O m U O O U a U C w> a V C w> w> U C fn a) m d� o a a) m a)a CL a)� m m Qa c m c N c N m m m 0 a U) U) U) a IL a U a a cn U a a U Z U , a a x U a a U U U U a a a s a a a U a a a a a a a U a J a a. I a U a U a U a U a U a N J a "I I I a U a U a U a U a U a J I a U a U a U a U a U I J a I I I a a U a a U I a I I I a I a U a U a U a U I 2 a I I I a I a U a U a U a U I C a) C a)w X a) a) ° C N ca 0 o x > m c a U m e m e �^ V O •� ip Lu m o Ea a) EQ rn, mE mE m 3 E coo m f1 a) -° E my L m ° co CO a) m m c> ° m a) °° m� m o m m ° a) a) wy a^ w� o o ow �� 0- 0 m U o me U a)U m m U Z m ma F 0 CDE w��o ° °E m.v m� m �o M x U w�aci� C O a) O oIn O a) C a) > a) > a) a) a) a) C a) a) d :- j C j a C - m`o N N O C _ ma) N y L>3 U '� L>a) U a 'O v 'O v 3 -°o E rn 0 2 fn m 7 a In Z m O a) .X a '5 'O — a) LL '° ° �N. _U Q 2 O _U a) Q 2 N a' a) a) a' a) a) a' w a) a' O O U U w z Q L Q Q1 CC _ L1j z W V Q U LLJ Lu F-- LL F- 0- 1u W Z N to a d a d U U U U U x x U d d d d U U a s IL d O co U O M U ME IL 2 U C U C N O a Q-0 Ov CLo Q c V) C N m 0 M�I � �I a R a NI I I I I I I I I I I ZI I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I i I i I I VI i I i i I i I i i I J I o d a d U U U U U N J I d d d d U U U U U I { J I d d d d U U U U U 1 a a a d U U U U U x d a a d U U U U U =_ 21 rnE m a O C E a) 7 N (0 C L .N V1 IL IL L - L 2 i 2 U) M. Y °o 0 HZ -0 a7) NN � _ LO C T > E m N o t -o -o o N O c— '' r U c U N rn q) a) C O Q N co U N E E T 6 m N x co Q (9 LL LL o m a) w t= In w a 0 a �— C_ � 7 O d T a) @ 0 L Y cm N c � a) N a) co E > N �O N U N >a w oluc +Lc t N N N - T ° ° N - U d 'V E a N N N N E Q w o O �UU N m U (L :te m cU c m r L. c m E as U o o c 76 5 N N E a) c � > y O O y T O a) y a) O a ° U N ° 3 C y O1 "p0 Nc w e a) .. C N O U V.E C C f0 0 C p N `p a) a3 p ur c L -° dam -2mo C o O yt= ` '00 L? L N c"y U J N a) c L O O Soy> C °�°'_) mu 'oc o E > 0 LL m 0 a j .0 U p p c O -0 o- N C O) N to a) , > E N - "C a 'c ?� O c V) o m L o oCL °>: w a p a) N y y 2 0 0 C N d' E O C M a) U p N amp O D �p '=darn o •- . �O cd o d V 'D o Q ° I_w�Ec clw L L q aa)U To _ � s 3 c >. N a) 7 O Q co a) O O. U)c NE > 01 0 @ s O C C Q .- N N C) >` C°J U c (0 i? N L c C M ` (6 ` d N a N O;'O N N C O N L) O N a) to 'O '� 2 c 0 U- c 1) 0) o co O cc Z5 CL `o_ 0 E o S U U)� 1) In O � w a ° z U co co () E c 22 L °- o 7 0 .-_ p y 6 O N '- O N E w 75 E C O d 0) a) !� m O) U) C -O a E (n u E- o-0 cr a) _� CO o N - `0,0 --Q N a E N o) o N m co O' O C p U 3 p' y T a) E N C E C O u/ -Ol '] L) c w :p U w N O_ L w C ca L O� 0 E O w 3° CD H Urn d c� Na r Q c t �, �. >. r �:E O N E E X. O, p 0 C 75 O O y U U Z N co ° 75 75 O L ° a) H 0)2° OQH(A�QfA m >a0 O p L O Q O O wz (� �LO)Z cu -� NMv6 (OP Table 51: Permitted Housing By Zoning District ZONE PDO-1 PDO-2 PDO-7 Area PDO-7 Area PDO-7 HOUSING TYPE 1A, 1B 2 Area 3 Single-family detached P' P P P Duplex (two-family dwellings) P' P Single-family attached (greater than two units) P P Multiple -family P P Manufactured homes P Mobile home park Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or P dependent or neglected children (six or fewer) Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or P dependent or neglected children (seven to twelve) Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility P (six or fewer) Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility P (seven or more) Residential care facilities for the elderly (six or fewer) P C C Residential care facilities for the elderly (seven or p C C more) Residential care facilities (six or fewer) P Residential care facilities (seven or more) P - - Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly P - - Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities C - - Accessory dwelling unit - - - Guest house P2 - - Family day care homes —small P - - Family day care homes —large' P - - Day care centers C - - Bed and breakfast establishments - - - Emergency shelters P - - Transitional housing P - - Supportive Housing - - - Efficiency Unit Housing - SOURCE: City of Temecula 2021. Notes: 1. Detached residential or zero lot -line units, duplexes and two-family dwellings are permitted only with the approval of the Planning Commission. 2. Allowed onlv with a sinale-familv residence. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-96 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Permanent and Seasonal Housing for Agricultural Employees: Agriculture is a predominant industry in Riverside County, but there is very little farmland that is considered prime, unique, or of local importance within the City limits (General Plan, Figure OS-3). While there are no agricultural operations in the City of Temecula, nearby wineries represent an employee base for agricultural workers. Agricultural workers face various housing issues due to their typically lower incomes and the seasonal nature of their work. However, since there is an insignificant amount of existing agricultural land, the City does not provide agricultural employee housing and does not anticipate a need for permanent and seasonal agricultural employee housing. Other opportunities for agricultural worker housing are discussed earlier in this Housing Element. Additionally, Program 4-6-17 is proposed to address compliance with the Employee Housing Act which includes employee housing requirements for agricultural employees. Factory -Built Housing/Modular and Mobile Homes: Temecula allows for the provision of manufactured housing in all of its residential zoning districts, but requires a permanent foundation. Mobile home parks are allowed with a conditional use permit in all of the residential zoning districts, except Hillside Residential (HR) and Rural Residential (RR), where they are not permitted. Manufactured housing must be certified according to the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 and must conform to all other development and use requirements applicable to the primary units in the zoning district. The units must stand on a permanent foundation, and the materials used for the siding must be approved by the Planning Director. The City complies with State law, which requires that manufactured housing, when constructed as a single-family dwelling on a permanent foundation, be treated as a conventional single-family home subject to the same development standards that a single-family residential dwelling on the same lot would require, except for architectural requirements limited to its roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material. Additionally, the City recognizes the potential for additional affordable factory -built housing as second dwelling units. Senior Housing/Affordable Housing: There are a total of 17 affordable housing developments throughout the City of Temecula. Affordable housing is permitted in High, Medium, and Low Density Residential zoning districts and in the City's Affordable Housing Overlay areas. In addition to development on vacant land within the permitted zones and overlay areas, the City recognizes the potential for additional affordable housing in future mixed -use areas and Specific Plan areas, including Old Town, Harveston and Altair. Affordable housing can also be achieved in the form of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The Municipal Code allows for ADUs in all residential and CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-97 mixed -use zoning districts where single-family residences are permitted, in accordance with State law. For additional information on affordable housing within the City, please reference the Housing Element sections on housing stock and housing resources. Senior and affordable housing are permitted by -right in the High, Medium, and Low Medium Density Residential zoning districts, with approval of a development plan. Senior housing is also allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts. Senior housing constructed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone will be developed to be consistent with the development and performance standards allowed in the Medium Density Residential zoning district. For the Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts, senior housing will be developed consistent with the development and performance standards allowed for the High Density Residential zoning district. Affordable Housing Affordable housing is permitted by -right where the parcel is identified with the Affordable Housing Overlay. There are various types of income levels when defining affordable housing: Moderate -Income Household.- Persons or families whose income does not exceed 120% of area median income (AMI), adjusted annually for family size. Low -Income Household. Persons or families whose income does not exceed 80% of AMI, adjusted annually for family size. Very Low -Income Household. Persons or families whose income does not exceed 50% of AMI, adjusted annually for family size. Extremely Low -Income Household.- Persons or families whose income does not exceed 30% of AMI, adjusted annually for family size. Affordable Housing Project Incentives Currently, there are two basic sources of law governing affordable housing project incentives within the City: (1) density bonus law; and (2) Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.21, which defines the City's Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning District. ► Density Bonus and Incentive Law CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-98 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT The state density bonus statutes require the City to grant a density bonus and incentives or concessions to a developer who agrees to construct or donate land for affordable housing. Density bonuses are allowed as per regulations in Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.06.050. Table 52 below lists the thresholds in which the State decides if a project can be deemed all or partly affordable housing. The City is committed to implementing its density bonus ordinance consistent with State law. As part of updating its Housing Element, the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the City's existing density bonus ordinance and finds it in compliance with State law. However, should updates be necessary now or in the future to maintain compliance; the City has included Program 7 to review updates to Density Bonus Law and amend the City's ordinance as needed. Monitoring will be conducted on an annual basis. Table 52: Housing Qualifying for Density Bonus Type of Qualifying Housing Required Percentage of Unit Lower Income 10% of proposed units Very Low Income 5% of proposed units Senior Citizen Housing Development Any senior housing development Moderate -Income Condominium or Planned 10% of proposed units Development Once the Project has been deemed a partly or fully affordable housing project, the applicant may be allowed to develop additional density. The City must calculate the extra density to which an applicant is entitled. The density bonus law not only uses a base percentage of the project (listed below), but a sliding scale allows for greater density bonuses when an applicant includes more than the minimum qualifying percentage of affordable units. To qualify for a density bonus through donation of land, the applicant must propose a tentative tract map, parcel map, or other residential development project. The donor of land meeting the specified criteria is entitled to a base 15% density bonus, with a sliding scale increase of 1% and an additional increase of 1% for each unit in the total number of affordable units entitled on the donated land in excess of the 10% qualifying percentage. Listed below are the base and sliding scale bonuses (see Table 53).] CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-99 Table 53: Density Bonuses Allowed Type of Qualifying Housing Base Density Bonus Sliding Scale Density Bonus Lower Income 20% increase in the 1.5% increase in density bonus for each 1% number of units, increase in lower -income affordable units to a unless a lesser maximum density bonus of 35% of proposed units percentage is requested by the applicant Very Low Income 20% increase in the 2.5% increase in density bonus for each 1% number of units, increase in very low-income affordable units up to unless a lesser a maximum density bonus of 35% of proposed percentage is units requested by the applicant Senior Citizen 20% increase in the No sliding scale increase Housing number of units, Development unless a lesser percentage is requested by the applicant Moderate -Income 5% increase in the 1% increase in density bonus for each 1% increase Condominium or number of units, in moderate income affordable units up to a Planned unless a lesser maximum density bonus of 35% of proposed units. Development percentage is requested by the applicant Percentage Number of of Incentives or Affordable Concessions Units 10% Lower Income or 5% Very Low Income 1 or 10% Moderate Income (condo/planned development) 20% Lower Income or 10% Very Low Income 2 or 20% Moderate Income (condo/planned development) 30% Lower Income or 15% Very Low Income 3 or 30% Moderate Income (condo/planned development) In addition to the density bonuses described above, the applicant may request specific incentives or concessions. Provided that the City cannot make findings sufficient to deny requested incentives or concessions, as provided by Government Code Section 65915(d), incentives or concessions must be granted if requested by the applicant. The potential concessions include: • An increase in the amount of required lot coverage; • A modification to the setback or required yard provisions; • An increase in the maximum allowable building height; • A reduction in the amount of required on -site parking; CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-100 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT • A reduction in the amount of on -site landscaping, except that no reduction in on -site recreational amenities may be approved unless the affordable housing is in close proximity with easy access to a public park with recreational amenities; or • A reduction in the minimum lot area. An applicant who receives a density bonus and/or other concessions or incentives must agree to ensure the continued affordability of all low- and very low-income density bonus units for at least 55 years, unless a longer period of time is required. The minimum length of the affordability covenant will depend upon whether the City grants any additional concessions or incentives on top of the density bonus as well as whether any City Housing Fund moneys were also used for the project. Efficiency Unit Housing: Efficiency unit housing offers one opportunity for low-cost housing that is specifically designed to meet some of the varying needs of several special needs groups. Efficiency unit housing provides viable housing alternatives for individuals in these special needs groups. The Temecula Municipal Code allows efficiency unit housing in the Medium (M) and High (H) density residential zoning districts and conditionally permits them in the Community Commercial and Professional Office zones. Congregate Care: Congregate care facilities are not limited specifically to density requirements as long as all of the development standards for the zoning district are met. Congregate care facilities are allowed in the Low -Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/ Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts. In Temecula, congregate care facilities include facilities for seniors and the disabled in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 50062.5, which requires facilities that are "planned, designed, and managed to include facilities and common space that allow for direct services and support services that maximize the residents' potential for independent living and which is occupied by elderly or handicapped persons or households, as defined in Sections 50067 and 50072. Direct services and support services which are provided or made available shall relate to the nutritional, social, recreational, housekeeping, and personal needs of the residents and shall be provided or made available at a level necessary to assist the residents to function independently." Accessory Dwelling Units: Construction of an ADU or TADU (Junior accessory dwelling unit, is permitted on a lot in any zone that allows residential uses and includes a proposed or existing single-family CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-101 or multiple -family residence dwelling units (ADUs) in all residential and mixed use districts whefe a In 2020, the City updated its Zoning Code to implement the requirements of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 to allow accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in a manner that encourages their development but simultaneously minimizes impacts on traffic, parking, density, and other areas where the city is still permitted to exercise local control. ADUs cannot be sold but may be rented for a period of at least 31 days. See the Housing Element section on housing resources for additional information on second dwelling units. As specified in Program 4-617, the City will amend its Zoning Code as it relates to Planned Development Overlays 2 and 7 to allow for accessory dwelling units in accordance with State law. Transitional and Supportive Housing: Transitional and supportive housing is provided to socially support individuals and provide basic life skills and is coupled with social services such as job training, alcohol and drug abuse programs, and case management. The Temecula Municipal Code allows transitional and supportive housing in all residential areas within the City. Transitional and supportive housing are permitted by right in Medium and High Density Residential and require a conditional use permit in all other residential zones. Transitional and supportive housing are also allowed in the Community Commercial and Professional Office zoning districts with a conditional use permit. The City does not have any special development standards or requirements unique to transitional and supportive housing, typical development standards apply (see Table 4k� The Development Code will be updated to address permanent supportive housing pursuant to AB 2162. Emergency Shelters/Homeless Housing: The City facilitates the development of emergency shelters by permitting the development of such facilities in the Medium and High Density Residential districts by right without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action. These uses are also permitted in other residential districts with a conditional use permit. Emergency shelters are also permitted with a conditional use permit in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, Professional office, Business Park, and Light Industrial zoning districts. In 2021, the City conducted a detailed vacant land survey and identified vacant parcels suitable for development of emergency shelters/homeless housing in the Medium and High Density Residential districts where this use is permitted by -right. There are four vacant parcels designated for Medium Density Residential uses totaling 92.93 acre and there are 3 parcels designated for High Density CITY OF TLMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-102 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Residential uses totaling 3.64 acres. Given that the parcel size of available High Density Residential sites are smaller and more appropriately sized, without subdivision of a larger site, the continues to find that these zones are appropriate to accommodate the identified housing need. Moreover, these residential districts are located in areas near goods and services, and access to these opportunities would be available at locations where emergency shelters are permitted by -right. There are no special development standards or requirements for emergency shelters in Medium or High Density Residential zones typical development standards apply (see Table 46). Program 17 has been included in the Housing Plan which directs the Citypdate the Development Code to require sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in an emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, in compliance with AB 139. Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The City provides housing opportunities for disabled persons through the provision of affordable, barrier -free housing. The requirements for accessibility in the California Building Code and the Temecula Municipal Code ensure reasonable accommodation and compliance with accessibility requirements and are provided in all projects within Temecula. Residential care facilities (group homes) for six or fewer residents are permitted in all residential zoning districts. The development of residential care facilities for seven or more residents is permitted in the High Density Residential zoning district by right, without a conditional permit, or other discretionary action. Facilities for seven or more residents are also permitted in all other residential zoning districts with a conditional use permit. The City will amend its Zoning Code to allow group homes for six or fewer residents by -right in all residential zones consistent with State law. The Findings for approval of a conditional use permit for facilities for seven or more residents are below: In considering applications for conditional use permits, the hearing body, with such conditions as are deemed reasonable in approving or conditionally approving the use, shall find the use will not jeopardize, adversely affect, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safe , or general welfare. 1. To approve or conditionally approve a conditional use permit, the planning commission or planning director (or planning commission and city council on appeal) must make the following findings. a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the general plan and the development code. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-103 b. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required b�planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. d. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safe , and general welfare of the community. e. That the decision to approve, conditionallapprove, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the planning director, planning commission, or city council on appeal. 2. Conditions of approval imposed by the planning director, planning commission or city council on appeal for a conditional use may involve any pertinent factors affecting the establishment, ooVeration or maintenance of the requested use. 3. Any conditional use permit granted or approved hereunder shall be approved or conditionally approved with the city, and its planning commission and city council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify such conditional use permit —including the conditions of approval —based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the business, a change in scope; emphasis, size, or nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The City has included Program 17 to review its existing Findings and amend them as necessary to ensure zoning permits group homes in accordance with State law. The maximum densities for residential care facilities are not limited specifically to density requirements so long as the project complies with all development standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. The City does not restrict occupancy of unrelated individuals in group homes, and Section CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-104 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT 17.34.010 of the Zoning Code defines "family" as one or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a single dwelling unit. Family also means the persons living together in a licensed residential facility, as that term is defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 1502(a)(1) serving six or fewer persons, excluding the licensee, the members of the licensee's family, and persons employed as facility staff who reside at the facility. The City permits housing for special needs groups, including for individuals with disabilities, without regard to distances between such uses or the number of uses in any part of the City. The City allows some variation from the application of its parking standards. Section 17.24.040 of the Zoning Ordinance would allow, for example, the reduction of parking spaces for a unique use such as a senior housing project or other special needs. Currently, Temecula has two group homes for teenagers with a total capacity of 18 persons. In addition, two residential facilities in the City offer housing for up to approximately 14 developmentally disabled persons. Although, cities retain land use jurisdiction regarding these homes, the State Fire Marshal ensures the safety of group homes with seven or more residents. The City of Temecula contracts with the State Fire Marshal through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) in conjunction with the Riverside County Fire Department. The Building and Safety Division has developed a positive working relationship with the County Fire Department that ensures that any improvements and/or maintenance for group homes are handled through the City's normal concurrent review process. The Fire Marshal has not denied approval of any group home that meets building and safety requirements. There have been no complaints that coordination with the State Fire Marshal, Cal Fire, or Riverside County Fire Department has constrained housing for persons with disabilities. As part of Program 10, the City will continue to work closely with the State Fire Marshal through Cal Fire and Riverside County Fire to ensure that this coordination does not become a constraint to development in the future. It has been a departmental philosophy to provide complete direction for applicants, as well as looking for solutions when problems or barriers present themselves on a project. Because of this, in the past the City has had success finding reasonable solutions to noncompliant code issues with successful end results. The City's site planning requirements and assistance programs reduce housing constraints for persons with disabilities by providing necessary regulations for a variety of disabilities and housing conditions. The City does not impose special permit procedures or requirements that could impede the retrofitting of homes for accessibility. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-105 Compliance with these development standards ensures reasonable accommodation is provided for all new projects. The City will continue to implement the existing requirements as well as continue to implement its formalized reasonable accommodation processes for individual homeowners requesting exceptions to development standards to accommodate a specific disability. In addition, retrofit assistance for persons with disabilities may be available through a future Residential Rehabilitation Program for lower income families as listed in the City's Five -Year Consolidated Plan. 4. Development and Planning Fees The cost of development is a constraint to the implementation of affordable housing projects. Typically, the cost of developing raw land is significantly increased by the various regulations and fees local governments impose on developers. The City of Temecula charges various fees and assessments to cover the cost of processing permits and providing certain services and utilities. Table 54 summarizes that City's planning fee requirements for residential development, while Table 55 depicts the City's development impact fees for residential development. In compliance with State transparency laws, Tthe City's development and planning fees are also available on the City's website in a one -stop location, TemeculaCA.gov/fees. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) mitigation fee was established in order to implement the goals and objectives of the MSHCP and to mitigate the impacts caused by new developments in western Riverside County. The fee is part of the mitigation fees for species protection required under the MSHCP. The collection of the fees supplements the financing for the acquisition of lands supporting species covered by the MSHCP and to cover new development's share of this cost. Developments where the MSHCP fee applies have the same fee structure throughout the MSHCP plan area. Nearly all of the vacant developable parcels located west of I-15 in western Temecula are within the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas, as are all parcels located in the southwestern corner of the City. Additional vacant developable parcels in the northeast corner of the City are also located in the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas. Few underutilized residential properties are located in the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas. If a site is located in a criteria cell, a HANS application must be completed and submitted to the City along with a $1,500 check made payable to Western Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA). The check and one copy of the application are mailed to the County for review and determination of any site inclusion for the MSHCP conservation area. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-106 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT It is estimated that the total development fees are $13,375 for a single- family unit and $10,920 for a multi -family unit. These fees are similar to other fees in the region. Comparing the cost of one jurisdiction's development and planning fees to another is difficult since each jurisdiction calculates and applies its fee schedule in its own unique way. While no recent studies available to the general public have been completed in Riverside County to compare the fees charged by various jurisdictions, a recent trend used by other jurisdictions is to assess a deposit that varies per application type, and then charge an hourly "fully burdened" rate to recover costs. The City of Temecula assesses a fixed rate for each application type, based on the average hours of staff time required to process each application. This fee schedule is adjusted annually based on the consumer price index for the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area. Table H 31-54 reflects the fee schedule for the 2012-201320210-202247fiscal year. Table 54: Planning Fee Schedule* Project Type City of Temecula Fee Department of Environmental Health Fee Planning and Zoning Conditional Use Permit — No Site Changes'•2,3,4 $4-,089 $234 Conditional Use Permit — with a Development Plan',2,3,4 $1,303 N/A Development Agreement $65,820 N/A Development Agreement— Major Modification' 23,4 $15,078 N/A Development Agreement — Minor Modification' 2 3,4 $4,309 N/A DIF Credit or Reduction $1,100 N/A Development Plan — Less than 10,000 sf',2,3,4 $9,839 $136 Development Plan — 10,000 sf to 100,000 sf',2,3,4 $13,366 $136 Development Plan — Over 100,000 sf' 2.3.4 $16,078 $136 General Plan Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment — Text or Exhibit 1,234 $9,287 $59 General Plan Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment — Official Zoning Map $7,278 $59 and Land Map'•2,3,4 General Plan Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment— Official Zoning Map $5,009 $59 or Land Map'.2,3,4 Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit $934 N/A Variance' .2,3,4 $4, 721 $120 Minor Exception'•2.3.4 $634 N/A Minor Exception (individual homeowner) $158 N/A Municipal Code Amendment' $7,279 Specific Plan — New'.2,3,4 $104,279 $197 Specific Plan Amendment— Major $41,388 $61 Specific Plan Amendment — Minor $147,441 $61 Planned Development Overlay'•2,3.4 $38,367 N/A Subdivisions Certificate of Land Division Compliance (fee per parcel)',2.3.4 $1,594 $138 Common Interest Development Conversion'.2,3.4 $5,524 N/A Lot Line Adjustment $1,612 N/A Merger of Contiguous Parcels $2,419 N/A CITY OF TLMLCULA GLNLRAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-107 Project Type City of Temecula Fee Department of Environmental Health Fee Minor Change (to approved Tentative Map) $2,442 N/A Parcel Map — Tentative (Residential) w/Waiver of Final Map' 2.3 $3,927 $389 Parcel Map — Tentative (Residential) Standard ' 2.3 $4,904 $675 Parcel Map —Tentative (Vesting)' 2.3 $4,298 $424 Parcel Map — Tentative (Revised)' 23 $4,273 $203 Condominium Map1,2,3 $14,326 $538 Tract Map — Standard 5-34 lots/units' 2,1 $12,874 $203 Tract Map — Standard 35-75 lots/units' 2 3 $14,563 $203 Tract Map — Standard 76-165 lots/units' 23 $16,688 $203 Tract Map — Standard 166+ lots/units' 2,3 $18,661 $203 Tract Map — Standard - Revised Map' 2,3 $7,292 $203 Tract Map — Vesting 5-34 lots/units''23 $16,520 $424 Tract Map — Vesting 35-75 lots/units' 23 $18,347 $424 Tract Map — Vesting 76-165 lots/units' 2,1 $20,570 $424 Tract Map — Vesting 166 lots/units''2 3 $22,319 $424 Tract Map — Vesting — Revised Map' 2.3 $10,262 $424 Phasing Plan for Tentative Map — Sewered $4,366 $57 Phasing Plan for Tentative Map — Subsurface Disposal $4,366 $138 Residential Tract Product Review' 4 $12,631 N/A Reversion to Acreage $930 $72 Miscellaneous Charges Certificate of Historic Appropriateness'•2,3,4 $562 N/A Substantial Conformance $7,706 $61 Extension of Time with Public Hearing'•2,3,4 $3,429 $63 Extension of Time without Public Hearing'•2,3,4 $1,739 $63 Extension of Time — Subdivision Ordinance'•2,1,4 $4,301 $63 -SOURCE: Temecula User Fee Schedule (2021-2022); updated annually each July 1. 1. Add CEQA Fee of $325 for environmental determination. If environmental determination is not exempt from CEQA, add $5,552 for Negative Declaration without Mitigation, or $7,590 for Negative Declaration with Mitigation. If EIR is required, add $59,811 for City -managed EIR or $88,192 for applicant -managed EIR. Environmental Impact Reports and some other Environmental fluctuates based on market conditions, potential challenges, and the complexity of the proposed project. 2. Add UC Regents Fee of $60 (if required) — not applicable to duplicate applications 3. Add Traffic Study Fee (if required) of $3,008 (major) or $752 (minor) 4. Add DRC Landscape Fee of $250 (if new/modified landscaping is proposed) and DRC Architectural Review Fee of $.05 per building square foot (if new/modified architecture is proposed) 5. $528 to Environmental Health if Sewered; $424 to Environmental Health if Subsurface Disposal 5 6. The above fees apply to single-family units and multi -family units as appropriate CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-108 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 55: Development Impact Fees For The City of Temecula Development Fee Street System Improvements Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems Corporate Facilities Police Facilities Fire Protection Facilities Parks and Recreational Improvements Open Space & Trails Development Libraries Total Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Single Family Multi -Family Stephen' Kangaroo Rat Plan Fee (K-RAT) Lot greater than '% gross acre — per dwelling unit All other Residential — per gross acre Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan Fee (MSHCP) Residential Less than 8.0 DU Residential Between 8.1 and 14.0 DU Residential Greater than 14.1 DU Art in Public Places Residential — Single/Multi — Family Quimby — In -Lieu Fee $310,000 per acre Single Family residential (Detached Garage) Single family Attached (Attached Garage) Multi -Family Attached (2-4 Units) Multi -Family Attached (5 or More Units) Mobile Homes School Developer Fees Single Family and Multifamily Residential Restricted Senior Communities SOURCE: City of Temecula 2021. Land Use (Fee/Unit) Residential Attached Residential Detached $1,717.58 $243.11 $356.92 $627.33 $390.77 $2,901.20 $845.65 $772.74 $7,866.30 $9,810 $6,389 $250-$500 $2,935 $1,473 $670 1/10 of 1 % of project cost in excess of $100,000 3.12 Avg. Density/DU 2.85 Avg. Density/DU 2.48 Avg. Density/DU 2.43 Avg. Density/DU 2.00 Avg. Density/DU $3.20/Sq. Ft $0.66/Sq. Ft. $2,453.64 $347.33 $665.69 $354.58 $842.15 $4,049.59 $1,180.35 $1, 078.60 $10,971.93 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-109 Table 56 provides the ratio of typical development cost to fees per unit for single and multi -family developments in Temecula that do not require preparation of a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. The exact fees associated with an individual project will vary greatly based on the exact project parameters. However, the City reviews its fees annually to confirm that its fees are in line with those charged by other agencies in the region and that they do not present a constraint to development. As part of this Housing Element Update, the City has considered all fees incurred by the development community and considered these fees as a potential constraint on housing supply and affordability. As demonstrated throughout this Background Report, the City of Temecula has a strong history of housing production at all income levels and proactively coordinates with the development communi , on a regular (at least annual) basis. The City continues to see applications for housing development and provides incentives for the production of affordable housing, including fee deferral and/or reimbursement (see Housing Program 13). The City has reviewed its fees and considered the fees of neighboring Jurisdictions and, in concert with ongoing development and input from development community, has determined that the City's fees do not constrain housing supply or affordability. Table 56: Total Processing and Fees for Typical Single- and Multi -Family Units Housing Type Total Fees Estimated Development Estimated Proportion of Fees to Cost per Unit Development Costs per Unit Single Family Unit $13,375 $350,000 3.8 % Multi -Family Unit $10,920 $200,000 5.5 % SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2021. Procedures for Typical Developments The City of Temecula uses the same process for approving single- family tract developments and multi -family developments. The City's process can be broken down into three major steps: 1. Pre -application optional and free 2. Entitlements (which includes maps. conditional use permits development plans/home product reviews (which incorporate design review and site plan review). Environmental reviews, if required, would be included in thine phase. Most development in the city with existing_ zoning and general plan land use designations does not require additional environmental review. 3. Post entitlements (grading plans, building permits) CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-110 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Any items within the entitlement Phase, or Post entitlement Phase may be Processed concurrently, and in the Ci , 's experience, almost all development elects to process concurrently at each phase. For the entitlement process, projects with existing Zoning and General Plan designations see one hearing, unless appealed. As far at the City is aware, no existing Zoning/General Plan designation residential project has been appealed in the last decade and it is -a rare occurrence. There is no unreasonable amount of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that could potentially hinder the construction of the City's share of regional housing nee CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-111 Approval findings for Development Plans include: 1. 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. 3. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. Approval findings for Conditional Use Permits include: a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the general Plan and the development code. b. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. c. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the planning commission or council to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. d. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community_ e. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or denim application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record before the planning director, planning commission, or city council on appeal. The City has considered the approval findings above for impacts on approval certainty and has determined that they do not represent a constraint to development. The only residential projects subject to a conditional use permit process are those located in the Community Commercial zone. The Ci , is permitted, under State law, to make projects subject to a discretionary review process, but understands that it is limited by and complies with the Housing Accountability Act and other provisions of State law, which ensures that its discretionary process does not act as a constraint on development. A residential project seeking a conditional use permit has never been denied. The City expects to continue working proactively with applicants to address potential concerns so that t1tehousing�aeleprojects can be found consistent with applicable requirements, including approval requirements for a conditional use permit. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-112 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Em in Al2proval Body/Authority: Table 57 identifies the approval authority involved in the various planning, zoning and land use permits issued in the city. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR B Table 57: Planning and Zoning Approval Authority Administrative Application Planning Director Planning Commission City Council Approval General plan amendment Recommendation' X' Zoning amendment: text Recommendation' X' changes — Zoning amendment: map Recommendation' X' changes — Zoning amendment: specific plan, includes specific plan Recommendation' X' amendments Conditional use permit— X1,2 existing building Conditional use permit with X1,2,3 X1,3 a development plan Development plan X' (10,000 sg. ft. or greater) Development plan X' (less than 10,000 sq. ft.) Major modifications X2,4 X1A Minor modifications X2 Administrative development X2 >I Ian — Home occupation plan X2 Large family day care home facility X — Minor exceptions X2 Sign permits X2 Sign programs, including X2 sign program modifications — TemporanL use permits X2 Variance X' Secondary dwellinq unit X5 Hillside development permit X' SOURCE: City of Temecula. 2021. Notes: 1. Requires consideration at a noticed public hearing. 2. For matters that are considered to have special significance or impact, the director of planning may refer such items to the planning commission for consideration. 3. Conditional use permits without development plans are approvable by the director of planning. Conditional use permits with development plans are approvable by hearing body required for the development plan. 4. Major modifications of projects which were approved by the planning commission or city council shall be considered by the original approval body. Increases in building square footage that results in a building larger than 10,000 square feet shall be considered by the planning commission. 5. State law requires the administrative consideration of secondary dwelling units. These applications cannot be promoted to the planning commission. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-114 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Other Hearing Bodies: Besides the above hearing bodies/authorities, projects within Old Town Temecula Specific Plan are required to go through the Old Town Local Review Board for the City's historic district. This generally includes one meeting that is then followed -up by the approval body meetingfin almost all instances, the Planning Commission). Certain : Many of the City's development includes previously approved Specific Plans that have very pecific and certain standards for development (including some with form -based codes). When a project is not located within a re�Specific Plan does fiat r-esidearea, projects previously used the City s Design Guidelines. These guidelines have provided certainty to developers for many years but will be replaced with Objective Design Standards in 2022, as required by State Law. The Cityhas an excellent track record of projects receiving approval by a single hearing body for projects with existing land use/general plan designations. Projects with land use/general plan designation changes generally have only had two hearings (PC and CCU Single -Family Custom Homes: Single family custom homes generally only go through the post entitlement phase due to no architectural requirements for custom homes. Other Considerations: The City has considered the variety of factors reflected in the prior discussion regarding its processing and permit procedures. The City has found that in general, the City's existing12rocesses and procedures do not constrain development. Projects are reviewed and considered b the appropriate parties in a timely manner. Any difference in processing times (for example, between a single-family unit and a multifamily project) are due to a project's inherent complexity. Multifam4l2rojects, as opposed to single-family projects, may require a higher level of environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) coordination with staff and outside agencies, and refinements of a project's design to meet financial metrics prior to project approval. This length of time is largely outside of the City's control; Staff will continue to work proactively with applicants to address all potential issue areas in a timely fashion and work to bring a project forward for consideration in a reasonable and appropriate timeframe. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR 15 Although they are typically larger than 10,000 square feet, multifamily projects do not require a discretionary hearing by the City Council specifically due to their size. In the City's affordable housing overlay, projects can be 100% affordable (there is not a mixed -income requirement. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, the City has considered how its processing and permit procedures impact housing costs, supply, timing and certainty. The City has consulted with the development community and has received no feedback that its processing and permit procedures make housing costs more expensive, reduce or limit supply, extend the timeframe beyond a reasonable expectation (in line with neighboring Jurisdictions) or do no support approval certainty_ The Housing Plan includes several programs designed specifically to reduce government constraints to the extent feasible. Examples of how the City is working to improve processing and permit procedures include: • Program 3: Preapproved plans for accessory dwelling units • Program 6: Priority processing for large sites • Program 7: Proactive outreach to advertise density bonus provisions • Program 8: Deferral/reimbursement of development fees • Program 9: Expedited processing of affordable housing projects 5. Building Codes and Enforcement Staffing and Process As Building and Safety and Code Enforcement are under the same department supervision, the exchange of information between Building and Code Enforcement staff members is excellent. Enforcement items are a regularly occurring weekly meeting topic during Building and Safety weekly staff meetings. The Code Enforcement Division consists of three permanent officers. Each officer has an assigned geographic area of the City and is very familiar with problematic properties. Each officer regularly patrols their CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-116 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT area to ensure that any prior complaints have been resolved and that they have responded to any new complaints. The department is complaint -driven, which means that officers respond to complaints as they come in to the City. In addition, the officers make every effort to be proactive in their assigned geographic areas. Several of the code enforcement officers have received training in dealing with housing issues and are able to respond with building inspectors to calls on substandard housing. Building Codes The City of Temecula has adopted the California Building Code, 2019 Edition, Volumes 1 and 2 (Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), including Appendix C-Agricultural Buildings, and Appendix F—Rodent Proofing. This includes the Historical Building Code, Existing Building code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Administrative Code, Energy Code, Green Building Standards Code, Reference Standards Code, and Residential Code. Amendments have been made to the California Building Code, Residential Code, Electrical Code, and Mechanical Code, as detailed in Chapter 15.04 of the City's Municipal Code. These amendments have been assessed for their impact on the production of market rate and affordable housing and there are no constraints as a result. A copy of each code is maintained in the office of the City Clerk and is made available for public inspection. This collection of codes is considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The City is responsible for enforcement of all the model codes. Further, the requirements for accessibility in the California Building Code will ensure that reasonable accommodation and compliance with accessibility requirements are provided in all projects within Temecula. Overall, the housing stock is in excellent condition. The City's Code Enforcement program is complaint -based and will not constrain the development or preservation of housing. When housing code violations are cited for units occupied by low- and moderate -income households, the Code Enforcement staff may offer information regarding rehabilitation programs. Reasonable Accommodations The City's process for providing reasonable accommodations allows individuals, or their representatives, to make requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities as part of the permit process. No additional permits are required or additional fees charged by the City. Requests for reasonable accommodations to meet the CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-117 needs of persons with disabilities are generally approved administratively, and a use permit is not required. An exception would be a use (in contrast to an accessory structure or appurtenance) that requires a discretionary (use) permit, such as a residential care facility of seven or more persons. City staff is available to provide assistance regarding the processing of requests for the construction of accessory structures. Information regarding the approval of these structures is included within all public notices and agendas, as applicable. The procedure for annlication review is as follows: 1. Applicant. A request for a reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability. 2. Application. An application for a reasonable accommodation shall be made on a form provided by the planning department. No fee shall be required for a request for reasonable accommodation, but if the project requires another discretionary_ permit, then the prescribed fee shall be paid for all other discretionaryermits. If an individual needs assistance in making the request for reasonable accommodation, the city will provide assistance to ensure that the process is accessible. 3. Other Discretionary Permits. If the project for which the request for reasonable accommodation is made requires another discretionary permit or approval, the applicant may file the request for reasonable accommodation together with the application for the other discretionary permit or approval. The processing procedures of the discretionary permit shall govern the joint processing of both the reasonable accommodation and the discretionary permit. 4. Required Submittals. An application for a reasonable accommodation shall include the following: a. Documentation that the applicant is: W a person with a disability, (iil applying on behalf of one or more persons with a disability, or UW a developer or provider of housing for one or more persons with a disability-, b. The name and address of the individual(s) requesting the reasonable accommodation, C. The name and address of the property owner(s); d. The address of the property for which accommodation is requested; e. A description of the reasonable accommodation requested by the applicant; CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-118 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT f. An explanation of how the specific reasonable accommodation requested b, t�l2plicant is necessary one or more persons with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence, g. Where applicable, documentation that the requested accommodation is designed and constructed pursuant to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations to allow access, circulation and full use of the building and facilities by persons with disabilities. 5. The planning director may request additional information from the applicant if the application does not provide sufficient information for the city to make the findings required below. Basis for Approval or Denial of a Reasonable Accommodation. 1. Findings. The written decision shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval: a. The requested accommodation is requested by or on behalf of one or more persons with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws; b. The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; C. The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; d. The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's zoningj2ro rg am; e. The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others. 2. In determining whether the requested reasonable accommodation is necessary to provide one or more disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling pursuant to subsection the city may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors: a. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disabili CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR 19 b. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation: C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants: d. In the case of a residential care facility, whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting. 3. In determining whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's zoning program, Pursuant to subsection (E)(1)(d), the city may consider, but is not limited to; the following factors: a. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood: b. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking, C. Whether granting the requested accommodation would substantially undermine any express purpose of either the city's P-eneral plan or an applicable specific elan: d. In the case of a residential care facility, whether the requested accommodation would create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation. 4. Rules While Decision is Pending. While a request for reasonable accommodation is pending, all laws and regulations otherwise applicable to the property that is the subject of the request shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Local Processing and Permit Procedures The time and cost of permit processing and review can be a constraint to housing development if significant development review is required. Project review and permit processing are necessary steps to ensure that residential construction proceeds in an orderly manner. The time required for project approval is often not so much a factor of the approval body (Director versus Planning Commission), but the complexity of the project and associated environmental issues. However, small infill projects that can be approved administratively are CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-120 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT generally less complex and take a shorter time to obtain appropriate approvals. Large, residential subdivision maps, subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA compliance) require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The evaluation and review process required by City procedures contributes to the cost of housing in that the holding costs incurred by developers during the review period are ultimately manifested in the unit's selling price. All discretionary development projects that involve new construction but are less than 10,000 square feet are subject to a Planning Director's hearing. The hearing is a publicly noticed hearing that permits the Planning Director to be the decision -maker on relatively minor applications. The Temecula Municipal Code contains findings that must be made for project approval. If the project meets the required findings, the project cannot be denied by the Planning Director. Development applications for projects greater than 10,000 square feet are subject to a Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission hearing is a publicly noticed hearing and the Commission may be the decision -maker for such applications provided there is no legislative action associated with the development application, such as a zone change or a General Plan amendment. The Planning Commission may also serve as an appeal board for the Director's hearing decisions. Multifamily projects over 10,000 square feet are not required to bybe considered at a discretionary hearing by the City Council due to their size. The Temecula Municipal Code contains findings that must be made for project approval. If the project meets the required findings, the project cannot be denied by the Planning Commission. Required findings for approval of a conditional use permit are as follows: 1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development code. 2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. 3. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-121 4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. Required findings for approval of a development plan are as follows: 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. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The City Council hearing is a noticed public hearing for development applications that require a legislative action. The City Council may also serve as an appeal board for decisions made by the Planning Commission. The Temecula Municipal Code contains findings that must be made for project approval. If the project meets the required findings, the project cannot be denied. The City Council is the final decision -maker on all appeal actions. City Council reviews of residential development projects requiring a development plan or conditional use permit that are consistent with the existing Zoning and General Plan designations are an anomaly and very rare. There have been no appeals of projects approved by the Planning Commission to the City Council during the prior planning_ period and the City does not find that this is a constraint to development. Mixed -use projects may be subject to any of the above types of public hearings, but are unlikely to be heard at the Planning Director's hearing because of the size of the project. The processing and permit procedures for mixed -use projects are no different than the processing of any other development application. The General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element discuss concessions that can be made to accommodate the scale, density, or intensity of such projects. As a result, findings can be made to support consistency with the General Plan. Some minor development applications, such as a Minor Modification of an approved Development Plan, may be approved at the staff level. The average time for such administrative approvals is two to three weeks (see Table 5 7). The average time for projects to get to a Planning Director's hearing is eight to 14 weeks. Once approval is given, the property owner must submit a grading plan to the Public Works Department and a building plan to the Building and Safety CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-122 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Department. Once approval is given, the property owner must submit the approved plans to the Community Development and Public Works departments to obtain the required permits. The average period for a project to get to the Planning Commission is four to six months. If the project needs to be heard by the City Council, the average time to get to this hearing is 12 to 18 months, projects that go to City Council are almost always those involving General Plan and/or Zoning changes. In the last housing cam, no qje housing development that received approval by the Planning Commission with existine zonitig an&o-vr' -Q-' Plaft de we •was appealed to the City Council. 13 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-123 Table 58: Typical Processinq Times for Single Family Units (Tract), Multi -Family Units, and Single -Family (Custom Homes) Process/Step Single Family Units (Tract Multi -Family Units Homes Tract/Parcel Map* Three week initial review Three week initial review (with a meeting scheduled (with a meeting scheduled on the fourth week). Subsequent reviews are two on the fourth week). Subsequent reviews are two weeks (with comments or weeks (with comments or approval on the third week). approval on the third week). Average processing time: 5- Average processing time: 5- 7 months 7 months Conditional Use Permits* Required to run concurrent Required to run with Development Plan/Home with Development Plan/Home Product Review/Design Review. No Product Review/Design Review. No additional time additional time is required is required for Conditional for Conditional Use Permits. Use Permits. Development Plan/Home Three week initial review Three week initial review Product Review/Design Review/Site Plan Review* (with a meeting scheduled (with a meeting scheduled on the fourth week). Subsequent reviews are two on the fourth week). Subsequent reviews are two weeks (with comments or weeks (with comments or approval on the third week). approval on the third week). Average processing time: 5- Average processing time: 5- 7 months 7 months Grading Plans** Four weeks on first submittal. Two weeks on Four weeks on first submittal. Two weeks on subse gent submittals. subse uent submittals. Building Plan Review/Building Permit Ready to Issue** 10-12 business days for first 10-12 business days for first reviews. 7-10 business days reviews. 7-10 business days for subsequent reviews. Average processing time: 2- for subsequent reviews. Average processing time: 2- 3 months. 3 months. Estimated Total Processing 8-11 months 8-11 months Time: SOURCE: City of Temecula. 2021 *Maps and Development Plan/Home Product Review/Design Reviews/Conditional Use Permits are encouraged to run concurrently. **Grading Plans & Building Plans are encouraged to run concurrently. NOTE: At risk concurrent submittals of Development Plans/Home Product Reviews/Design Reviews are permitted once the project is scheduled for public hearing. Table 59: Proiects with Zone Changes, General Plan Amendments & EIRs * Zone Change/General Plan Amendment Highly dependent on the scope of the Highly dependent on the scope of the project and level of environmental project and level of environmental review. 12-18 months. review. 12-18 months. EIR Highly dependent on the scope of the Highly dependent on the scope of the protect and level of environmental project and level of environmental review. 12-18 months. review. 12-18 months. Estimated Total Processing Time: 12-18 months. 12-18 months. *Note: Whenever possible. the City utilizes existing Environmental Documents or CEQA exemptions as legally permissible. -T-able57. T piGal Processing Ties f r Lingle_ and Multi Family Un:ftc CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-124 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT There are no special process requirements to develop or subdivide lots into developable parcels in specific plan areas. Additionally, Tthe City has not adopted any special design or environmental review processes that would add additional time to the processing period. However, the City must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Riverside County regulations. In 2009, the City produced an environmental review procedures handbook for private development projects. The goal of this handbook is to help guide developers, City staff, and consultants through the environmental and City review process. This handbook is publicly available on the City's website. CEQA applies to all projects that require discretionary approval unless the project is determined to be exempt. A discretionary project is one that requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation by a public agency in determining whether the project will be approved or if a permit will be issued. For example, if a property owner wants to construct a new building or subdivide a property, it would be considered a discretionary project because the City must review the proposal before issuing an approval or permit. CEQA also applies to decisions that could lead to indirect impacts, such as making changes to local codes, policies, and general and specific plans. Usually CEQA does not apply to projects that are only subject to ministerial approval. A ministerial project is one that requires a public official to determine only that the project conforms to applicable zoning and building code requirements and that applicable fees have been paid. Some examples of projects that are generally ministerial include sign permits, roof replacements, interior alterations to residences, and landscaping changes. In addition to the CEQA process, Riverside County has completed a comprehensive planning effort called the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). RCIP integrates three regional planning efforts: the County General Plan, a Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process to determine present and future roadway infrastructure, and the MSHCP to conserve listed and sensitive species and their habitats. The final MSHCP was approved by CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-125 the County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003, and went into effect in March 2004. The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional effort that includes the County and 16 cities. Rather than deal with endangered species on a one -by -one basis, this plan focuses on the conservation of 146 species. The MSHCP supports a reserve system of approximately 500,000 acres, of which approximately 347,000 acres are currently in public ownership and 153,000 acres are currently in private ownership. The approved MSHCP contributes to the economic viability of the region by providing landowners, developers, and those who build public infrastructure with more certainty, a streamlined regulatory process, and identified project mitigation. The MSHCP is administered by the Regional Conservation Authority which represents the County and 16 cities which are participants in the plan. 7. Streamlining Approvals Lower Income Sites Included in Previous Elements While the site plan review process is not considered a constraint to housing, Program 4,617 has been provided to comply with Government Code 65583.2. This program will provide for ministerial approval (e.g., Planning Division Director's approval of site plan review and entitlements other than a subdivision map) of housing projects with a minimum of 20 percent of units affordable to lower income households and will increase certainty for affordable and multifamily developers related to residential sites throughout the community, as identified in Appendix A. SB 35 SB 35 provides provisions for streamlining projects based on a jurisdiction's progress towards its RHNA and timely submittal of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report. When jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their above moderate income RHNA and/or have not submitted the latest Housing Element Annual Progress Report, these jurisdictions are subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 10% affordability. HCD reviews the annual progress report deadlines and RHNA progress on an annual basis. Temecula is currently subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions when proposed developments include 50% affordability. Program 46r17 has been provided to incorporate the mandatory streamlining provisions into the City's Zoning Code. These streamlining provisions will reduce approval requirements for projects CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-126 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT that include a minimum of 50 percent of units affordable to lower income households and that meet the criteria specified by State law. 8. On- and Off -Site Improvements The Circulation Element of the Temecula General Plan identifies eight different roadway classifications (Table C-2) and cross -sections (Figure C-1) that include minimum dimensions for right-of-way accounting for lane width, center median, bike lane and/or multipurpose trails, curb, gutter, landscaping, and sidewalks. Figure C-2 of the Circulation Element identifies the locations and alignments of each road in Temecula by classification. Applicants for new development applications should consult the Circulation Element to determine the roadway classification fronting the project site and to determine the type of improvements that may be required for the proposed project. The City makes available standard drawings for on- and off -site improvements that establish infrastructure or site requirements that support new residential development. Typical site improvements for high density development include half -width street improvements for all frontage streets, built to General Plan standards. A typical local street width is 60 feet with 40 feet of pavement (two lanes). In addition, the appropriate level of R-O-W landscaping, 6-inch curb and gutter, and sidewalk improvements (either curb or parkway adjacent) are required for property frontage. Water, sewer, and drainage facilities are traditionally not under the direct control of the City. The City of Temecula coordinates with several water and sewer districts that directly administer the construction of water and sewer improvements. These improvements, for a high density/affordable housing project, typically require both potable and reclaimed water systems. With respect to flood control and drainage facilities, these on - site improvements are under the direct control of the Riverside County Flood Control. While these improvements are necessary to ensure that new housing meets the City's development goals, the cost of these requirements can represent a significant share of the cost of producing new housing. Site improvement costs include the cost of providing access to the site, clearing the site, and grading the pad area. In the case of a subdivision, such costs may also include major improvements such as building roads and installing sewer, water, and other utilities. As with land costs, several variables affect costs, including site topography and proximity to established roads, sewers, and water lines. Engineering and other technical assistance costs are usually included with site improvements as these services are required to ensure that development is constructed according to established codes and standards. Title 16 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code outlines site improvement requirements (Chapter 16.30) for a variety of parcel map division and subdivision scenarios and includes specific requirements CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-127 for streets, domestic water, fire protection, sewage disposal. These and other site improvement costs are typical of all cities in California and do not impose a significant constraint on the development of housing in Temecula. The City does not impose any unusual requirements as conditions of approval for new development. The City of Temecula requires full -frontage improvements for all approved development projects. The City typically does not make exceptions for frontage improvements because of the need to make connections for existing bike lanes and trails, and to correctly align roadways to avoid bottlenecks at narrower sections. The City may permit the possibility of deferring some improvements on a project -by - project basis. The deferral of improvements may be permitted when the costs of the improvements greatly outweighs the contractor's ability to enter into a reimbursement agreement or when timing of the needed improvements is beyond the control of the applicant, such as improvements to be made by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The City of Temecula recognizes that such requirements can potentially be considered regulatory barriers to affordable housing if the jurisdiction -determined requirements are greater (and hence, more costly) than those necessary to achieve health and safety requirements in the community. However, the cost to design such improvements is dramatically decreased when utilizing the City's standard drawings. C. State Tax Policies and Regulations 1. Article 34 of the California Constitution Article 34 was enacted in 1950. It requires that low rent housing projects developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state or public agency, including cities, receive voter approval through the referendum process. The residents of Temecula have not passed a referendum to allow the City to develop, construct, or acquire affordable housing. While California Health and Safety Code further clarifies the scope and applicability of Article 34 to exclude housing projects that have deed - restrictions on less than 49% of the units or rehabilitation/ reconstruction of housing projects that are currently deed -restricted or occupied by lower -income persons, Article 34 still constitutes an obstacle for local governments to be directly involved in the production of long-term affordable housing. 2. Environmental Protection State regulations require environmental review of proposed discretionary projects (e.g., subdivision maps, use permits). Costs CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-128 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT resulting from fees charged by local government and private consultants needed to complete the environmental analysis, and from delays caused by the mandated public review periods, are also added to the cost of housing and passed on to the consumer. However, the presence of these regulations helps preserve the environment and ensure environmental safety to Temecula's residents. In addition, much of the remaining vacant residential land is located within approved specific plan areas for which the required environmental review has already been completed. D. Infrastructure Constraints Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the cost of providing adequate infrastructure (major and local streets; curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; water and sewer lines; and street lighting), which is required to be built or installed in new development. In most cases, these improvements are dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for their maintenance. The cost of these facilities is covered by developers and is added to the cost of new housing units, which is eventually passed on to the homebuyer or property owner. In addition, two areas of the City, which are designated for residential uses, are partially developed and do not have sewer service. Development of this land is limited to Very Low Density Residential uses. The majority of the remainder of future residential development within the City will occur in master planned communities or on sites adjacent to existing infrastructure. As a result, future residential development will not be constrained by the lack of sufficient infrastructure in the remainder of the City. The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) is the retail supplier of potable water to Temecula. According to the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, the RCWD has adequate water supply to meet current demand and is investigating a number of sources to meet long-range demands. Upgrading existing wells, adding new wells, implementing a water recharge program, and increasing the use of reclaimed water are among the major strategies devised by the RCWD. Wastewater facilities in Temecula are provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), which has adequate capacity to meet current treatment demand. By closely working with the RCWD and the EMWD in developing supply options, conservation techniques, including the use of reclaimed water; and development monitoring systems, the City can ensure that development does not outpace the long-term availability of water and the adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-129 Southern California Edison (SCE,) provides electrical service and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to residences and businesses throughout the City. Infrastructure to deliver electricity and natural gas throughout Temecula is currentlinplace. SCE and SoCalGas can generally provide these services to newer development on request and there is sufficient capacity to meet the current need and anv future need. Telecommunications services in Temecula are provided by a variety of service providers including Spectrum and Frontier Communications. Infrastructure to deliver telecommunications throughout Temecula is currently place and can generally be provided to newer development upon request and there is sufficient capacity to meet the current need and any future need. With the City of Temecula and its infrastructure providers coordinating planning and construction consistent with General Plan land use policy, future needs, including the 2021-2029 RHNA, can be met. To comply with Senate Bill 1087, upon adoption the City will immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its water and wastewater providers so they can grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower - income households. E. Environmental Constraints Temecula is impacted by various environmental hazards that include active fault traces, liquefaction and subsidence, steep slopes, and flooding. These natural hazards constrain residential development by threatening public safety and infrastructure. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents in Temecula, the City has adopted regulations that limit development within areas of high risk and/or require design standards that can withstand natural hazards. Other environmental constraints include infrastructure constraints. In preparing the City's inventory of vacant sites designated for residential velopment (Appendix A�, the City considered the extent to which sites were constrained by hazards, and potential hazards are aeeattnd accounted for as part of the capacity study. There are no known environmental constraints or other constraints that would preclude housing development on identified sites in the planning period or reduce the potential capacity of a site to a level lower than what has been assumed in Appendix A. Parties interested in obtaining more information for specific parcel listings in Appendix A may do so by contacting the City of Temecula Planning Department or by visiting the City's website at TemeculaCA.gov. The City's Information Systems department maintains an online GIS parcel search that can be used to CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-130 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT identify any parcel within Temecula, including known environmental and other on -site constraints. Flood Plain (FP) Overlay District: The City has applied a Flood Plain Overlay District to portions of the City that are threatened by flooding hazards. The overlay district includes design requirements that must be met for new construction and substantial improvement of structures within the district. These design standards have been adopted to reduce the flood hazards threatening people and structures within the overlay district. Development on this property must comply with specific structural design standards that raise the cost of construction. However, this property represents only a fraction of the City's vacant land with Medium Density Residential zoning. The environmental constraints and the associated cost factor impacting this property will not compromise the City's ability to provide adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA at all income levels for the duration of the planning period. Pursuant to the default density assigned to the City of Temecula through Section 65583.2, affordable housing is expected to be accommodated within areas where density is 30 units per acre by right or more through density bonus provisions. The City's Medium Density Residential zone allows a density of up to 12 units per acre by right and up to 18 units per acre with a density bonus. Medium Density Residential zoned property therefore is not considered suitable for affordable housing. Dam Inundation: Portions of Temecula face inundation if any of the three dams located in areas surrounding Temecula should fail. Lake Skinner Dam is an earthen dam at Skinner Reservoir (also known as Lake Skinner and located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of Temecula). Failure of the Lake Skinner Dam would result in flooding along Tucalota Creek and Benton Road, which is located near the south side of the reservoir, as well as flooding along parts of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Warm Springs Creek. Vail Lake is located over 6.0 miles southeast of Temecula; dam failure would inundate portions of the Pauba and Temecula valleys, including I-15 and an adjacent 3-mile area. Diamond Valley Lake is the largest reservoir in Southern California and is located north of Skinner Reservoir, nearly 6.0 miles northeast of Temecula. Its water is detained by two earthen dams. Failure of the western dam would result in flooding in the northern parts of the City. Several vacant developable parcels located near the western and southern perimeters of the City are at risk of inundation if dams north of the project site were breached. Far fewer vacant underutilized residential properties would be at risk of inundation. 100-Year and 500-Year Floodplains: A 100-year flood has an annual 1 % probability of occurring, and a 500-year flood has an annual 0.2% CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-131 probability of occurring. The 100-year floodplain in the City of Temecula forms a "U" along the alignment of the northern, western (west of and adjacent to I-15), and southern perimeters of the City. The 500-year floodplain is noncontiguous and is generally located in the western and southern areas of the City, adjacent to 100-year floodplains. The 100-year floodplain includes several vacant developable parcels near the northern and western perimeters of the City, and the 500-year floodplain is generally outside of or adjacent to vacant developable parcels in the same area. In general, no underutilized residential parcels are located in the 100-year floodplain or the 500-year floodplain. Alquist-Priolo: Temecula is located within a highly active seismic region. Three Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are located in Temecula: Wildomar, Willard, and Wolf Valley. These zones have been delineated by the State Geologist and encompass the area on either side of potentially or recently active fault traces where the potential for surface rupture exists. The Wildomar fault is the predominant fault in the City. This fault trends in a northwest direction and transects the length of the City. The Willard fault is located southwest of the Wildomar fault zone. South of the Willard fault is the Wolf Valley fault zone. Within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, habitable structures must maintain a minimum 50-foot setback distance from the fault trace per state law. The existence of Alquist-Priolo zones in Temecula effectively limits the amount of land and the intensity of development of residential uses adjacent to these zones. However, only a few vacant residential sites designated for Very Low Density Residential use are impacted by these Alquist-Priolo zones. Faults and Fault Zones: The Elsinore and Wildomar faults and their associated fault zones extend through the western side of the City on a northwest -southeast alignment across I-15. Although the Elsinore fault zone is one of the largest in Southern California, it has been one of the quietest. The southeastern extension of the Elsinore fault zone, the Laguna Salada fault, ruptured in 1892 in a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, but, as noted in the City's General Plan Public Safety Element, the main trace of the Elsinore fault zone has only seen one historical event greater than magnitude 5.2. In 1920, a magnitude 6.0 earthquake near Temescal Valley produced no known surface rupture. Other faults that surround Temecula include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, San Gabriel, Newport -Inglewood, and San Clemente Island faults. The Elsinore fault and fault zones extend through several vacant developable land parcels, as well as through a large underutilized residential parcel. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-132 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Liquefaction: Liquefaction can occur as a secondary effect of seismic shaking during an earthquake or another event significant enough to cause equivalent pressure on the susceptible soils, like a dam failure and inundation. Liquefaction is unlikely to occur unless the earthquake is large with multiple shaking cycles. Liquefaction occurs in areas of saturated, loose, fine- to medium -grained soils where the water table is 50 feet or less below the ground surface. Seismic shaking temporarily eliminates the grain -to -grain support normally provided by the sediment grains. The waters between the grains assume the weight of the overlying material and the sudden increase in pore water pressure results in the soil losing its friction properties. The saturated material (with the frictionless properties of a liquid) will fail to support overlying structures. Liquefaction -related effects include loss of bearing strength, ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and slumping. In Temecula, liquefaction zones generally align with areas in the City subject to 100-year and 500-year floods and the areas subject to inundation if a nearby dam is breached. The liquefaction zones are, however, more far-reaching. Although only a few underutilized residential properties are located in areas subject to liquefaction, many vacant and developed properties are located within or immediately adjacent to areas subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction and other seismic -related issues are addressed by the state Universal Building Code (UBC). The UBC requirements for construction in liquefaction zones are not significantly more costly than standard California construction standards and will not compromise the City's ability to provide adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA. In addition, the City analyzes and mitigates for liquefaction constraints when applicable. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA): Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas encroach at the City's western and southern boundaries, encompassing or partially encompassing several large vacant developable parcels, including the Altair Specific Plan. As included in the Altair Specific Plan, the project's Western Bypass will serve as a fire break between wildland areas and new development. In addition, a Fuel Modification Plan was be prepared as part of the project and incorporated into the Altair Specific Plan to identify appropriate structure setbacks and landscape requirements for the interior of the project to address this hazard. Also, the project is required to adhere to all fire suppression requirements in accordance with the most recent Uniform Fire Code, which provides minimum fire safety measures that would be incorporated into all building designs. With these mitigation measures, residential development is permitted to occur throughout the Altair project area and is not considered a constraint to development. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-133 Hazardous Waste Sites: Small hazardous waste sites are located along and near the west side of I-15. These sites encompass small portions of vacant developable land and are near several vacant developable parcels. None of underutilized residential properties are located on or near hazardous waste sites. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP): Encompassing the western one-third of Riverside County and approximately 1.26 million acres, the Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional habitat conservation plan (HCP) designed to conserve species and their habitats. The goal is to maintain biological and ecological diversity within an increasingly urbanized area. The MSHCP includes areas in northern, western, and southern Temecula. Nearly all of the vacant developable parcels located west of I-15 in western Temecula are within the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas, as are all parcels located in the southwestern corner of the City. Additional vacant developable parcels in the northeast corner of the City are also located in the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas. Few underutilized residential properties are located in the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas. Riparian Areas: Riparian areas are locales that relate to the bank of a stream, river, or lake. In Temecula, riparian areas encompass southern cottonwood -willow riparian and riparian scrub communities. These communities are limited to an area west of 1-15 and an area in the southeast corner of the City. No vacant developable land or underutilized parcels are located in riparian areas. Although a few vacant developable parcels are located immediately adjacent to a riparian area, no underutilized parcels are located in or near a riparian area. Archaeological, Historic, and Native American Cultural Resources: Temecula has a rich history with many Native American Traditional Cultural Properties, villages and resources, places where significant events occurred, both historically and pre -historically, and historic buildings and locales identified within and surrounding its boundaries. While a large majority of these historic and pre -historic and resources have been formally recorded, there are still properties that contain buried cultural and archaeological resources and unrecorded structures. Because of the confidentiality of these resources, especially archaeological and Native American sites, the city will follow State law requirements with regards to analysis of these resources and consultation with local tribes. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-134 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT V. HOUSINC RESOURCES A. Regional Housing Need 1. Temecula's Regional Housing Need The City of Temecula falls under the jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is responsible for developing a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) allocating the region's share of the statewide housing needs to lower -level councils of governments, which then allocate the needs to cities and counties in the region. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is a minimum projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the Housing Element's statutory planning period. This RHNA covers an 8-year planning period (2021 through 2029) and is divided into four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low income households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low income allocation; therefore, the City's very low income RHNA of 1,359 units can be split into 680 extremely low income and 678 very low income units Table 60§8 shows the breakdown of the 4,193 units in Temecula's RHNA into the required income categories. Table 6058 Regional Housing Need Allocation, 2021-2029 Income Category Allocation Percentage Extremely Low 680 16% Very Low 679 16% Low 801 19% Moderate 778 19% Above Moderate 1,255 30% Total 4,193 100% SOURCE: SCAG RHNP, 2020 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-135 B. Progress Towards the RHNA Since the RHNA uses June 30, 2021 as the baseline for growth projections for the 2021-2029 planning period, jurisdictions may count toward the RHNA housing units that have been developed, are under construction, and/or have received their building permits after June 30, 2021. Since this time, 27 housing units have been developed, are under construction, or have received their building permits in Temecula. Jurisdictions may also count projects that are approved/entitled but not yet built or under construction. While the City of Temecula is actively reviewing a number of project proposals, for the purposes of identifying process towards meeting the City's RHNA, the City has included two approved affordable projects (Las Haciendas and Rancho Highlands) that are expected to begin construction by the end of 2021. Las Haciendas, a 77-unit housing unit complex, has received California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC funding and Cit,�-proval and is ready to pull building permit and grading permits as of December 2021. Construction of Rancho Highlands, a 55-unit housing complex, is currently underway; grading began in November 2021. There are no remaining entitlements on either project. These two projects represent 132 affordable housing units, including 24 units affordable to extremely low income households, 8 units affordable to very low income households, and 99 units affordable to low income households. All affordable units are deed restricted. These credits towards meeting the City's RHNA are specified in Table 61-59, and the relative affordability of each unit type/project is described below. Table 6159: Progress Towards Meeting the 2021-2029 RHNA Extremely Low income (0- 30% AMI) Very Low income (30-50% AMI) Low income (51- 80% AMI) Moderate income (81-120% AMI) Above Moderate income (121%+ AMI) Total Units Constructed/Under Construction/Building Permits Issued since June 30, 2021 Various Single -Family Units 0 0 0 0 6 6 Various Con dos/Du plex/Town homes 0 0 0 21* 0 21 Subtotal 0 0 0 21* 6 27 Approved/Entitled Units Not Yet Under Construction Las Haciendas 24 8 44 0 1 77 Rancho Highlands 0 0 55 0 0 55 Subtotal 24 8 99 0 0 132 Total 24** 8** 99** 21 7 159 Source: City of Temecula, 2021. *Note: These units do not have affordability restrictions. Market rate rents and sale prices for apartments and condominiums fall within levels affordable to the households earning moderate incomes (81-120%AMI) and are allocated as such. **Note: Units identified as affordable to extremely and very low and low income households are all deed restricted. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-136 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT 1. Affordability of Units Credited Towards the RHNA Units credited towards the RHNA are distributed among the four affordability groups (extremely/very low, low, moderate, and above moderate) based on affordability restrictions (as is the case with affordable housing projects) or housing cost for those specific types of units based on real home rental/sale rates and established affordability levels. For example, the market rate rents and sale prices for apartments and condominiums in Temecula fall within levels affordable to households earning moderate incomes (81-120% AMI) and are allocated as such, as discussed in the above Housing Affordability by Income Level discussion. Based on rental data information from Zillow.com and Apartments.com, the average rents reported for Temecula are $1,632 for 1-bedroom apartments, $1,816 for 2-bedroom apartments, and $2,290 for apartments with three or more bedrooms. Based on this data and the housing affordability thresholds shown in the Needs Assessment, these apartment unit sizes are affordable to 4-person moderate income (81-120% AMI) households (where the affordable monthly rent is $2,259), and the smaller apartment units (1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units) are affordable to 2-person moderate income (51- 80% AMI) households (where the affordable monthly rent is $1,808). Actual unit affordability will vary greatly based on unit size and household size. However, because the City cannot predict the profile of household size and unit size, all multifamily rental units are credits towards meeting the City's moderate income RHNA, even though some units may ultimately be affordable to lower -income households depending on the household size and unit size. Condominium units are considered entry-level homes and based on pricing are allocated as affordable to moderate income households. According to Zillow.com, in February 2020 the median price for condominiums sold in the City was $360,000. While home prices have risen since April 2020 as a direct result of impacts of COVID-19 on the housing market, the average cost identified in April 2020 generally represents the "business -as -usual" model and provides a more realistic understanding of the long-term pricing trends associated with housing in Temecula, outside of the COVID-19 pandemic. This price is approximately equal to the affordability level for a 4- person, moderate income family and is allocated as such. As the maximum affordable price for a 4-person, moderate income family to purchase a home (as shown in the Needs Assessment) is $360,740, if condominiums continue to be priced higher than pre -pandemic values, the City may need to update its site inventory to reflect a high proportion of multifamily for -sale units being affordable to above moderate income households, versus moderate income households. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-137 However, as demonstrated later in this chapter, the City has identified a surplus of approximately 4,-3093.600 moderate income units and could easily accommodate a change in affordability level from moderate to above moderate income levels. The market rate cost of single-family units is considered affordable to above moderate income households. 2. Units Constructed or Under Construction According to City building permit records, since June 30, 2021, 27 new units have been constructed, are under construction, or have building permits pulled in Temecula, of which 21 are affordable to moderate income households based on market rate rents, and the remaining 6 units are affordable to above -moderate income households. 3. Units Approved/Entitled Based on City records, 159 units have recently been approved in Temecula; these units are not currently under construction but are expected to come online during the planning period. Of these 159 units, 32 will be deed -restricted affordable to extremely low/ very low income households and 99 will be deed -restricted to low income households. 4. Remaining RHNA Even in the short timeframe between the beginning of the planning period Quly 1, 2021) and preparation of this Housing Element (August 2021), the City has already demonstrated progress towards meeting its overall RHNA with housing units constructed, under construction, or approved/entitled or under review (159 units). Table 628: Remaining RHNA Extremely Very Low Moderate Above Total Low Low income income Moderate income (0- income (51- (81-120% income 30% AMI) (30-50% 80% AMI) (121%+ AMI) AMI) AMI) RHNA Allocation 680 679 801 778 1,255 4,193 Constructed, Under 0 0 0 21 6 27 Construction/Permits Issued (Since 6/30/2021) Units Approved/Entitled 24 8 99 0 0 132 Remaining Allocation 656 671 702 757 1,249 4,034 Source: City of Temecula, 2021, SCAG, 2020 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-138 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT C. Sites for Housing Development Housing element law requires an inventory of land suitable for residential development (Government Code Section 65583(a)(3)). An important purpose of this inventory is to determine whether a jurisdiction has allocated sufficient land for the development of housing to meet the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need, including housing to accommodate the needs of all household income levels. This section provides an analysis of the land available within the City for residential development. In addition to assessing the quantity of land available to accommodate the City's total housing needs, this section also considers the availability of sites to accommodate a variety of housing types suitable for households with a range of income levels and housing needs. This Housing Element identifies vacant sites that would accommodate residential uses within Temecula. It is noted that Temecula also has underutilized sites (sites where a significant portion of the property is vacant and there is a potential for additional residential units) which may be suitable to accommodate future residential development; however, these sites are not necessary to accommodate the City's RHNA and are not included in this inventory. A citywide parcel database, aerial photos, and General Plan GIS data were used to located parcels for this update. This update also considered the viability of sites identified in the prior planning period, many of which continue to be suitable sites for future development due to their proximity to transportation facilities, public services, goods, amenities, and activity centers. Parcel acreages by land use designation are based on assessor and GIS data. The City has included Program 1, Land Use Policy and Development Capacity, and Program 2, Maintain Adequate Sites Throughout the Planning Period, as key programs to ensure that the Citv accommodates its remaining RHNA for the 6`h Cycle at all income levels for the duration of the planning period. 1. Housing Affordable to Lower -Income Households The California Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population based criteria set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Temecula), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those density standards (30 units per acre or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdictions share of regional housing need for lower -income households. Per Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), sites designated with the City's CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-139 Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) are consistent with the default density standard (30 units per acre) for metropolitan jurisdictions such as Temecula and therefore considered appropriate to accommodate housing for lower -income households; further, application of the AHO in and of itself requires that at least 20% of the units be deed- restricted/reserved for households earning no greater than 80% of the area median home (i.e., low, very low, and extremely low income households) and that affordable units must be developed concurrent with market rate units, thereby promoting economic integrating and affirmatively further fair housing. Therefore, the capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited toward the lower -income RHNA based on State law. Of the 63 sites identified as meeting a portion of the City's lower -income RHNA, 32 of the sites are within the City's AHO, which permits the required density of 30 du/ac. As previously described, the City has also adopted 15 Specific Plans to guide growth and development across the community. Four of these Specific Plans —Old Town, Uptown, Harveston and Altair —include vacant land and together lay the foundation for the development of thousands of new residential units in a variety of formats and densities and provide for densities at levels high enotighLonsistent with the default density for Temecula (more than 30 du/ac) to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA. While these Specific Plans use a combination of typical development standards and form -based standards to regulate development, each Specific Plan was adopted to encourage new residential development in creative formats to promote development of a variety of residential types and various income levels. Moreover, since these Specific Plans were adopted, projects have been proposed and approved in Specific Plan areas (i.e., Uptown and Old Town) with product types and densities consistent with providing housing affordable to lower -income households. Additionally, based on the City's history of producing and supporting the production of affordable housing, Temecula is confident that vacant parcels within Specific Plan areas can be developed at densities of at least 30 du/ac to help satisfy the City's remaining extremely, very low, and low income RHNA. These Specific Plans and their potential development capacities are described in more detail later in this chapter. Of the 63 sites identified as meeting a portion of the City's lower income RHNA, 45 of them are within Specific Plans which permit the required density of at least 30 du/ac. All sites identified in Appendix A as meeting a portion of the City's lower -income RHNA allow for development of residential uses at a density of at least 30 Wac, consistent with State law. Sites that allow for densities--ft* lower than 30 du/ac are assumed to meet the City's moderate- and above -moderate income RHNA. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-140 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT 2. Sites to Accommodate Remaining RHNA The City of Temecula's 6th Cycle residential sites fall into three categories: 1. Accessory dwelling units 2. Residentially zoned vacant land exclusive of Specific Plan areas, and 3. Residentially zoned sites inside Specific Plans As described throughout this section, the City has sufficient land appropriately zoned for residential uses throughout community to accommodate its RHNA for the 2021-2029 planning period. Moreover, Temecula has a proven track record of supporting the development of affordable projects, working with affordable housing developers, promoting home types that are affordable to lower -income households including multifamily projects and mixed -use developments, and addressing needs of the community's vulnerable populations including seniors. These sites are illustrated on Figure H- 1, Housing Sites Inventory, and detailed in Appendix A. Accessory Dwelling Units As of January 2020, newly adopted State of California legislation pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) went into effect. The legislation changes specifically amended Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. In response to these legislative changes, the City of Temecula updated its zoning ordinance to be consistent with State law. The details of the City's Zoning Ordinance relevant to ADUs are included in the Constraints section of this Background Report. The City of Temecula approved 3 ADUs in 2018 and no ADUs in 2019. However, once the City updated its ADU ordinance in 2020 and began advertising the opportunity to develop ADUs in Temecula, at least 18 ADUs were approved. Now that the City has promoted the production of ADUs as a viable option to add housing stock to the City's existing neighborhoods, prepared public education material to inform the public about the opportunity to develop ADUs, is moving forward with preparing streamlined guidance to support efficient review and approval of ADU applications, and confirmed that ADUs are explicitly allowed within a SPA (Temecula has 15 Specific Plans), it can be reasonably expected that the development of ADUs in Temecula will continue to be produced at the pace of production in 2020 and will likely accelerate. Moreover, the City has taken significant proactive steps to advertise the opportunity for residents to construct ADUs, including preparing a topic area fact sheet (available in English CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-141 and Spanish), hosting presentations to the Planning Commission and City Council, and answering the public's questions in -person at City Hall and over the phone. However, Tthe City has assumed production of ADUs at a rate of 4-8-6 units per year for the duration of the planning period (based on Llte of ADUs approved in 202 average number of ADUs produced per year since 2018), resulting in the assumed production of 44448 ADUs. This is a modest assumption and production will likely outpace this target during the planning period. Additionally, the income level of these ADUs has been assumed to be consistent with the findings of SCAG's ADU affordability study, and the income of these units are allocated consistent with SCAG's findings for Riverside/San Bernardino Counties. Vacant Residential Sites (Outside of Specific Plans) As part of this Housing Element update, the City conducted a parcel - by -parcel analysis of vacant residential sites for land outside of approved specific plans, based on data obtained from the City's geographic information system (GIS). The vacant land inventory for the City of Temecula, including an estimated development capacity for the vacant parcels, can be found in Appendix A of the Housing Element. Table 634 summarizes the available housing unit capacity based on vacant residential sites located outside of approved specific plan areas. Residential capacity for each vacant parcel is based on the current zoning for each parcel. Each parcel is assumed to develop at 75% of its maximum capacity (consistent with an3: applicable target densities established by the City's General Plan and Development Code, see the Land Use Controls section of this Background Report for further information), which allows for setbacks, landscaping, right- of-way dedications, and other nonresidential uses. See Figure H-1 for a map of these sites. Since the last planning period, the City adopted its Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO), which allows for an increase in density in the High, Medium, and Low Medium Residential zoning designations if the development is affordable housing, and also applies to specific parcels within the Planned Development Overlay areas (PDO-5 and PDO-10), Professional Office zone, and Uptown Specific Plan. The affordable housing overlay provides for a minimum density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre and up to 30 dwelling units per acre, excluding any potential density bonus for qualified projects. Development capacity at parcels designated with the Affordable Housing Overlay will allow for densities consistent with default densities of state housing element law and will therefore be appropriate to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA. Consistent with sites outside of the Affordable Housing Overlay, these parcels are also assumed to develop at 75% of their maximum capacity. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-142 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Several commercial zoning districts throughout the City of Temecula also permit residential uses. The City's vacant land use survey identified all such vacant parcels and the realistic residential development capacity for each parcel if developed with residential uses. Table H-61 also summarizes the residential development potential within currently vacant commercial parcels. Each parcel is assumed to develop at 75% of its maximum capacity. The inventory of vacant residential land greater than 0.50 acres in size (exclusive of those in specific plan areas) in Temecula totals 634 acres. It should be noted that the City's inventory does include vacant sites that are larger than 10 acres. The City has a long history of successfully subdividing large parcels into smaller developments resulting in the production of housing units at all income levels. This is discussed later in this chapter. These vacant properties, identified in Table H-X, have the potential to yield 3-,303, 114 units, 44,P1, 558 of which can accommodate lower -income housing, 1,600 can accommodate moderate -income housing, and 46-3-356 can accommodate above moderate -income housing. Table 634: Vacant Residential Sites (Exclusive of Specific Plans) General Plan Zoning Max Acres Realistic Affordability Density Capacity (units)* Community Commercial Community 20 du/ac 20 301 Moderate Commercial" High Residential High 2&30 du/ac 4 -7-980 Ex Low/Very Residential/ Low/Low AHO Highway Tourist Commercial Highway Tourist 20 du/ac 7 440111 Moderate Commercial — Low Residential Low Residential 2 du/ac 55 81 Above Mod Low Medium Residential Low Medium 6 du/ac 41 184 Above Mod Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density 30 du/ac 11 256 Ex Low/Very Residential/AHO Low/Low Medium Density Residential Medium Density 12 du/ac 99 708 Moderate Residential Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood 12 du/ac 6 57 Moderate Commercial" Drefess'nnal Of a Planned 8v2Flay-5/AHO 20 d- War, 7- 457 Ex Low/ erp Professional Office Professional 30 du/ac 4320 300450 Ex Low/Very Office/AHO Low/Low Public Institutional P--lanned 30 du/ac 30 675672 Ex Low/Very ^o.. R Low/Low 9ve4ay-51AHO Service Commercial Service 20 du/ac 28 423 Moderate Commercial — Very Low Residential Very Low 0.40 du/ac 324295 9991 Above Mod Residential CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-143 Total 643617 3,43A3,414 Source: City of Temecula, 2021 * Dwelling unit calculation is based on 75% ofpotential maximum capacity. ** Senior housing is also allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Service Commercial, and Highway/Tourist Commercial zoning districts. Senior housing constructed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone will be developed to be consistent with the development and performance standards allowed in the Medium Density Residential zoning district. For the Community Commercial, Service Commercial, and Highway/Tourist Commercial zoning districts, senior housing will be developed consistent with the development and performance standards allowed for the High Density Residential zoning district. Vacant Residential Sites within Specific Plans The City conducted a records search and visual survey using aerial photos and site visits to estimate the remaining residential development capacity by number and type of housing within the approved specific plans. The City has 15 approved Specific Plans; nine have vacant land with residential development capacity remaining. Five of the nine Specific Plans with remaining residential capacity (Old Town, Wolf Creek, Harveston, Uptown, and Altair) allow for development at densities of at least 30 du/ac, which is appropriate to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA. While the exact affordability levels for future development within these Specific Plan areas will be based on available funding for affordable development and other market conditions as the sites develop during the planning period, for those Specific Plans which allow for development of at least 30 du/ac, the City has assumed that some percentage of units will be affordable to lower income households, some percentage to moderate income households, and some percentage to above moderate income households. For those Specific Plans the allow for lower densities not suitable to accommodate the City's lower income RHNA, affordability levels are based on the market rate rents/sale prices of products with similar densities built and rented/sold elsewhere in the City. The inventory of vacant residential land greater than 0.50 acres in size within approved Specific Plans in Temecula totals 784 acres. It should be noted that some of these sites are larger than 10 acres. The City has a long history of successfully subdividing large parcels into smaller developments resulting in the production of housing units at all income levels. This is discussed later in this chapter. These vacant properties, identified in Table 624, have the potential to yield 5-,77-35 7.35 units, 4-,247-1,216 of which can accommodate lower -income housing, `'z72,779 can accommodate moderate -income housing, and 4—,7-241,1740 can accommodate above moderate -income housing. In determining realistic capacity, the City reviewed past development of projects in its Specific Plan areas. In Temecula, Specific Plan areas have historically developed to at least 95% of their total entitlement. However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA, the City has taken a more conservative approach andlfta CITY OF TEMECULA GLNERAL PLAN HBK-144 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT assumed that Specific Plan areas will develop at 85% of their capacity. Given that Specific Plans inherently include programs to develop sites effectively and efficiently at the densities and intensities identified within the Plan, and given the City's history of successful Specific Plan development at levels consistent with nearly the maximum allowable development levels, this is a reasonable expectation for the City's remaining vacant land in Specific Plan areas. Recent examples that support the City's realistic capacity methodology include: • Vine Creek, an entitled project with a density of 26.43 units per acre, in the Old Town Specific Plan area. Although this Specific Plan area adheres to a form -based code and does not identify minimum or maximum densities, the entitled density of this project (26.43 dwelling units per acre) is within the expected development range of 20 to 35 dwelling units per acre, as indicated in the Regulating Plan for the Specific Plan. It is highly unlikely that this Specific Plan area would develop as 100 percent non-residential due to its proximity near transit and civic institutions, parking reduction incentives for housing, development standards, including allowing 100% residential uses in mixed -use areas, and recent development trends (the City has seen multiple pre -applications for residential units in the last year). Additionally, the Vine Creek project demonstrates that residential development at the expected development range is likely and feasible. • Las Haciendas, an entitled project with a density of 39.08 dwelling units per acre, and Jefferson Buecking Project, at 39.9 dwelling units per acre in the Uptown Specific Plan area. Although this Specific Plan area adheres to a form -based code and does not identify minimum or maximum densities, these two projects exceed the expected density of 30 dwelling units per acre. It is highly unlikely that this Specific Plan area would develop as 100 percent non-residential based on development trends affordable and market rate projects are moving forward in Uptown, and the number of inquiries from national homebuilders to build condos and townhomes) and standards (e.g�,1.5 parking units per residential unit that provide reduced parking to incentivize housing). • The Harveston Specific Plan area was originally permitted at 1,921 dwelling units, of which 1,9' 21 (100%) were built. As previously described, the residential overlay adopted in 2020 allows for the future development of up to 1,000 additional residential units. Three projects in this Specific Plan area are moving forward (Heirloom Farms, a 321-unit development CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-145 already entitled and under construction, Solana Winchester, a 350-unit development in Process of entitlement, and Prado, a 237-unit development in the Process of entitlement, totaling 908 units, or 90.8% of total expected unit capacity, with additional Projects likely to follow. It is highly unlikely that this Specific Plan area would develop as 100 percent nonresidential due to land already being_ purchased by residential developers as of Fall 2021. Table 6 : Vacant Residential Land within Specific Plan Areas Specific Plan General Allowable Acres Realistic Affordability Plan Land Density Capacity Use (units)* SP-2 - Rancho Highlands Highway Tourist 20 du/ac 1 5 Above Mod Commercial SP-4 - Paloma Del Sol Low Medium 6 du/ac 42 216 Above Mod Residential Specific Plan 30 du/ac 4 499107 Fix Lo ^eery SP-5 - Old Town '�' Mod/ Above Mod SP-9 - Red Hawk Medium 12 du/ac 7 68 Moderate Residential SP-11 - Roripaugh Low 2-12 du/ac 333 4,9281, 220 Moderate/ Above Residential, Mod Low Medium, Medium Residential, Neighborhood Commercial SP-12 - Wolf Creek Community 20-30 du/ac 20 439 Moderate Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial SP-13 - Harveston Service 30 du/ac 80 846840 Ex LowNery Commercial Low/Low/Mod/ Above Mod SP-14 - Uptown Highway Tourist 30 du/ac 25 648636 Ex LowNery Commercial, Low/Low/Mod/ Industrial Park, Above Mod Service Commercial SP-15-Altair Medium 30 du/ac 272 4-�1,504 Ex Low/Very Residential, Low/Low/Mod/ High Above Mod Residential, Specific Plan Total 784 5;�735, 335 Source: City of Temecula, 2021 * Dwelling unit calculation is based on 85% of potential maximum capacity CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-146 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Figure 2: Vacant Developable Land Use Zoning IHV Zoning Designations BUSINESS PARK (BP) - COMMUNITY COMM (CC) CONSERVATION(OS-C) - HIGH DENSITY RES (H) - HIGHWAY/TOURIST COMM (HT) O LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (L) 0 LOW DENSITY RES (L-1) - LOW DENSITY RES (L-2) O LOW MED DENSITY RES (LM) 0 MEDIUM DENSITY RES (M) 0 NEIGHBORHOOD COMM (NC) A PLANNED DEV OVERLAY (PDO-5) - PLANNED DEV OVERLAY (PDO-10) - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (PI) - SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC) SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-1) SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-2) SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-4) M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-5) M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-7) M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-9) M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-11) M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-12) M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13) - SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-14) - SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-15) SVERY LOW DENSITY RES (VL) City 1i Centedine L7 HOT SPRINGS hi 0 0.5 1 Miles I I I I I This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-148 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT 3-.2. Large Sites Analysis The City's site inventory (Appendix A) includes ten parcels that are over 10 acres in size that allow for a density of at least 30 du/ac and are found to be suitable sites to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA. Of these ten sites, four are between 10 and 11 acres (10.20, 10.23, 10.26, and 10.84 acres). The remaining six parcels range in size from 11.39 acres to 54.8 acres. Seven of the ten sites are located within approved Specific Plans which include clear approval processes for subdividing parcels into developable lots. The City has a proven track record of developing Specific Plans, including the subdivision of large lots, as evidence by the development of approved Specific Plans including Uptown (where one affordable housing project was recently approved), Harveston (which is largely developed but was recently amended to allow for additional residential development), Old Town Specific Plan (where one affordable housing project was approved), Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (the location of the Arrive affordable housing project), and various other residential Specific Plans. The remaining three sites that are not located within a Specific Plan are all designated with the City's Affordable Housing Overlay, which specifies that residential development at these sites must include the applicable affordable housing component to develop as a residential project, and that the assumed density for these sites in 30 du/ac. T-vffe-Three of these sites are owned by the City of Temecula as shown in Table 65, and as the parcel owner, the City is in a unique position to ensure that the property will be developed as affordable housing, despite its size. The City also has the ability to subdivide the property into smaller lots, if that process is more likely to result in the production of affordable units. By October 2024, the City will solicit a Request for Proposals (REP, for the development of affordable housing project(s) on the City -owned site(s). Prior to disposing of any of the City -owned sites; the City shall comply with the Surplus Land Act and Surplus Land Act Guidelines issued by HCD, and consult with HCD regarding any questions. The City will evaluate whether to sell the site or ground lease them to one or more a1-,-affordable housing developers. The largest lots are included in SP-15 (Altair), which is the City's newest Specific Plan. As development moves forward within the Altair project area, it is expected that the existing parcels will be subdivided in compliance with the Specific Plan and its land use pattern, and that this process will replicate similar successful efforts in other Specific Plan areas which have been fully or partially developed throughout Temecula. Additionally, the developer of Altair has expressed interest in promoting and building accessory dwelling units in concert with new construction, further demonstrating the City's ability to accommodate a portion of its RHNA through development of ADUs. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-149 Moreover, only sites identified with the City's Affordable Housing Overlay are anticipated to develop as 100% affordable projects (at 75% of maximum capacity). Larger sites located in Specific Plan areas are expected to provide a range of housing options and a variety of income levels; it is not assumed that large sites in Specific Plan areas will develop as exclusively affordable to lower income households. Rather, approximately 40% of the capacity is projected to be suitable to accommodate lower income households with the remainder serving the needs of moderate to above moderate income households. The City has introduced a new program in the Housing Plan, Program 6, Large Sites. As part of this program, the City will routinel ve high priority to processing subdivision maps that include affordable housing units. Also, an expedited review process will be available for the subdivision of larger sites into buildable lots where the development application can be found consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan, and program environmental impact report(s). The City will offer incentives for the development of affordable housing on large sites, which may include, but is not limited to: • Streamlining and expediting the approval process for land division for projects that include affordable housing units, • Deferral of fees related to the subdivision for projects affordable to lower -income households, and • Providing technical assistance to acquire funding, CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-150 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 653: Large Lot Inventory Affordable Lower General Total Parcel Owner Size Zoning Housing Income Plan Capacity Overlay RHNA CITY OF Public 909370050 TEMECULA 10.84 Institutional PDO-10 Yes 244243 244243 Facilities CITY OF Public 909370049 TEMECULA 19.14 Institutional PDO-10 Yes 434429 434429 Facilities 916400042 HARVESTON 10.21 Service SP-13 No 4344 108 SAB Commercial 916400060 HARVESTON 10.26 Service SP-13 No 44 400110 SAB Commercial — HUB 3 Medium 922210011 10.23 Residential (7- SP-15 No 5051 426127 12 Du/Ac Max) 940320002 CITY OF 20.34 Specific Plan SP-15 No 100 250 TEMECULA Implementation HUB 3 Medium 940320007 12.72 Residential (7- SP-15 No 6263 456157 12 Du/Ac Max) KAISERMAN Medium 944290015 DONALD 11.40 Residential (7- M Yes 256 256 12 Du/Ac Max) TEMECULA Specific Plan 940320005 WEST 19.61 Implementation SP-15 No 96 244240 VILLAGE TEMECULA Specific Plan 922210049 WEST 54.81 Implementation SP-15 No 270269 67-5673 VILLAGE Source: City of Temecula, 2021 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-151 3. Realistic Cal2acity The City's realistic capaci , analysis considers the following capacity factors, as identified in housing element statute (Gov. Code section 65583.2(c,)(2)): land use controls and site improvements, realistic capacity of the site, and typical densities. Of the five factors only land use controls and site improvements, realistic capacity of the site, and typical densities are relevant when considering the capacity of sites in Temecula; infrastructure constraints and environmental constraints are not applicable. While some of the sites allow for 100 percent nonresidential uses, as described in this section, it is highly unlikely sites identified in Appendix A will develop as 100% nonresidential uses due to their financial value as a residential development site, their proximity to existing goods, services, and transit, implementation of the affordable housing overlay, and strong development interest to expand the community's housing stock. The City has not seen any applications or had preapplication discussions for mixed -use projects where residential uses represent anything less than 80% of the site's development potential. The City finds that it is not financially feasible or desirable for developers to redevelop any of the sites listed in the Housing Element inventory for 100% nonresidential uses. Tables 66 and 67 summarizes how the various factors identified in housing element statute (Gov. Code section 65583.2(c)(2)) result in an adjusted site capacity of 75% of the maximum densities for vacant sites outside of Specific Plan areas and 85% of maximum densities for vacant sites inside of Specific Plan areas. Table 66: Capacity Adjustment Factors — Outside of Specific Plans Capacity Factor Adjustment Reasoning Land use controls and site 95% For net acreage due to on - improvements site improvements (sidewalks, easements) Realistic capacity of the 95% Adjustment based on past site development trends in areas outside of Specific Plans Typical densities 85% Based on assessment of typical densities realized for protects proposed/developed over the past 5 years Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, no constraint Environmental constraints No adjustment Not applicable, no constraint (already accounted for as part of prior General Plan land use planning process) CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-152 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 67: Capacity Adjustment Factors — Inside of Specific Plans Capacity Factor Adjustment Reaaoning Land use controls and site 95% For net acreage due to on - improvements site improvements (sidewalks, easements) Realistic capacity of the 95% Specific Plans set in place site firm entitlements including number of units and the City expects every Specific Plan to develop in accordance with its approved land use map. Typical densities 95% Specific Plans set their own densities and intensities with are confirmed as part of the planning document and the City has a high degree of confidence that the projects will be built according to these standards. Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, no constraint Environmental constraints No adjustment Not applicable, no constraint (already accounted for as part of prior Specific Plan land use planning processes) 7. Adequacy of Sites for RHNA The City's site inventory demonstrates the availability of adequate sites to address the projected housing growth needs (see Appendix A). Overall, the vacant site inventory yields an estimated development capacity of 9,203 units. Based on these numbers, along with development of ADUs and the credits identified earlier in this chapter, and as shown in Table 684, the City is able to meet its 2021-2029 regional housing need of 4,193 and provide a surplus of sites at all income levels. Additionally, given that the capacities identified for cant residential parcels outside of Specific Plan is based on a 75% yield from the maximum density and for vacant residential parcels inside of Specific Plans is based on 85% yield from the maximum density, it could be expected that products will actually develop with unit counts higher than those assumed in this inventory. As is shown in Table 684, the City has adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA for all income levels. For lower income units (extremely low income, very low income, and low income), the City has a remaining allocation of 2,029 units and can accommodate 2-,7482,702 units via ADUs and on sites that allow densities of at least 30 units per acre, consistent with the assumptions for lower income sites CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-153 established by Government Code Section 65583.2(c) (3) (B) (iii) and that are further supported by the City's history of successful affordable projects. The City also has a surplus of sites for moderate and above moderate income units. Table 684: Comparison of RHNA Candidate Sites Realistic Capacity and RHNA Candidate Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Above Total Sites Low income income income income Moderate (0-30% AMI) (30-50% (51-80% (81-120% income AMI) AMI) AMI) (121%+ AMI) Remaining 6th Cycle RHNA 656 671 702 757 1,249 4,034 ADUs 228 444 5016 5016 4-1-4 14448 Vacant Residential Land Inventory 367364 440436 660658 1,600 363356 34303,414 (exclusive of SPAs) Vacant Residential Land 342304 342311 624601 2-,7 9 72, 779 a,,7241, 440 5-,7735, 335 in Specific Plans Total +4520 (surplus) +9280 +632-573 +3-,6803, 338 +849-851 +5 3435,162 (surplus) (surplus) (surplus) (surplus) (surplus) C. Housing, Financial, and Services Resources Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSCI funds land use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects that support infill and compact development and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Funds are available in the form of loans and/or grants in two kinds of project areas: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project Areas and Integrated Connectivity (ICP) Project Areas. There is an annual competitive funding cycle. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG� funds are awarded to the City of Temecula, an entitlement community, on a formula basis for housing, community development, and economic development activities. Activities eligible for CDBG funding include acquisition, rehabilitation, economic development and public services. HOME Investment Partnership funds are granted by a formula basis from HUD to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to lower income households. Eligible activities include new construction, acquisition, rental assistance and rehabilitation. The City participates administered HOME Program, which projects in participating jurisdictions. in the San Diego County - administers HOME funds to County -administered HOME CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-154 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT funds for first time homebuyer assistance are made available to residents or employees of the local jurisdictions participating in the HOME program. New development projects are typically allocated funding on a competitive basis. Housing Choice Voucher Program formerly Section 8� provides monthly rental assistance payments to private landlords on behalf of low income families who have been determined eligible by the San Diego Housing Authority. The program's objective is to assist low income families by providing rental assistance so that families may lease safe, decent, and sanitary housing units in the private rental market. The program is designed to allow families to move without the loss of housing assistance. Moves are permissible if the family notifies the Housing Authority ahead of time, terminates its existing lease within the lease provisions, and finds acceptable alternate housing. Project Based Housing Voucher program is a component of the former Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program funded through HUD. The program's objective is to induce property owners to make standard housing available to low income families at rents within the program limits. In return, the Housing Authority or HUD enters a contract with the owner that guarantees a certain level of rents. Section 811 /202 Program (Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities/Elderly — Non- profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the construction of Very -Low income rental housing for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities and immediate care facilities. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction and rental assistance. California Housing Finance Agency (Ca1HFA) Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and Preservation or new construction of rental housing that includes affordable rents for Low and Moderate income families and individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Acquisition Finance Program that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of at -risk affordable housing developments and provide lowcost funding to preserve affordability. Ca1HOME Program provides grants to local public agencies and non- profit developers to assist households in becoming homeowners. CalHome funds may be used for predevelopment, development, acquisition, and rehabilitation costs as well as downpayment assistance. While Ca1HOME funding has been limited to disaster assistance in recent years, this would be an appropriate program for the City to pursue to begin to develop a local portfolio of housing assistance programs and funds. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-155 California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA� offers permanent financing for acquisition and rehabilitation to for -profit, non-profit, and public agency developers seeking to preserve "at -risk" housing units. In addition, CHFA offers low interest predevelopment loans to nonprofit sponsors through its acquisition/rehabilitation program. Emergency Housing and Assistance Program (EHAP) provides funds to local government agencies and non-profit corporations for capital development activities and facility operation for emergency shelters, transitional housing and safe havens that provide shelter and supportive services for homeless individuals and families. No current funding is offered for this program. Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program provides emergency shelter and related services to the County's homeless populations. Eligible activities include: the rehabilitation and conversion of buildings for use as emergency shelters; the provision of essential services to the homeless; operating support for emergency shelters; and homeless prevention/rapid rehousing activities. Federal Home Loan Bank System facilitates Affordable Housing Programs (AHP), which subsidize the interest rates for affordable housing. The San Francisco Federal Home Loan Bank District provides local service within California. Interest rate subsidies under the AHP can be used to finance the purchase, construction, and/or rehabilitation of rental housing. very low income households must occupy at least 20% of the units for the useful life of the housing or the mortgage term. Housing for a Healthy California (HHC) provides funding on a competitive basis to deliver supportive housing opportunities to developers using the federal National Housing Trust Funds (NHTF) allocations for operating reserve grants and capital loans. The Department will also utilize from a portion of moneys collected in calendar year 2018 and deposited into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund to provide funding through grants to counties for capital and operating assistance. Funds will be announced through a Notice of Funding Availability. Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (!IQ) funds infrastructure improvements to facilitate new housing development with an affordable component in residential or mixed use infill projects and infill areas. If an affordable or special needs housing developer is interested in developing in the City's urban core, this program could be useful to fund infrastructure improvements. Toe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program finances the new construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of owner- and renter - occupied housing units for agricultural workers, with a priority for lower income households. No current funding is offered for this program. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-156 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Low income Housing Tax Credits. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) administers the federal and state Low income Housing Tax Credit Programs. Both programs were created to encourage private investment in affordable rental housing for households meeting certain income requirements. Under these programs, housing tax credits are awarded to developers of qualified projects. 20% of federal credits are reserved for rural areas, and 10% for non-profit sponsors. To compete for the credit, rental housing developments must reserve units at affordable rents to households at or below 46% of area median income. The assisted units must be reserved for the target population for 55 years. The federal tax credit provides a subsidy over ten years towards the cost of producing a unit. Developers sell these tax benefits to investors for their present market value to provide up -front capital to build the units. Credits can be used to fund the hard and soft costs (excluding land costs) of the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing. Projects not receiving other federal subsidy receive a federal credit of 9% per year for ten years and a state credit of 30% over four years (high cost areas and qualified census tracts get increased federal credits). Projects with a federal subsidy receive a 4% federal credit each year for ten years and a 13% state credit over four years. The CTCAC also administers a Farmworker Housing Assistance Program and a Commercial Revitalization Deduction Program. Low income Housing Preservation and Residential Home Ownership Act IHPRHA) requires that all eligible HUD Section 236 and Section 221(d) projects "at -risk" of conversion to market -rate rental housing through the mortgage prepayment option be subject to LIHPRHA Incentives. The incentives to owners include HUD subsidies which guarantee owners an 8% annual return on equity. Owners must file a Plan of Action to obtain incentives or offer the project for sale to a) non-profit organizations, b) tenants, or c) public bodies for a 12 month period followed by an additional three-month sale to other purchasers. Only then are owners eligible to prepay the subsidized mortgages. Mobilehome Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program WPRROP) makes short- and long-term low interest rate loans for the preservation of affordable mobilehome parks for ownership or control by resident organizations, nonprofit housing sponsors, or local public agencies. MPRROP also makes long-term loans to individuals to ensure continued affordability. Funds are made available through a periodic, competitive process. MPRROP is currently accepting applications on an over-the-counter basis. Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) provides low interest loans to developers of affordable rental and transitional housing projects. Funds may be used for new construction, rehabilitation, acquisition and rehabilitation, or conversion of non-residential structures. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-157 National Housing Trust Fund is a permanent federal program with dedicated sources of funding not subject to the annual appropriations. The funds can be used to increase and preserve the supply of affordable housing, with an emphasis on rental housing for extremely low income households. California is receiving approximately $10.1 Million for the program in 2019. Funds will be made available through a competitive process and will be announced through a Notice of Funding Availability. Preservation Interim Repositioning Program (PIBZ is a short-term loan program designed to preserve housing at risk of conversion to market rates. Only non -profits, dedicated to the provision of affordable housing, may apply. Local matching funds, together with PIRP funds, may not exceed 20% of total costs. No current funding is offered for this program. SB 2 Planning Grants Program provides one-time funding and technical assistance to all eligible local governments in California to adopt, and implement plans and process improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production. Eligible activities include updating a variety of planning documents and processes such as general plans and zoning ordinances, conducting environmental analyses, and process improvements that expedite local planning and permitting. The planning grants program is funded through the Building Homes and Jobs Act Trust Fund (SB 2, Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017). The City is eligible to receive funds through this program and this program should be considered to develop an affordable housing program for the City. California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC). is a multifamily affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for Low income families, seniors and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of properties. Supplement Security Income (SSI is a federal welfare program for persons 65 and over and for blind or disabled persons of any age. "Disabled" means that you have a physical or mental disability that is expected to keep you from working for 12 months or longer, or will result in death. Medicare is a federal health insurance program for people who are 65 and over, for some younger people with permanent disabilities, and for people with end -stage kidney disease. SSI may provide total monthly income or it may supplement a low income. In addition to cash payments, SSI recipients are automatically covered by Medi-Cal, the state health insurance plan. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-158 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT D. Administrative Resources Agencies with administrative capacity to implement programs contained in the Housing Element include the City of Temecula and local and regional nonprofit private developers. The City of Temecula Planning Department takes the lead in implementing Housing Element programs and policies. The City also works closely with non-profit developers to expand affordable housing opportunities in Temecula. Development Services Department The Community Development Department manages the City's affordable housing programs, Building and Safety Division, code enforcement, land development, and planning (among other responsibilities). The department coordinates development activity within the City to ensure the planned orderly growth. The Planning Department administers the General Plan and zoning and environmental regulations, and provides primary staff assistance to the Planning Commission. Non -Profit Developments The City collaborates with a number of affordable housing developers and service providers to accommodate the housing needs of Temecula residents. The following are housing developers and service providers active in the City; several are included in the State's list of entities with the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at -risk projects. The following are housing providers interested in developing and/or preserving affordable housing in the City: • Coachella Valley Housing Coalition 45-701 Monroe Street, Suite G Indio, CA 92201 Telephone: (760) 347-3157 • Habitat for Humanity 41964 Main Street Temecula, CA 92591 Telephone: (909) 693-0460 • Jamboree Housing Corporation 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 216 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 263-8676 • Affirmed Housing 13520 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 360 San Diego, CA 92128 Telephone: (858)679-2828 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-159 • The Olson Company 30200 Old Ranch Pkwy, #250 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Telephone: (562) 596-4770 • San Diego Community Housing Corporation 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (858) 571-0444 • D'Alto Partners 41911 5th Street Temecula, CA 92590 Telephone: (951)304-0633 • DR Horton 2280 Warlow Circle, Suite 100 Corona, CA 92880 Telephone: (951)272-9000 • Bridge Housing Corporation 9191 Towne Center Drive, Suite L101 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 535-0552 • Highland Partnerships 285 Bay Blvd. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Telephone: (619) 498-2900 • National Community Renaissance (National CORE) 9421 Haven Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Telephone: (909) 483-2444 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-160 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT E. Environmental Constraints The majority of the land available for residential development is located adjacent to existing infrastructure facilities or within a specific plan area where infrastructure will be provided as part of the development process. As a result, infrastructure facilities will be able to serve all of the future residential development. The sites inventory analysis reflects land use designations and densities established in the General Plan and Specific Plans. Thus, any environmental constraints that would lower the potential yield (e.g., steep slopes) have already been accounted for. Any additional constraints that would occur on a more detailed site review basis would be addressed as part of the individual project review process. The City's capacity to meet its regional share and individual income categories are not constrained by any environmental conditions. F. Energy Conservation and Climate Change Energy -related housing costs can directly impact the affordability of housing. While State building code standards contain mandatory energy efficiency requirements for new development, the City and utility providers are also important resources to encourage and facilitate energy conservation and to help residents minimize energy -related expenses. Efficient energy use can be encouraged by changing customer behavior, rewarding use of energy -saving appliances, and employing building design and construction approaches that reduce electric power and natural gas usage. The primary sources of energy in Temecula are electricity from Southern California Edison (SCE) and natural gas from SoCalGas. SCE provides technical assistance and incentives for residents and businesses to increase energy efficiency through energy audits, appliance rebate programs, and smart energy metering. As part of the City's Sustainability Plan, Temecula's mission is to reduce energy use while encouraging clean energy generation. The City has included Program 12, Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency, to support these topics. New Development The City encourages energy conservation in residential projects. New subdivision and parcel reviews are considered in terms of street layout and lot design. Residential structures must meet the requirements of Title 24 (CalGreen) relating to energy conservation features of the California Building Standards Code. For example, production home builder, Woodside Homes has constructed hundreds of homes in Roripaugh Ranch (Sommers Bend) CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-161 which include solar as well as passive and active energy savings techniques. Retrofit There are a number of methods available to improve conditions of existing structures and to decrease their energy demand, all of which fall under the general label of "retrofit." Among the most common techniques for increasing building efficiency are: insulation of ceilings, heating -ventilating air conditioning ducts and hot water heaters; weather stripping and caulking; night setback thermostats; spark ignited pilot lights; low flow shower heads; window treatment to provide shade; and furnace efficiency modifications. The City of Temecula monitors such modifications on substantial rehabilitation projects pursuant to the California Building Standards Code. Weatherization in existing dwellings can greatly cut down heating and cooling costs. Weatherization is generally done by performing or improving attic insulation, caulking, weather stripping and storm windows, furnace efficiency modifications, and certain mechanical measures to heating and cooling systems. The U.S. Department of Energy allocates money to states for disbursement to community - based organizations. Other means of energy conservation in residential structures includes proper design and location of windows, window shades, orientation of the dwelling in relation to sun and wind direction, and roof overhang to let the winter sun in and block the summer sun out. The City encourages maintenance and rehabilitation of housing to maximize energy efficiency. The City's residential rehabilitation programs provides funding assistance for lower income households to rehabilitate their home and provide weatherization and energy retrofit improvements. G. Consistency with the General Plan Government Code Section 65300.5 states: "In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." Additionally, Government Code Section 65583 (c)(7) requires the identification of "means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals." The Housing Element of a general plan sets out a city's overall long- range planning strategy for providing housing for all segments of the community. The California Government Code requires general plans to contain an integrated, consistent set of goals and policies. The CITY OF TEMECULA GLNERAL PLAN HBK-162 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Housing Element is, therefore, affected by policies contained in other elements of a general plan. The housing element is most intricately related to the land use element. The Land Use Element establishes the framework for development of housing by laying out the land use designations for residential development and indicating the type and density permitted by a city. Working within this framework, the City of Temecula's Housing Element identifies priority goals, objectives, and program actions for the 2021-2029 planning period that directly address the housing needs of Temecula's existing and future residents. The policies contained in other elements of the City's General Plan affect many aspects of life that residents enjoy such as the amount and variety of open space; the preservation of natural, historic and cultural resources; permitted noise levels in residential areas; and the safety of the residents in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with the City's other General Plan Elements and the policies and programs in this Element do not conflict with the policy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan. As the City moves forward with a General Plan Update and as portions of the General Plan are amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure that internal consistency is maintained. The General Plan Update will address all requirements of State law related to the scope and content of a General Plan, including updated goals, policies, and programs to address complete streets, environmental justice, climate adaptation and resiliency, and air quality. H. Relationship to Other City Plans and Policies The Housing Element identifies priority goals, objectives, policies, and action programs for the next eight years that directly address the housing needs of Temecula. The City's other plans and policies including its Municipal Code, Zoning Code, Master Plan, and Specific Plans must all remain consistent with the Housing Element. As revisions are considered to the City's Code and various plans, each revision will be reviewed to ensure that no conflicts with the Housing Element occur. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-163 0 I. Priority for Water and Sewer Per Chapter 727, Statues of 2004 (SB 1087), upon completion of an amended or adopted housing element, a local government is responsible for immediately distributing a copy of the Element to area water and sewer providers. Water and sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower -income households. As the responsible agency, the City of Temecula will supply a copy of the adopted housing element to the Temecula Public Works Department, as well as to all water and sewer providers serving the City. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-164 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT VI. AFFIRMATIVELY FLIRTHERING FAIR - HOUSING (AFFH) ANALYSIS All Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021 must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under State law, affirmatively further fair housing means "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics". These characteristics can include, but are not limited to, race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability. b' Unless othefwise noted, the Figures affd Tables references in d4s-�� /Seer:...-, NTT\ „fee to tikes, F:,..., fes- and Tables ineludedparte f the- past go ffIfEfty515 >FEM=55> > eiisalqi4i> , This analysis of fair housing issues in Temecula relies on the 2017 Report, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer and Mapping tool, 2014- 2018 American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, HUD AFFH Database, County of Riverside Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2019-2024 (County Al), and additional local sources of information. the findings f As a recipient of federal funds to administer housing and community development programs, the City of Temecula must affirmatively further fair housing. To accomplish this goal, the City of Temecula has CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-165 contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to provide fair housing services for Temecula residents at no cost. Citizens can get legal support for Fair Housing issues regarding rent payments, termination notices, lease renewal increases, habitability claims, illegal evictions, and any discrimination claim. A. Fair Housing Needs Assessment The City of Temecula is located in the extreme southwest corner of the Riverside -San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is the largest MSA in area in the continental United States. Because of its location in the corner of the region, one must be cautious to draw too many conclusions in comparing Temecula to the regional data supplied by HUD. The eity2�sCi 's 2017 Assessment and the analysis included in this Housing Element compares and contrasts the City with the regional data, but as one would expect, there are some substantial differences in the data profiles and the needs between the City and the region. The City is located in a cluster of cities in Temecula Valley in southwest Riverside County. The other cities include Murrieta, Menifee, Wildomar and Lake Elsinore. All have experienced tremendous growth in the past twenty years, yet they remain separate and some distance from the metropolitan areas to the north and south. Through its growth, Temecula has remained an integrated and diverse City with racial and ethnic groups spread evenly throughout the City. There are no HUD -identified racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) in the City. During the housing crisis of 2007- 2008, the City was hit with many foreclosures and, as such, that issue was the greatest concern in the previous Analysis of Impediments, completed in 2010. Now with the housing industry in recovery, the greatest need in the City is affordable housing, as many new homebuyers find themselves priced out of the market. Like all cities in the State of California, Temecula is challenged by a lack of financial resources to address its affordable housing needs due to the dissolution of all the State's redevelopment agencies. This was the main source of hundreds of affordable housing units constructed in the City since the 1990s. Fair housing issues in Temecula appear to be individualized and not systemic, but preventing systematic issues requires continuous training and education of those persons employed in the housing industry, as well as educating the residents of their fair housing rights. As included in its 2017 Assessment, the City had developed four fair housing goals to overcome the contributing factors identified in the Assessment of Fair Housing. These goals were prioritized based on feedback from community meetings, surveys, stakeholder interviews, staff, and data analysis. Highest priority was given to those contributing CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-166 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT factors that limit or deny fair housing choice of access to opportunity. The goals are listed below, from highest to lowest priority. Goal 1: Amend Zoning Code to promote the development of affordable housing Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 1A: Land use and zoning laws Goal 2: Increase and preserve affordable units for renters and homeowners Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 2A: The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Contributing Factor 213: Location and type of affordable housing Goal 3: Provide greater access to public facilities and improvements for persons with disabilities Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 3A: Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure Contributing Factor 3B: Inaccessible government facilities or services Goal4: Provide equal housing opportunities forprotected classes Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 4A: Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations Contributing Factor 413: Private discrimination Based on the above goals and contributing factors, a number of actions were identified that can be taken over the next five years that will promote fair housing for its residents. These actions, outlined in the 2017 Assessment, have either already been completed (i.e., the adoption of an Affordable Housing Overlay) and assessed as part of the 5' Cycle Progress, or included as a Program in this Housing Plan. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-167 B. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity In 2017, the City of Temecula prepared a comprehensive and robust assessment of fair housing. This Report is included as Appendix D to the Housing Element and was aFroved in March 2017. As Fart of this effort. the City undertook a detailed communityparticipation proram in . assessed past goals and actions; conducted a fair housg analysis including a demoaaphic summary, identification of ;general issues related to segre4ation/integration, racially or ethnically concentrated areal overt(R/ECAPs . disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs. Additionally; the Report included an analysis of publicly supported housing, disability and access, and fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity; and resource analysis. Finally. it included a series of fair housing goals and priorities, which have been integrated and updated within the HousinlZ Plan_ as appropriate, The City of Temecula contracts with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to provide comprehensive Tair Housing services. Quarterly reports are provided to the City, which evaluate potential issues related to Race, Color, Religion, Sex National Origin, Familial Status, Disability, Age, Marital Status, Ancestry, Source of Income, Sexual Orientation, Genetic Information, or Other Arbitrary factors. Complaints also detail landlord tenant complaints, including ethnicity, income, and the specific case categories including, Evictions, Occupancy Standards, Repairs, Deposits, Entering/Harassment, Late Fees, Lead, Lease/Rental Terms, Mobile Homes, Mold, Rental Assistance, Homeless Assistance Referrals, Habitability, Notices, Section 8 Issues, Affordable Housing, and Foreclosures. Actions taken by the Fair Housing Council are also provided, including mediation, counseling, conciliation, education, DFEH/HUD/Attorney referrals. Past Fair Housing Events included First Time Homebuyer Programs (March 14, 2022) Rent Control Law (March 18, 2020,, First Time Homebuyers April 4, 2020, May 2, 2020., Fair Housing in Covid (September 24, 2020, October 1, 2020, October 15, 2020, October 22, 2020, November 13, 2020, November 18, 2020), Fair Housing Roundtables (April 25, 2021), Popup Events, (May 5, 2021, May 12, 2021, May 13, 2021, May 15, 2021, May 19, 2021, May 20, 2021), Community Partners Meetings dune 8, 2021), -juneteenth dune 19, 2021), Help Center Outreach in Temecula dune 29, 2021). The chart on the following page reflects the quarterly report provided to the City by the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County of 01 2021-2022. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-168 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT City of Temecula 1st Quarter Discrimination Gander Female 1 10106 — fl EihnicilylRaca American fndiaWAlaskan881aak 4 American Ind iaWAlas kan & His pa nit 0 American IndiarVAlaskan & whiie 4 American InddanlAlaskan RativeMlack & H -&pan 0 Asian I 0 Asian & Hispanic 0 Asian & WhIte 0 Oatk Non Hisptnic 0 BladdAtrican American & His anic 0 BlacklAfelcan American & White 0 Chose not to respond 0 J Hispanic i HISpanic Black 0 flir,panic Black & While 0 Nalive ArnericanlAlaskan Native 0 Native AmoricanlPackfic islander & His panic 0 Native HawalianiPacific Islander 0 Other frluitiple Racel His panic 0 Other Mult+ Ie RacelNon Hispanic 0 UnknowrdOfhel CtherMuit RaeelNon Hisp an 0 White Non riffs anic 0 Income Very Low 0 Law 0 Modiffat0l 0 Above 1 e Of Caller In•PI&,o Tenant i Other 1 10 Landlor&Manager 10 Other Oaia Senior 0 Female Head of Household 10 Disabled 10 Case Cete orles Age a Ancesq a NrlAtraly 0 Color 0 Familial Status 0 Gendw 0 warktal Status b !de nta I 04ability 0 4atlonal Origin 0 } skcai igah 4 i!y 0 pace 1 Rell tan 0 Sex � Sexual Orientation 0 iourae of Jncoma 0 Type of Contact relephone 11 7ifite 0 Acilon 'duragon '.atittse]ed 1 7FEN1141,11) 0 INorne 0 Total Complaints Val Persons 1 2 Office 0 0 Attkcn Mediation 45 19 Counseled 64 25 Caneillated 26 12 Total Complaints SS Total Persons 135 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-169 The City hosted two public outreach workshops on October 27, 2021, with notices in English; Spanish, and Tagalog. The focus of these hearings included specific topics of AFFH and Fair Housing feedback as well as affordable housing. The City is also currently conducting a resident survey in conjunction with CDB(j) which discusses housing; AFFH, and other housing related priorities. During the 2019-2020 report period, the City of Temecula took the following actions on its own or in cooperation with regional partners and the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC) to overcome impediments to fair housing choice identified in the 2017 Report and demonstrate and implement its outreach capacity to provide outreach and education to assure community members are well aware of fair housing laws and rights. • Fair Housing Community Education • Fair Housing Enforcement • Housing Dispute Evaluation & Resolution • Reasonable Accommodations • Web -based Outreach • Monitoring On -Line Advertising • Monitoring Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data The City of Temecula complies with Fair Housing laws and regulations, as described in Table 69§. The City has conducted outreach to its Race, Equity, and Diversity Commission to further promote fair housing policies and identify additional ol2portunities to support implementation of Fair Housing laws and regulations. This eb ffij fft',,..Sf ftij 3' basis and is ineluded-as wtr-t of P CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-170 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT 1 1 I 0 % 1 Miles Sources: US census. Map date: December 14, 2021. D e. No Plau ,ug Gr up ■■.■■ `. O.R.II..Ig�., d n,.ir.- In. ----•-------- I O � 432.47 V� o . 0004 O O I .32.62 i 1 432.46 �. 64 432.65 •� • 00a 00 432.56 432.48 1.. 432.52 i I I -------------`----- RiverseidCounty San Diego County 432.57 Legend City of Temecula Other Incorporated Area L_ County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels OCensus Tracts within Temecula Other Census Tracts Figure 3: Census Tracts within Temecula This t,aQe intentionally left blank. Ej ■ CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-172 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 695: Compliance with Fair Housing Laws Laws Description Compliance California Fair Employment and The Fair Employment and Housing Act Compliance is achieved through strict Housing Act (FEHA) (FEHA) applies to public and private enforcement in hiring practices and employers, labor organizations and regular training of and by Human employment agencies. It is illegal for employers of 5 or more Resources staff. employees to discriminate against iob applicants and employees because of a protected category or retaliate against them because they have asserted their rights under the law. The FEHA prohibits harassment based on a protected category against an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a contractor. Harassment is prohibited in all workplaces, even those with fewer than five emplovees. Government Code Section 65008 Covers actions of a city, county, city and Compliance is achieved by uniform county, or other local government application of City's codes, regulations, agency, and makes those actions null policies and practices, including and void if the action denies an development standards, design individual or group of individuals the guidelines, application submittal enjoyment of residence, requirements, fees and approval landownership, tenancy, or other land findings. use in the state because of membership in a protected class, the method of financing, and/or the intended occupancy. For example, a violation under Government Code section 65008 may occur if a jurisdiction applied more scrutiny to reviewing and approving an affordable development as compared to market -rate developments, or multifamily housing as compared to single family homes. Government Code Section 8899.50 Requires all public agencies to Compliance is achieved through administer programs and activities consultations with community relating to housing and community stakeholders and support agencies as development in a manner to part of program evaluating and funding affirmatively further fair housing and decisions. The 6th Cycle Housing avoid any action that is materially Element Housing Plan describes how inconsistent with its obligation to each Program addresses fair housing affirmatively further fair housing. issues and contributing factors. Government Code Section 11135 et Requires full and equal access to all Compliance is achieved through seq. programs and activities operated, promotion/availability of activities and administered, or funded with financial programs to all persons of all assistance from the state, regardless of backgrounds to participate equally in one's membership or perceived community programs and activities. membership in a protected class. Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section Density bonus law is intended to Compliance is achieved by 65915) support the construction of affordable administration of Temecula Municipal housing by offering developers the Code Section 17.10.020(Q), Density ability to construct additional housing Bonus Law, which provides for units above an agency's otherwise compliance with Government Code applicable density range, in exchange Section 65915 et seq. for offering to build or donate land for CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-173 affordable or senior units. Density Bonus Law also provides for incentives intended to help make the development of affordable and senior housinq economically feasible. Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code Provides that a local agency shall not Compliance is achieved through the Section 65589.5) disapprove a housing development development review process with is project, for very low, low-, or moderate- completed consistent with the Housing income households, or an emergency Accountability Act. Additionally, the Citv shelter, or condition approval in a is in the process of preparing objective manner that renders the housing design standards to facilitate an development project infeasible for objective and eauitable review of development for the use of very low, applicable projects. low-, or moderate -income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes certain written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record. No Net Loss Law (Gov. Code Section Ensures development opportunities The City's draft Housing Element 65863) remain available throughout the identifies a surplus of sites with a planning period to accommodate a capacity to accommodate the City's jurisdiction's regional housing need RHNA allocation. The City has also assessment (RHNA) allocation, identified additional sites for especially for lower- and moderate- accommodating any shortfall that may income households. occur with respect to anticipated development density capacity, that may be added to the site list if necessary. Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code Provides that, in exercising its authority Compliance is achieved through Section 65913.1) to zone for land uses and in revising its implementation of the City's General housing element, a city, county, or city Plan and the implementation of and county shall designate and zone Housing Element Housing Plan which sufficient vacant land for residential use commits the City to maintain an with appropriate standards, in relation adequate capacity of sites at densities to zoning for nonresidential use, and in and intensities consistent with those relation to growth projections of the specified by site in Appendix A in order general plan to meet housing needs for to accommodate its RHNA for all all income categories as identified in the income levels throughout the planning housing element of the general plan. ep riod. Excessive Subdivision Standards (Gov. Provides that, in exercising its authority Compliance is achieved through the Code Section 65913.2) to regulate subdivisions a city, county, implementation of a fair and equitable or city and county shall: (a) Refrain from imposing criteria for development review process which is administrated consistent with the design, as defined in Section 66418, or Excessive Subdivision Standards Act. improvements, as defined in Section 66419, for the purpose of rendering infeasible the development of housing for any and all economic segments of the community. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of a city, county, or city and county under other provisions of law to permit a developer to construct such housing. (b) Consider the effect of ordinances adopted and actions taken by it with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the local jurisdiction is situated. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-174 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT (c) Refrain from imposing standards and criteria for public improvements including, but not limited to, streets, sewers, fire stations, schools, or parks, which exceed the standards and criteria being applied by the city, county, or city and county at that time to its publicly financed improvements located in similarly zoned districts within that city, county, or city and county Limits on Growth Controls (Gov. Code Provides that, if a county or city. The City's draft Housing Element and Section 65302.8) including a charter city, adopts or the elements in the City's recently amends a mandatory general plan adopted General Plan do not include element which operates to limit the any provisions which further limits number of housing units which may be (relative to the current Housing Element constructed on an annual basis, such and prior General Plan) the adoption or amendment shall contain development of housing, except such findings which justify reducing the provisions as may be required by state housing opportunities of the region. The or federal laws. findings shall include all of the following: (a) A description of the city's or county's appropriate share of the regional need for housing. (b) A description of the specific housing programs and activities being undertaken by the local jurisdiction to fulfill the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 65302. (c) A description of how the public health, safety, and welfare would be promoted by such adoption or amendment. (d) The fiscal and environmental resources available to the local jurisdiction -BC. Analysis of Available Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge This section presents an overview of available federal, state, and local data to analyze fair housing issues in Temecula as included in the City's 2017 Assessment; these findings are suppleffientedin addition to with present day resources and local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more realistic picture of fair housing concerns in Temecula and a more informed perspective from which to base goals, policies and programs to affirmatively further fair housing. The City's demographic and income profile, household and housing characteristics, housing cost and availability, and special needs populations are discussed in previous sections of this Background Report. Temecula is comprised of 21 Census Tracts, although several CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-175 are only partially located in Temecula. Figure 3 shows the tract boundaries. Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends Segregation is the social division of human beings based on any number of factors, including race, ethnicity, or nationality. Racial segregation is one of the most common forms of segregation and is generally illegal but can still exist through social norms even when there is no strong individual preference for it. Racial integration, or simply integration, includes desegregation (the process of ending systematic racial segregation). In addition to desegregation, integration includes goals such as leveling barriers to association, creating equal opportunity regardless of race, and the development of a culture that draws on diverse traditions rather than merely bringing a racial minority into the majority culture. The racial and ethnic composition of a city is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. Dissimilarity indices can be used to measure the evenness of distribution between two groups in an area. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) views the various levels of a dissimilarity index as follows: • <40: Low Segregation • 40-54: Moderate Segregation • >55: High Segregation This analysis of racial/ethnic segregation also includes racial/ethnic minority population trends, maps of minority concentrated areas over time, and an analysis of the City's sites inventory as it relates to minority (non-White) concentrated areas. The indices for Temecula and Riverside County from 1990 to present are shown in Table 7046. Dissimilarity between non-White and White communities in Temecula and in Riverside County has increased/worsened since 1990. In Temecula, dissimilarity between Black/White, Hispanic/White, and Asian or Pacific Islander/White communities has increased. Based on HUD's definition of the various levels of the index, segregation between non-White and White Temecula residents is considered low. Segregation in Temecula is lower than the County. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-176 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 70466: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 2000 2010 Current Temecula Non-White/White 1.27 10.17 15.87 18.06 Black/White 3.98 15.06 19.88 22.77 Hispanic/White 0.59 11.63 16.07 19.17 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 3.07 9.97 19.80 24.88 Riverside County Non-White/White 32.92 38.90 38.95 41.29 Black/White 43.74 45.48 45.48 47.66 Hispanic/White 35.57 42.40 42.40 43.96 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 33.17 37.31 37.31 43.07 Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing fAFFH) Database, 2020. Tracking the diversity of cities and counties throughout California is crucial to understanding the shifting demographics of race and ethnicity in California and the United States. Esri's Diversity Index captures the racial and ethnic diversity of a geographic area in a single number, from 0 to 100. Scores less than 40 represent lower diversi , in the jurisdiction while scores of greater than 85 represent higher diversity. Additionally scores between 40-55 represent low diversity, 55-70 represent moderate diversity, and 70-85 represent high diversity_ As shown in Figure 4, most of Likewise, fie segregation pattern based on flational or-igin. The top fi-ve population groups are spfead evenly throughout the City, show* the Gity's diversity and high integratioft. the Citv has areas of high and moderate diversitv. There are several areas of low diversity in the City, one located in central Temecula east of the I-15 freeway and two located in east Temecula. The distribution of diversitv in Temecula is consist with the surrounding iurisdictions. as illustrated in Figure 5. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-177 Manned Patterns of Integration and Segregation Patterns of integration and segregation are also considered for people with disabilities, familial status; and income groups. Relying primarily on data available from the US Census, it is possible to map and consider existing patterns which may indicate historical influences and future trends by census tract and census block groups. Familial status refers to the Presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the marital status of the head of household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. According to the ACS 2-014-2018, 45.7% of households in Temecula have one or more people under 18 years old, and 13.9% of householders living alone. In comparison, 42.2% of households in Riverside County have one or more people under 18 years old and 17.8% of householders live alone. As determined in the Housing Needs Assessment, 20.5% of family households in Temecula are headed by single male or single female. There is a larger number of female householders with no husband present 15.5%), and 9% of these households are female -headed with children under 18. The City's share of households that are female -headed with children is greater than the Count's(6.7%), which would be consistent with the City's over higher number of households with children. Single -parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Approximately 20.5% of family households in the City are single -parent households. Female -headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. Approximately 9% of family households in Temecula are single, female -headed households with children. As shown in Figure 6, the percentage of children in female -headed households is higher in the western portion of the City than the eastern. In comparison, countywide the percentage of children in female - headed households is distributed throughout the County, with a concentration in the northern portion of the County around the Citv of Banning, as illustrated in Figure 7.1n eeffipar4ng the City with the region f-r6ririzco=E-z Dei egr—ap ie Trends, - he pereentageof Blaeks CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-178 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT According to the 2014-2018 ACS. anbroximately 8.4% of Temecula residents experience one or more disabilities. As shown in Figure 8, most census tracts have a disabled population less than 10%. The census tracts that have a disabled population over 10% (no greater than 12.4% in the City are located generally in the eastern and northern portions of the City. Overall coup ide, there is a greater concentration of persons with one or more disabilities in eastern Riverside County, compared to western Riverside County, as illustrated in Figure 9. Temecula is consistent with the surrounding communities. According to Table 4-4 in the Housing Needs Assessment, eight pemerrt10.3% of the City's population is seniors compared to 44.413.8% regiencoun -wide. The community's older residents, persons 65 vears of age or older. are somewhat concentrated in the eastern -central portion of the City, as shown in Figure 10. The population of senior residents in Temecula is slightly more concentrated than the surrounding communities, as illustrated in Figure 11. However, compared to the larger region, particularly eastern Riverside and San Diego counties, senior populations are much less concentrated in the U13LFifty six pefeent of the households afe families 0 fegionwide. kWhile all age groups inereased in population, there was a slight deerease in the per-eentage of ehildren and an ifterease in these of ffliddle age. That eould furthe be seen in a decrease in the proportioft of families with children, even --- a it - -- - higher- than the ea - -- r - - - -off-' Identifying areas of different incomes is important to overcome patterns of segregation that may be present. The Housing Needs Assessment identified that 22.6% of Temecula households earn 80% CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-179 or less than the area median income and are considered lower income. According to the 2014-2018 ACS, the median household income in Temecula is $90; 964, which is higher than $63,948 for the County. Figures 12 and 13 show the median income in the City and the region by census block groups and how the median income in those groups compare to the median State income of $87,100. Approximately half of the census block groups in the City have a median income of less than $87,100, which is the HCD 2020 State Median Income. These census block groups are primarily along the transportation corridors of the I-15 freeway and Highway 79. There is one block group located in central Temecula with a median income of less than $55,000. All but two of the remaining block groups have median incomes of $125,000 or less. Two census block groups located in eastern Temecula have median incomes of greater than $125,000. Median income concentrations in Temecula are similar to the surrounding communities, with lower median incomes located along major transportation corridors and areas on the outer edges of cities that have higher median income block groups. This pattern can be seen in the cities of Murrieta and Wildomar. The Housing Choice Voucher (HM program assists extremely and very low-income households in Temecula with pang their monthly rent. Figure 14 shows HCVs as a percent of renter -occupied housing units by census tract. The highest percentage areas (5% - 15%) in the City are located in western Temecula. The sites used to meet the City's 2021-2029 RHNA are generally dispersed, with sites in census block groups with median incomes that range from $30,000 to $125,000 (see Figure 12). ° eefd ffg t " -a' grown;dfamatieftlly ift the City aver the past ewenty yeaf s. Emeept Native Americans, the population of A racial and ethnic groups has from 0 0 from 2.4 0 0 28,000 0 0 0 pefeentagewise from 0 in 2000 to 3.88-04 in 2010, even though their population inereftsed. Whi4e -Native A.- isti"e only 7; of the population, they wefe the only ethnie grE)ttp to show -s deerease in population between 2000 and 2010. Through the tretmendotts growth in poptAations, Table 3 demonstrates that the >well below the 14UD threshold of> ffieaning there is ffiini CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-180 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT 1 1 I I 1/ I -; M-1 ;, I ; CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-181 rj This page intentionally left blank. um CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-182 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT �q nOO 0 00 I :)08 00�; 8 0I o 0 I 0 O 0 0 0 o rg 0 � 000 0 0 0 0 �. 0 TEMECULA j�,,•f o C50) (a $ 00 1-1 i 0 0 ®00 CD 0 0 •• .per 0 (56q5(0 00 + 0 00 COo O �� r.�� VH, AKE Legend City of Temecula Other Incorporated Area L_ County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate _ Income Levels Diversity Index (2018) - Higher Diversity 70-85 55-70 40-55 Lower Diversity De Novo Plau .g G-p d n,■■.■■ ,.ir���....tal m. Figure 4: Diversity Index by Census Block Thi page intentionally left blank. Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-184 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT riimE ss SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY COUNTY COU N TY� 1 W55 14 0 2% 5 Miles� Source: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "RaceDemographics_ BlockGrp_2018. " Map date: December14, 2021. D e. No Plxu ,ug Gr np A I.. dTT- Pi,,,.i.g, Il..ig�., A n,.ir -- gin" ■■.■■ (sz) 4 ®-------------------------- —j RIVERSIDE COUNT 74 ® 79 Legend City of Temecula ----------------- L_� Riverside County L_ Surrounding County Diversity Index (2018) 79 Higher Diversity D I E G O COUNTY - 70-85 - 55-70 76 IF 40-55 Lower Diversity No Data Figure 5: Diversity Index by Census Block - Regional This t,aQe intentionally left blank ■ Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-186 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT WILDOMAR ------ --s' MURRIETA 0 Y. 1 Miles Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "Family5ta tus_Tract_ 2015_19. " Map date: December 14, 2021. ® LAKE SKINNER 79 ,r..• t ( 0 Of 0 IF 0 0 ®• • ! 00� 0 i .� �'• 00 0p0 0 0 0 'b® 0 0 TEMECULA ���,.•� 0 CPO ---� j00C& 00 � �oQpR,$ Cj)'2S a i o .Q-0 5 0 6$R8� p0 r 'VP9 b O 4�..ir•• 00 aj 0 O I I • • I Riverside County ' San Diego County-------------------------1 L— VAIL LAKE Legend _! City of Temecula Other Incorporated Area L_ County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income • Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels Percent of Children in Female -Headed Household in which No Spouse or Partner Present is Present < 20% 20 - 40% 40 - 60% 60 - 80% i > 80% D e. Noco Plxening Group A L.,,d 1F,. Pi,,,.i-g.O g�.,.a� d❑i,drFf.m ■■■■■ Figure 6: Female -Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present This 1,aQe intentionally left blank 0 0 la CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-188 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT / -7- 1 L O S A N G E L E S / COUNTY 72 �`' ` I � 60 ■ 83 �� L♦ r ♦ r I i I ♦ R 66 �JIZRR-L Ii \\\ ORANGE COUNTY `♦` �_ \ 55 J* A \ 133 © 4 , C L i 0 ♦ \ 0 2% 5 Miles Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department fHousing and Community Development, "FamilyStatus_Tract _2015_19." Map date: December14, 2021. 78 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY De,o`o Plxa"`n, GP-- Figure 7: Female -Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present - Regional A 1..,�.111,. PI.��.�i�R, Il..lg�., �1 Pi�.ir"��i�...�.tal Fln" ■■■■■ This 1,aQe intentionally left blank 0 Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-190 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT WILDOMAR 3' LAKE SKINNER 79 MURRIETA .Q0 o . o I �jj,, t ( is oh, on O IF 0 �� 0 00 ; o i 00 0p0 0 60 TEMECULA .�, o (90 9 � :00 `?01, Qt o .p� t o (58 Oo r - 0 � W0 0 r I � I Riverside County I San Diego County-------------------------1 L — 15 Miles Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "Disab ilityPop ula tion_Tract_ 2015_ 19. " Map date: December 14, 2021. VAIL LAKE Legend City of Temecula Other Incorporated Area County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels Percent of Population with a Disability < 10% 10 - 20% - 20 - 30% - 30 - 40% _ > 40% De,o`o Plxe"`n, "'' E-I ■■■ Figure 8: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract A 1..,�.111,. PI.��..i-K, II..Ig�.,..i��I Pi�.ir���i�...�.tal Fln� This 1,aQe intentionally left blank Im 0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-192 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT W� 330 / 18 ► ■a LIM / ■ rd 10 ra 59 oa�,r / SA N B LOS A N G E L E S 66 yW1� ��� r1 ss - COUNTY / I P ■ �:.� 'r " �.tw Ns so 600 rrJ 91 �} L r 1 �'; zz ♦♦� RIVERS IDE COU NT 61 \ ORANGE COUNTY �� 74 Cl L IL i 0 \► ♦ (A), s o z% s 2 \\\ -16 Miles \ Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department fHousing and Community Development, \ 'DisabilityPopulation_Tract _2015_19." \ Map date: December 14, 2021. \ 78 De,o`oPlae "-G1--iF Figure 9: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract - Regional A 1..,�.111,. Pl.��.�i�R, nP.I���, rl Pi�.�r"��i�...�.tal Fin" ■■■■■ This 1,aQe intentionally left blank la 0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-194 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT WILDOMAR o v= Miles Sources: U.S. Census Bureau's America Community Survey (ACS) 2015-20", estimates, Table(s) 801001. Map date: December 14, 2021. Dv No Plxu ug Gr ,up ■■.■■ 'b O• i o - 0 .� 0 O O `•. 0 ® • • 00 P °; 0 1 000 O � 0 TEMECULA `�� �•, 00 CPO 600C& •� 00 $ 0 i a • qR QD O,• 000wo 0 �g i �• o O I 1 �•\O % •�, .� �O' •. ...._..---------------------------- 1 Legend City of Temecula Other Incorporated Area County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income • Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels Percent of Population At or Over Age 65 _ < 10a/ 10 - 15% 15 - 20% C 20 - 25% - 25 - 30% - >30% No Data Figure 10: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract This 1,aQe intentionally left blank Im 0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-196 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT i L O S AN G E L E S !- COUNTYr'� 164 i A � c 330 47 U SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ----------�I R IV E R S I D E C O U NTY �74J `7 J ►, � _ 7 � 10k*k 371 MEOWS Legend / / t LI ` City of Temecula L _ Riverside County `` ♦f. ----------------— — — L _ Surrounding County 0 ` T+" Percent of Population At or Over Age 65 - < 10°/ 79 10 - 15% SAN D I E G O COUNT Y © 15 - 20% 0 2'� s Z �� l /J 20 - 25°/ NEEZ301=3 \ Miles is) - 25 - 30% Sources. U.S. Census Bureaus American \l - - >30% Community Survey (ACS/2015-2019 5-yearestimates, rotrle(s/ 801001. v-r, '` No Data Map date: December14, 2021. ' Pi- P'xa"`n, --F Figure 11: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract - Regional al.,,�,111,. PI.��.�i�R, Il..lg�., �1 Pi�.ir���i�...�.ta Fln� I�I•I•I•■ This 1,aQe intentionally left blank 0 Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-198 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT i ic 1 O 0 U t O p O (0 C O00 O 60 p 00 O O TEMECULA O ,q t pp0' 9 00 t ��ppn 275a p O oo � � 8 0 �'. g p 00 ., �• �o 0 9$ 0 i •�•�•�• 00 I _ .I �.._.._..j I County ---- .......................... County Ago i. VAIL LAKE Legend City of Temecula Other Incorporated Area L_ County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels Median Income by Block ---� Group L _ < $30,000 $30,000 - $55,000 $55,000 - $87,100- $87,100 - $125,000 > $125,000 87.100 is the HCD State Median Income `i D e. Noco Plxu ,ng Group A I.. dTT— Pi.,,.•i•g, Il..ig�., A n,.ir-- Fines M■■■■ Figure 12: Median Household Income by Block Group This 1,aQe intentionally left blank la CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-200 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT It 11''`' �■ '!! r i1 lit ' ss L O S A N G E I� L_/ COUNTY' i � so rat 83 72 1 �, r 39 57 14 e! 90 ^ — — �■ 71 1 — 91 a s � 61 0 0 2•i 5 2 Miles� Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "Medianincome_ BlockGrp_2015_19." Map date: December 14, 2021. D e. No Plxu ,ug Gr np A 1.. dTT- Pi,,,.i.g, Il..ig�., A n,.ir .- gin" ■■■■■ * '$ (2� � a %7 T.y t SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY r ■ -- :r---- ■ `� -----------------^—`s--------- -------i -- ----- -----� _ r y Md r ,r 1243 RIVERSIDE COUNTY . 4V: `74J 1 ® A 79) " U -------------------------- JporSAN DIEGO COUNTY \\\ 76 \\ VJ \ r \ r l Legend City of Temecula L9 Riverside County L� Surrounding County Median Income by Block Group < $30,000 $30,000 - $55,000 $55,000 - $87,100- $87,100 - $125,000 > $125,000 No Data \A 78 _ - �" '87,f00 is the HCDState Median Income Figure 13: Median Household Income by Block Group - Regional This t,aQe intentionally left blank I ■ ■ CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-202 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT PIK WILDOMAR LAKE SKINNER MURRIETA EPA i I 4 �O 0 0 is Oh, To • O IF °O O00 1 O � o �° TEMECULA .�.'` . ®� CPO °10 o O qB CD O 04, . NQ 9 O O 00 CC) p O I j ' I I Riverside County San Diego County-----------------------� 1 Sources: A FFHData and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Comm unify Development, '. WousimiCholceVoucher_ Tract" Map date: December14, 2021. E Legend City of Temecula Other Incorporated Area L_ County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels Housing Choice Vouchers as a Percent of Renter Occupied Housing Units _ 60a/ - 100a/ _ 30a/ - 60a/ 15a/ - 30a/ 5a/ - 15e/ 0-5e/ No Data De.No Plxu 'ng Gr p A T—d II,. Pi,,,.i-g,—g,., d P,,.;.�,,,,..�...,� L ■■■ m. Figure 14 : Housing Choice Vouchers This 1,aQe intentionally left blank Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-204 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RLECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract -based definition of RLECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward: RLECAPs must have a non -white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a RIECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower. HUD data and mapping does not identify any R/ECAPs within the City. Further analysis using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments R/ECAP GIS mapping tool confirms that all census tracts within Temecula have a R/ECAP value of 0, indicating that the census tracts within the City do not meet the defined parameters for a racially or ethnically concentrated area of poverty as defined by HUD. Figures 15 and 16 demonstrate that from 2010 to 2018, the City of Temecula has overall increased in diversity, and has had several census tracts increase the percentage of non -white population. Several census tracts located along 1-15 freeway increased the non -white population from 41-60% to 61-80%, and includes multiple potential housing sites. The most dramatic increase was the southwestern portion of the City, which increased from 21-40% to 61-80%. However, there are very few potential housing sites in that area of the City. As seen in Figures 17 and 18, this change from 2010 to 2018 is consistent with the surrounding jurisdictions, including the cities of Murrieta and Wildomar. In western Riverside County, R/ECAPs have been identified in unincorporated Riverside County north of Lake Elsinore, and the cities of Hemet, Moreno Valley and Riverside. The County Al found that a majority of the population in these R/ECAPS are Hispanic residents (72.3%). Figures 17 and 18 show that central western Riverside County has significantly increased in racial concentration from 2010 to 2018. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-205 Racially/Concentrated Areas of Affluence According to the Housing and Community Development AFFH Guidance Memo, "segregation is a continuum, with polarity between race, poverty, and affluence, which can be a direct product of the same policies and practices". Therefore, both sides of the continuum must be examined. While HCD does not have a standard definition for Racially/Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs., looking at the percentage of the White population and median household income can provide a good indicator for areas of affluence. In addition to R/ECAPs utilized b HUD, scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs created the RCAAs metric to more fully tell the story of segregation in the United States'. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national the median household income in 2016). Table 7147- looks at the median household incomes of white residents in Temecula as well as the County as a whole. While there are two census block groups with a median household income of $125,000 or more in the City (see Figure 12), there are no block groups in the City that have a population that is 80 percent or more white. As such, there are no RCAAs located in Temecula. The City of Temecula incorporated in 1989, as a master -planned community, the founders of Temecula set forth a vision where single- family and multifamily uses could coexist in a cohesive diverse community. Allowing for different development opportunities to serve the needs of different household sizes and incomes was an important factor in Temecula's early planning efforts. In the late 80s, early/late 90's and late 2000s. ftna ear'-- 90% Temecula was an affordable housing option when costs were rising in Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego counties. The City has not identified any local past policies, practices, or investments since the City's incorporation that would contribute to racially/concentrated areas of poverty or affluence. The City has always prided itself on providing attainable housing options in a region where housing costs continue to rise. Table 7167: Median Household Incomes Median Household Incomes Temecula Riverside County White households $91,725 $66,754 All households $90,964 $63,948 % of white population 75% 65.5% 3 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. 2019. Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. Cityscape: A journal of Policy Development and Research, Volume 21(1) [pages 99-124]. Available at: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscl2e/vol2lnuml /ch4.pdf CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-206 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT WILDOMAR -- --3' LAKE SKINNER 79 MURRIETA coo of ��jj..,, v YOS 00� is Oh, , 0 O O 00 0 0 ' 00 000 O O 0 (b® 0 TEMECULA ;�7 ` o ®e (:Po 7 0 00 '\oP1:� $ � 0 i �Oo 0 � m 0 '•. 00 ac) 0 0 .`� O t4w4t 0 ..—' I I San Diego County-------------- 0 Miles Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "ReceDemographics_ SlockGrp_2010." Map date: December 14, 2021. VAIL LAKE Legend jCity of Temecula Other Incorporated Area County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels — — — — — - 1 I Percent of Total Non -White L— Population _ 81 - 100% _ 61 - 80% 41 - 60% 21 - 40% 0 - 20% D e. No .■■■■ Plxu 'ug Gr up A Lnd II,. Pi---. g�., dn,.;.",,,,,.�...,�i. Figure 15: Racial Demographics 2010 This 1,aQe intentionally left blank la CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-208 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT MURRIETA "i k, - 0 Y= 1 LMiles Soure,:AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California artment of Housingand Community Deelopment, ceDemographir,s_ BlockGrp_2018. " Moa021. D e. Novo Plae,ng G—p AI..,,d TTPi.,,,.i�.g, Il..ig�., A n,.irnal Pin" LL 000 -w VAIL LAKE Legend City of Temecula •� _ _� Other Incorporated Area pp j -- �'.` •— County Boundary Potential Housing Sites `p- Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels --------"I Percent of Total Non -White �— Population _ 81 - 100% — 61 - 80% 41 - 60% 21 - 40°% 0 - 20% Figure 16: Racial Demographics 2018 This 1,aQe intentionally left blank El 0 Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-210 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT "2 1 r Rw — � 10 OPS ,4NGELES �F j , �0 U N T Y zr 1sIV 60 ■ 83 .. .. �I 72 �� 39 57 142 \ 90 -- 71 330 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY s2 --- — ----� m -j---------------------------- 1 � i 22 RIVEIRDIE COU N T Y 4 \\\ ■ ■ 1% • 41 1 ® 79 \\ ® O APR A N � C O U N T Y ���` � I � i _Q `•` 0 \I \\ S 0 2% s \\ Miles Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California ` Department fHousing and Community Development, \ "RoceDemogrophics_BlockGrp_2010." \ lox l .. Map date: December 14, 2021.Aff \ 78 1 43 371 M1------------------- ti NTY Legend City of Temecula L _ Riverside County L_ Surrounding County Percent of Total Non -White Population = 81-100°/ _ 61 - 80% 41 - 60% 21 - 40% 0 - 20% D, N.co Plxuniug Gro np AT,,,d, .i.g.R,dn,. m.■■■■■ Figure 7: Racial Demographics 2010 - Regional This 1,aQe intentionally left blank Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-213 za7 N BERNARDINO COUNTY --- --------I I i \� 41 N T Y 74/ 1� \` c, L IL I O C O U N T Y 7s Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department fHousing and Community Development, "RaceDemographics_ BlockGrp_2018. " Map date: December 14, 2021. Legend City of Temecula LRiverside County Surrounding County Percent of Total Non -White Population - 81 - 100% _ 61 - 80% - 41 - 60% 21 - 40% 0 - 20% D e. No Plxu ug Gr np ■■■■■ co n� o A T,,,d, .i.g.�..,R,,.,,,dn,. i,,"Figure 18: Racial De m o g r a p I c s 2018 - Regiona This 1,aQe intentionally left blank Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-215 Disparities in Access to Opportunity HUD developed the opportunity indicators to help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity, the scores are based on nationally available data sources and assess resident's access to keyopportunity assets in the City. Table 7268 provides the index scores ranging from zero to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices: • Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exbosure to Bove in a neighborhood. • School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school -level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high - performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher the school system duality is in a neighborhood. • Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based on the level of employ, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force bartici�ation and human La ptal in a neighborhood. • Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a three -person single -parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core -Based Statistical Area (CBSA))The higher the transit trios index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize publictransit. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-216 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT • Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following descriVtion: a three -Verson single-12arent family income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the loaner the cost of traLoortation in that neighborhood. • jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to embloyment obtortunities-for residents in a neighborhood. • Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes 12otential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental qualiiy of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block grout. 01212ortunity indicators were obtained for Temecula from the HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing GIS tool. Table 7268 identifies the opportunity indicators by race and ethnicity for the total population of Temecula and Riverside County. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-217 Table 7268: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity Population Low Poverty Index School Proficiency Labor Market Index Transit Index Low Transport. Jobs Proximity Index Environ- mental Health Index Index Cost Index Temecula Total Population White 77.09 68.11 51.86 43.35 34.97 47.19 42.26 Black 73.35 68.27 49.24 43.18 37.57 50.70 42.02 Hispanic 71.54 66.04 49.09 46.06 38.56 54.21 41.00 Asian or Pacific 76.66 69.97 49.79 42.76 36.53 46.91 42.94 Islander Native American 76.34 69.63 50.94 43.92 33.70 42.56 44.83 Population below federal poverty line White 71.44 66.63 49.45 47.49 39.32 53.81 41.48 Black 66.61 65.92 48.93 44.32 44.20 54.80 40.01 Hispanic 68.62 67.03 50.04 49.97 41.96 53.88 40.50 Asian or Pacific 57.08 64.40 43.25 55.32 46.87 66.14 39.17 Islander Native American 77.90 76.30 49.22 35.88 30.42 27.59 47.35 Riverside County Total Population White 50.83 46.43 33.94 48.57 42.13 45.92 48.02 Black 41.38 35.44 26.46 53.65 45.13 45.67 38.89 Hispanic 36.39 33.26 24.37 55.76 46.31 46.90 37.84 Asian or Pacific 58.83 51.51 42.31 55.92 42.65 53.56 35.12 Islander Native American 39.48 35.90 24.58 47.70 43.26 43.36 49.90 Population below federal poverty line White 37.75 37.30 25.07 48.70 45.70 43.28 51.53 Black 26.43 25.68 16.85 53.16 48.28 41.83 42.21 Hispanic 24.29 26.74 16.85 57.51 49.70 45.50 39.29 Asian or Pacific 41.94 35.76 29.56 58.72 49.53 57.38 34.87 Islander Native American 29.25 30.43 19.72 50.03 46.34 44.62 44.78 Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing fAFFH) Database. 2020. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-218 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Regional Opportunity Index The UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, N.A. partnered to develop the Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) intended to help understand social and economic opportunity in California's communities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and policies toward people and places with the greatest need to foster thriving communities. The ROI integrates a variety of data topics, including education, economic development, housing, mobility, health/environment, and civic life, and "maps" areas of potential investment by identifying specific areas of urgent need and opportunity. The ROI relies on many of the same data sources analyzed in the Housing Element, including the American Community Survey (ACS), the Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data, the California Department of Education, the California Department of Public Health, among others (data points are from 2014). There are two ROI "maps"; the "people" ROI illustrates the relative measure of the people's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life) while the "place" ROI illustrates the relative measure of a place's assets in those same categories. The tool analyzes different specific indicators for each of the six data topics, as summarized in Table 65-73 Table 46573469: Overview of ROI Data Point Indicators People -Based Data Points Place -Based Data Points Education Elementary School Truancy High School Discipline rate • English Proficiency Teacher Experience • Math Proficiency UC/CSU Eligible • College Educated Adults High School Graduation Rate Economic Development Minimum Basic Income Bank Accessibility • Employment Rate Job Quality • Job Growth • Job Availability Housing Housing Cost Burden Housing Affordability • Homeownership Housing Adequacy Mobility Internet Access N/A • Commute Time • Vehicle Availability Health/Environment Years of Life Lost Air Quality • Births to Teens Health Care Availability • Infant Health Access to Supermarket • Prenatal Care Civic Life English Speakers Neighborhood Stability • Voting Rates US Citizenship CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-219 As shown in Figures 193 through 22 , Temecula has a range of opportunity levels throughout the community with slight differences between the relative measure of people -based assets versus placed -based assets, with place -based opportunities scoring slightly better than people -based opportunities. This pattern is similar to the surrounding cities of Murrieta and Wildomar. In general, most census tracts are shown to have average (yellow) to high (green) levels of opportunity, which indicates positive access to opportunities across the six data topics. However, in terms of people's assets, there are three census tracts which indicate lower levels of opportunity (shown in orange), and in terms of the place's assets, there is one census tract (which also includes areas outside of the City boundary) which indicates a lower level of opportunity (shown in orange). The higher and lower levels of opportunity for these three census tracts, by indicator, are summarized in Table 66-74 . CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-220 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT WILDOMAR 14W 79 + URRIETA ............... oi 4 8 0 ° 0. o Qa o e o o ! i ° 0 ° eg 0 i pO ° i �00 0 0 0" 0 ° TEMECULA 0 CPO pOc�q 00 •` og 0 8 b 0 .��.• 00 CO 6 0 �o o 96$ o i 0 00 I I ' Riverside County L--------- .......................... San Diego County M07 io Miles Sauwces: UCavis Center far Regions hang,/ Ploc,wo,ks 2021 (Original data sq&df om: Legend City of Temecula Other Incorporated Area L_ County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels Regional Opportunity - Highest Opportunity Lowest Opportunity °". ln� .irF P''°"`n, `�" A 1...,d TT- PI.�,..i.K, n..Ig�I Pi��..tal ■■NE■ Figure 19: People -Based Opportunities by Census Tract �.,..i����.. This 1,aQe intentionally left blank 0 0 Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-222 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT J F, O _4�"`E C A C� O 0 0 2'/ 5 Miles� Sources: UC Davis Centerf r Regional Change/ Placeworks2021 (Original data sourcedfom: https.Ilinteract.regionalchange.ucdavis.eduulroildata.htmi). Map date: December14, 2021. D e. No ���i�..on in Plxu ,ug Gr np A 1..,,dTT1 PI.`, i.g, Il..ig�., A n,.irs ■■■■■ R I V C 371 '— —-------------------- SAN D I EGO COU NTY 7s 76 - �� 76 _ Lowest Opportunity o t F �W, 41111, No Data 78 Figure 20: People -Based Opportunities by Census Tract - Regional Legend City of Temecula L _ Riverside County Surrounding County Regional Opportunity = Highest Opportunity This 1,aQe intentionally left blank El 0 Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-224 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT j .O • o II +�•'a % �'�08 O(sO Oopq IP O Qi- O O O O p OO ° O °p0 O � TEMECULA ° o Q� 8 00� 00 °° CAB b ° ° ° 00 CO o �9 �o CS I I- ............. ..-..-..-..- Miles Sources: UC Davis Centerf r Regional Placeworks2021 (Originaldatosourc https.Ilin teract.regionakhange. ucdol Map date: Decenrber14, 2021. D e. No Plxu ,ug Gr np A I..,,d TT- PI.`,.i•g, Il..ig�., A n,.ir.on m. C[ ■■■ Figure 21: Place -Based Opportunities by Census Tract This 1,aQe intentionally left blank la CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-226 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT pX r WUO 66Pq Y "LIM. Im }� 16 f 60 ILL 83 — 72 39 57 142 \\ ` — �W 9010 \ s r ll■ '•R. _ a I I E C 1 ` 55 — 73 A 133 O� Sources: UC Davis Centerf r Regional Change/ Placeworks2021 (Original data sourcedfom: https.Ilinteract.regionalchange.ucdavis.eduulroildata.htmi). Map date: December14, 2021. D e. No ���i�..on in Plxu ,ug Gr np A 1..,,dTT,. PI.`, i.g, Il.,ig�., A n,.irs ■■■■■ 330 f 7 DINO COUNTY t r IdIIIIM Sk � 371 Legend WE I M, City of Temecula --------------------------- \` is ��tiitr .f. �..(i� •y r k L _ Riverside County Surrounding County \\\ ' i( Regional Opportunity f �� S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y Highest Opportunity , \ S 1•�, 76 ••S jlr Lowest Opportunity �\ No Data MffW \\ 78 Figure 22: Place -Based Opportunities by Census Tract - Regional This 1,aQe intentionally left blank la CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-228 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Description Regional Opportunity Index: People, 2014 me R1Ito„It, mdex(ROO: P-pie �s a ,eiarwe meas�,e of veovies ages �� me e�o�omv. no�s��e. mon�r�tvma�svortano�, neanve�uno�me�t aid ��um me. n i . rme,d Regional Opportunity Index: People ❑ Some data not available Lowest Opportunity El ® N Highest Opportunity r IN1e a r„ ° m' UC DAV IS 2 4 8 LnNe—f—.eaw,od CENTER ii REGIONAL CHANGE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-229 Regional Opportunity Index: Place, 2014 Description me R (RoO: Pi— �: a �eiarwe meas��e of a� area s agev �� ea��auo�. me e�o�omv. no�s��e. mon�r�rvma�svortano�, neanv----t. aid me. 14 Lme,a Regional Opportunity Index: Place ❑ Some data not available Lowest Opportunity - El Highest Opportunity caie:a7W—u mi UC DAVIS 2 4 8 ttPs:u �a«.e�a ak tee. s.eawod CENTER ii REGIONAL CHANGE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-230 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 66740: People -Based Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) Low and Lowest Opportunity Census Tracts, Temecula Census Tract Opportunity Average or Higher Lower Opportunities Level Opportunities 06065043216 Low Health/Environment Civic Life Opportunity Mobility/Transportation Housing • Economy • Education 06065043266 Low Health/Environment Civic Life Opportunity Mobility/Transportation Housing • Economy • Education 06065043220 Low Health/Environment Civic Life Opportunity Mobility/Transportation Housing • Economy • Education Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change, 2021 (using 2014 data points) Table 7567: Place -Based Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) Low Opportunity Census Tract, Temecula Census Tract Opportunity Average or Higher Lower Opportunities (Place) Level Opportunities 06065043254 Low Civic Life Health/Environment Opportunity Housing • Economy • Education 06065043252 Lowest Civic Life Health/Environment ormortunitv Housing Economy • Education Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change, 2020 (using 2014 data points) The results of this analysis indicate that for those census tracts with lower -levels of people -based opportunities, the most significant issues revolve around civic life (lower levels of English speakers and voting rates), housing (lower levels of homeownership and higher cost burdens), the economy (households making the minimum basic income and low employment rates), and education (math proficiency). When considering place -based opportunities, which the City arguably has more control over, the City of Temecula fares very well, and only one census tract has a low level of place -based opportunity as described above. For both census tracts with lower levels of opportunity (which are both located along the City's boundary) there appears to be limited access to supermarkets, and, to a lesser extent, health care. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-231 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Map Additionally, the Department of Housing and Community Development together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence -based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD). The Task force developed the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed. The Task force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer ielow-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health. According to the Task Force's methodology, the tool allocates the 20 percent of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index scores to the "Highest Resource" designation and the next 20 percent to the "High Resource" designation. Each region then ends up with 40 percent of its total tracts as "Highest" or "High" resource. These two categories are intended to help State decision -makers identify tracts within each region that the research suggests glow -income families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have the option to live —but might, if given the choice. The remaining tracts are then evenly divided into "Low Resources" and "Moderate Resource". Table 761 identifies resource levels by census tract and the corresponding_ scores for economic education, and environmental indicator scores. As shown in Figure 523, the majority of Temecula is classified as the "high" or "highest" resource designation, one census tract (east of I-15 and Old Town) is identified as "moderate". CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-232 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Table 764: Opportunity Resource Levels by Census Tract Census Tract 060650- Resource Level Economic Score Education Score Environmental Score 512.00 High 95 64 34 432.54 Highest 70 91 65 432.52 Highest 89 94 93 496.00 High 73 80 47 505.00 Highest 71 87 55 432.16 High 64 55 55 432.66 High 53 43 85 432.20 Moderate 54 42 73 432.22 High 62 64 65 432.50 Highest 80 94 74 432.17 Highest 75 83 82 432.18 Highest 79 83 94 432.67 Highest 78 81 93 432.62 High 74 72 85 432.64 Highest 81 88 91 432.65 Highest 80 93 86 432.46 Highest 84 89 88 432.56 Highest 64 94 82 432.57 Highest 48 89 75 432.44 Highest 95 88 53 432.47 Highest 90 90 33 432.48 Highest 83 93 85 Source: 2021 TCACHCD Opportunity Map, https://belonging.berkeley.edul2021-tcac-opportunity-maw The three census tracts that had low neonle-based onoortunities (Table 7A also scored lower than the rest of the City on opportunity resource levels (Table 764-). The three census tracts are located in central Temecula, east of the I-15 freeway. Table 772 shows a more detailed look at the three lower resource census tracts. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-233 Table 772: Lower Resource Census Tract Census Tract Census Tract Census Tract Census Tract 432.16 432.66 432.20 Race/Ethnicity White 55.2% 28.4% 45.7% Black 4.5% 7.3% 4.7% Asian 6.0% 9.8% 8.2% Hispanic 31.2% 44.0% 38.9% • of Population in Poverty 9.1 % 15.0% 18.2% • of Population that is Disabled 7.6% 7.8% 11.7% • of Households in Renter- 66.9% 72.2% 72.7% Occupied Housing Units Overcrowding 8.2% 4.6% 12.9% Overpayment Renters 53.9% 53.9% 49.1 % Owners 7.9% 0.0% 16.8% Source: Cali%rnia Department oiHousing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resources. As shown in Fi--ure 24. the Citv of Temecula has a higher onnortuni index than most of Riverside County. There are other areas of high opportunity index in the San -Jacinto/Palm Desert area and the areas surrounding Corona, with areas of lower opportunity index located around the cities of Hemet, Banning, Perris, Moreno Valley and eastern Riverside County. Many of the areas of low opportunity index in Riverside County are also areas with a Hispanic majority population. Education As shown in Table 764- above. the overall education opportunity scores in Temecula range from 42 to 94. Generally, eastern and southern census tracts in the City have more positive education outcomes. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) local profile of Temecula shows that the K-12 public school enrollment in the City increased by 66.2% between 2000 and 2018. With approximately 29,121 students enrolled in 2018, Temecula's student population comprised 6.8% of the County's total. The Citv of Temecula is served by the Temecula Vallev Unified School District. According to the California Department of Education's California School Dashboard, the District has approximately 27,992 students. The ethnic/racial make-up is: 33.7% Hispanic, 42.5% White, 4.3% Asian, 3.4% African American, 4.9% Filipino, 0.3% Pacific Islander, and 10.2% two or more races. A total of 28.9% of the District's students come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. 5.7% are English learners and 14% are students with disabilities. The District has a graduation rate of 91.9%. The City has one Title 1 school(Temecula Elementary School' in the northern end of the City. A school is a Title 1 School if at least 400Lof CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-234 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT the children participate in a free or reduced lunch nroaam. The school is located in one of the City's CDBG eligible areas. There are no Title 1 Middle Schools or High Schools in the City. The school district has a nolicv that parents can transfer their children from school to school subject to availability. Parents would be responsible for providing transi2ortation to the new school. Public transportation is available, although it may be limited based on the location of the school from their Place of residence. Economic As shown in Table 7647above. the overall economic scores in Temecula range from 48 to 95. Generally, central Temecula's economic scores are slightly lower than eastern and western Temecula. Figure 25 shows the job proximity index for the City. The areas surrounding the I-15 freeway have a higher job proximity index than eastern Temecula. The SCAG local profile of Temecula list 56,995 total jobs in Temecula in 2017, which was an increase of 18% from 2007. The profile also stated that the mean travel time was 34.9 minutes compared to 33.1 minutes for the County. Environmental As shown in Table 764- above, the overall environmental scores in Temecula range from 33 to 94. The census tracts in closest proximity to the I-15 freeway have lower scores than other areas of the City. Transportation As shown in Table 7268, the transit index score ranges from 35.88 to 55.32 and the low transportation cost index score ranges from 30.42 to 46.87. Scores for Riverside County are slightly higher, with the transit index score ranging from 47.70 to 58.72 and the low transportation cost index score ranging from 42.13 to 49.70 for the County. All Transit, an online resource for transit connectivity, access and frequency, explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, sl2ecifically looking at the economy, equity, health transit duality and mobility network. According to All Transit, the City of Temecula has a score of 2.0 out of 10, with a score of 10 being high connectivity, access to jobs and frequency of service. This is consistent with other jurisdictions in the area, including the cities of Murrieta (2.6) , and Wildomar (1.9). It is slightly lower than the Riverside County score of 3.3. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-235 Other Access to Opportunity Indicators As part of its 2017 Assessment, the City also evaluated any disparities in access to proficient schools based on race/ethnicity, national origin, and family status. The City does not have jurisdiction over the local schools. They are administered by independent public school districts, such as the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Table 12 in the 2017 Assessment, —Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity, provides an index regarding how well fourth graders of the various racial and ethnic groups are doing on their State exams in comparison with national indices. Higher scores indicate higher proficiencies in the schools. According to Table 12, the school proficiency index is essentially the same for all races and ethnic groups in the City. On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the highest, Hispanics scored 79.00, Blacks at 80.36, Native Americans at 80.86, Asians at 81.58 and Whites at 82.20. In comparison, the region scored between 40.97 for Hispanics on the low end and 58.09 for Whites on the high end. :_ _ r.__ _�____� i____i_ _._ ___ ri__ a_ _I The City also previously evaluated any disparities in access to jobs and labor markets by protected class groups. The Jobs Proximity Index in Table 12-Opportunity Indicators provides an index for the physical distances between place of residence and jobs by race/ethnicity. The Labor Market Index also in Table 12 provides a measure of unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor's degree, by neighborhood. The higher scores represent greater the access to employment opportunities, and are better prepared to enter the labor market with higher incomes. According to the Map 10 in the 2017 Assessment series for job Proximities, persons in the lower -income areas live substantially closer to employment opportunities than their counterparts in the higher - income areas, often located farther away from the Interstate. Again, CiTY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-236 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT there was little difference between racial and ethnic groups or national origin according to Map 10 and Table 12 for Job Proximity. The Labor Market Index for the various races and ethnicities range from 46.38 for Native Americans to 49.79 for Whites. These scores, which are based on a scale from 1 to 100, would be in the average range based on HUD's perspective nationwide. There was no difference in the Labor Market Index when considering- the City as a whole and those below the poverty line. In fact, all races except Asians who were below the poverty line had slightly higher scores than those above the poverty level. They ranged between 44.15 for Asians and 51.31 for Blacks with Whites at 48.79. When compared with the region, the City residents scored much higher. The region ranged from 24.20 for Hispanics to 43.02 for Asians and unlike the City, there was a substantial difference for those below the poverty line. They ranged from 16.42 for Hispanics to 30.51 for Asians. Whites were at 25.55. Although some classes are available locally, the lack of a community college in Temecula in 2010 is probably part of the reason for this deficiency. However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula, including Cal State San Marcos at Temecula, University of Redlands, Concordia University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would likely show an improvement in job readiness of the labor market. Other areas in the region have notably higher ratings such as in the vicinity of UC Riverside, Cal State San Bernardino and Redlands College in the north and in Orange County to the west. The Low Poverty Index rates family poverty by household (based on the federal poverty line) and provides an index regarding the access to poverty by census tract. The higher the scores, the less likely a neighborhood is exposed to poverty. There was little difference between the various ethnic and racial groups. Indices ranged from 65.42 for Hispanics to 71.23 for Whites, which indicates that all racial and ethnic groups have low exposure to poverty in Temecula. Except for Asians, there was little difference between those below the poverty line. They ranged for 54.98 for Blacks to 67.95 for Native Americans. The only anomaly was for Asians at 46.21 who were more exposed to poverty than their counterparts. This could be reflective of recent Filipino immigrants which now constitute over 3% of the City's population and 40% are limited English speaking according to Table 1. Though a small minority group, there are a number living in a low income area. Again, there was a substantial difference between the City residents and those within the region. In the region, the range was between 37.51 for Hispanics to 60.42 for Asians. For those below the poverty line, there was even a larger difference. They ranged from 23.78 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-237 for Hispanics to 42.30 for Asians. City residents have less exposure to poverty than the region as a whole. According to Map 14 in the 2017 Assessment, -Demographics and Poverty, there were three adjoining census tracts in north Temecula that had low scores indicating a higher exposure to poverty. Three of the census tracts are CDBG eligible lower -income areas, but one of the adjoining areas is not, yet affected by its exposure to poverty. Another adjoining area is an eligible CDBG area but did not indicate a high exposure to poverty. The area has a number of market -rate and subsidized apartment complexes in the vicinity of the Temecula Elementary School, which may be affecting this index score. The corridor also contains many of the City's commercial shopping centers. Summary of Access to Opportunity The vast majority of Temecula residents enjoy a consistent level of access to opportunities. Analysis of the HUD -provided maps and data did not reveal any overarching patterns of poor access to opportunity and did not reveal adverse community factors. However, Census Tract 432.16 along the Margarita Corridor, is identified on Map 14 in the 2017 Assessment as having high exposure to poverty. The City will continue to tetsupport low income census tracts with Capital Improvements (over $300,000) in ADA implements approved in 2020, alone. The City also utilizes residential rehab programs through Habitat for Humanity, as described in Program 22. Through implementation of Program 28, a new Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel, the Citv Will continue to reinforce its CDBG programs to focus on these areas. Two of the three block groups are in CDBG-eligible areas and the third is not. Yet the HUD data indicates that the third block group also has a high exposure to poverty. The only Title 1 School in the district is located in this neighborhood. The area is characterized by commercial retail and uses and the presences of a mix of multifamily and single €asingle-family housing. Two of the multi -family complexes in one of the block groups are subsidized, the 40-unit Oak Tree Apartments on Lyndie Lane and the 55 55-unit Rancho California Apartments off of Margarita Road. There are a number of subsidized units west of I-state-15, which is a CDBG eligible area, but that area does not have a high exposure factor. This could be partly because the City has focused its CDBG and local funds in addressing this area. The City does not show any patterns of segregation, nor does it have any R/ECAPS. Consultations with residents and stakeholders confirmed the HUD - provided information regarding the lack of disparities in access to CITY OF I EMLCULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-238 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT opportunity in Temecula affecting groups with other protected characteristics. The City is involved in a number of efforts aimed at improving air quality of the entire region including the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Clean Cities Coalition, which aims to reduce the consumption of petroleum fuels. The City also participates in WRCOG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The TUMF program makes improvements to the regional transportation system and provides transportation demand management through funds from new development. IN CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-239 This page intentionally de t blank. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-240 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT LDD 1 MURRI I 4o O o Vo :)08 °°g 8 °, 2 0 ° ° ° 0 0 °° 000 ° � 0 0 Om 0 •� ° TEMECULA �,,.•y 0 lz( •.., R pOOD& N 1 I � I Riverside County t--------- .......................... - San Diego County 0 v= 1 Miles Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "TCAC_ OpportunityAreas_Tract _2021." Map date: December 14, 2021. owl- D Plae eg Gr np d n,■■■■■ `. O.R.II..Ig,., •.ir�„i,..- In" g 00 0 2i 0 i O o•• .� 6$8b,,° oo r 0 000 0:) O 99 �.. O O I O Legend jCity of Temecula Other Incorporated Area County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels Opportunity Areas - Highest Resource High Resource Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) - Moderate Resource Low Resource High Segregation and Poverty Missing or Insufficient Data Figure 23: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Map This 1,aQe intentionally left blank Im 0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-242 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT ;n� or LOS ANGELES COUNTY 66 i r I 90 \ ,1 \ i7 A 0 2% 5 Miles Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department fHousing and Community Development, "TCAC_OpportunityAreas_Tract _ 2021." Map date: December 14, 2021. H 18 330Wr 247 38 259 - 66 SAN BE RNARDI NO COUNTY 62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ------I---------------. SAN DIEGO COUNTY Legend City of Temecula L _ Riverside County Surrounding County Opportunity Areas Highest Resource High Resource 79 Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) Moderate Resource Low Resource High Segregation and Poverty Missing or Insufficient Data .l g n, G' F ■■■■■ Figure 24: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas - Regional A 1..,�.111,. PI. `. OAR. II..Ig�., ,.I IL�.ir"��i�..o.tal In" This 1,aQe intentionally left blank 0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-244 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT C-D. Disproportionate Housing Need HUD requires all grantees to compare and assess the burdens for housing for different groups in the community. A disproportionately _� greater burden exists when the members of a particular group experience a housingproblem at a greater rate (90 percent or morel than the groom as a whole. , (wkieh are The four HUD -designated housing problems include when a 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities-, 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3) household is overcrowded, and 4) household is cost burdened. Households are considered to have a housing problem if they experience at least one of the above. Table 738 summarizes the demographics of households with disproportionate housing needs in the City and County. As shown in Table 738, Temecula has a lower percentage of residents experiencing housing Vroblems compared to the region. For both the City and the region as a whole, non-White households are more likely to experience at least one of the housing problems than White households. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-245 Table 783: Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA) Region Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems # with problems # households % with problems # with problems # households % with problems Race/Ethnicity White 7,555 20,520 36.82% 223,865 602,650 37.15% Black 725 1,495 48.49% 55,330 100,005 55.33% Hispanic 3,545 6,910 51.30% 277,845 509,940 54.49% Asian or Pacific Islander 1,160 3,025 38.35% 35,970 81,445 44.16% Native American 90 159 56.60% 2,665 5,119 52.06% Other, Non -Hispanic 349 829 42.10% 12,245 25,460 48.10% Total 13,435 32,950 40.77% 607,925 1,324,635 45.89% Household Type and Size Family households, <5 7,570 20,900 36.22% 291,945 736,650 39.63% ep ople Family households. 5+ 2,525 5,555 45.45% 149,095 251,595 59.26% ep ople Non -family households 3,335 6,495 51.35% 166,885 336,390 49.61 % Households experiencing any of 4 # with severe problems # households % with severe problems # with severe problems # households % with severe problems Severe Housing Problems Race/Ethnicity White 3,400 20,520 16.57% 112,650 602,650 18.69% Black 345 1,495 23.08% 33,280 100,005 33.28% Hispanic 1,885 6,910 27.28% 175,300 509,940 34.38% Asian or Pacific Islander 610 3,025 20.17% 19,645 81,445 24.12% Native American 65 159 40.88% 1,660 5,119 32.43% Other, Non -Hispanic 175 829 21.11% 6,885 25,460 27.04% Total 6.480 32.950 19.670/6 349,430 1.324.635 26.38% Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing fAFFH) Database. 2020. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-246 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Future Growth Need The City's future growth need is based on the RHNA production of 1,356 very -low and 801 ,elow-income units within the 2021- 2029 planning period. As discussed throughout this Background Report, both existing and proposed affordable units are well dispersed throughout the community and do not present a geographic barrier to obtaining affordable housing. Appendix A of this Housing Element shows the City's ability to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA need at all income levels. This demonstrates the City's ability to accommodate the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community. Existing Need As described earlier in this Background Report, the City has a strong history of providing housing for lower -income households in Temecula. Temecula has 759 deed -restricted units, representing approximately 2% of the City's housing stock. The City is proud of meeting the needs of its existing residents but continues to identify and implement meaningful housing programs to expand opportunities for lower -income households throughout Temecula, including by continuing to implement its recently adopted Affordable Housing Overlay and Specific Plans, many of which allow for develop of housing projects at densities of at least 30 du/ac. Based on the data in the Table 11 in the 2017 Assessment. there are a limited number of Project Based, ection 8 units for families in the City. children. Additional affordable housing units for families continue to be a high demand in the City. Through its 2017 Assessment. the City identified the availability of affordable units in a range of sizes as a contributing factor of disproportionate housing needs. Cost Burden A household is considered cost burdened if the household nays more than 30% of its total gross income for housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For home owners, housing costs include mortgage paw, taxes, insurance, and utilities. As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, as with most communities. the location of the home is one of the biggest factors with regard to price. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-247 inn As shown in Table 29 of the Housing Needs Assessment, 37% of total households in the City of Temecula have a cost burden of j2aying over than 30% for housing. For renter households, a total of 49.9% Fay over 30% of their income for housing_ As shown in Figure 25, these renters on more concentrated in west Temecula, where there are overall a greater concentration of renters versus home owners, compared to east Temecula. This follows the Countyide pattern where overFayment is concentrated in more urban centers, as illustrated in Figure 26. For home owner households, there is a concentration of oveWayment in census tracts 432.20, 432.16, and 432.1, located in central Temecula, east of the I-15 freeway, as illustrated in Figure 27. Countyide, there is an increased concentration of overpayment for homeowners located just outside of City centers see Figure 28). Overcrowding Typically, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 persons per room. Table 20 in the Housing Needs Assessment summarizes overcrowding data for Temecula and shows that 2% of owner households are considered overcrowded and 4.7% of renter households. Generally, overcrowding is not an issue in the City. However, as shown in Figure 29, census tract 432.20 has a higher percentage of overcrowding compared to the rest of the City (12.85%). As shown in Figure 30, Temecula and the surrounding jurisdictions have a much lower concentration of overcrowding than other jurisdictions in western Riverside County. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-248 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT I I I Riverside County ' t---- ---I.._.._.._.._.._.--•-- San Diego County 0 Y 1 Miles Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, Cnllfar— Department of Housing and Community Development, "Jobs)'t—imitylndex_Block(irp_2014_ 17" 00 0 I (0� 0 I� I e 00 r i•':L D t i' 0 O I -------------- L — F] L VH, AKE Legend City of Temecula Other Incorporated Area LCounty Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels Jobs Proximity Index > 80 (Closest Proximity) 60 - 80 40 - 60 20 - 40 0 - 20 (Furthest Proximity) °". .—g n, G'up --F ■■ME■ Figure 25: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group AI..��.I lIa. PI.�,..i.R, Il..lg�., •�1 Pi�.ir���i�...�.•al Fln. This 1,aQe intentionally left blank Im 0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-250 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT LAKE SKINNER ..._.._.._.._.._.. CCD W0 O O ii 0 O ' O- �I I > o j 0O0 O ♦ O �� o ••♦• TEMECULA ��,.•� ®° ab(a ® ••♦ )O i O,. �0o r �z 0o O-- �•. 6 O l ♦ RiversideCounty -- San Diego County -----------------------1 L — Legend City of Temecula Other Incorporated Area L_ County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels Percent of Renter Households for whom Gross Rent (Contract Rent Plus Tenant -Paid Utilities) is 30% or More of Household Income < 20% 20 - 40% 40 - 60% 60 - 80% _ > 80% De Novo Plau .g G—up d n,■■.■■ ,.ir���....tal m. Figure 26: Cost -Burdened Renter Households by Census Tract This 1,aQe intentionally left blank la 0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-252 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT i / 18 / ,row 66 / 66 IV PP 16 60 • � # r 83 ■I t 1 � 90 \ Olt 16 \71. Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "Overpayment Tract 2015-19." Map date: December 14, 2021. 330 47 38 ..._. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY IV F -------------!--- R I V E R S D E C O U N T Y 74 C79 �a a ■ I 371 ------I------------------- SAN DIEGO COUNTY 79 Legend City of Temecula L _ Riverside County L_ Surrounding County Percent of Renter Households for whom Gross Rent (Contract Rent Plus Tenant -Paid Utilities) is 30% or More of Household Income < 20% 20 - 40% 40 - 60% 60 - 80% - > 80% D e. No Plxu ,ug Gr np A 1..,,dTT,. PI.`, i.g, Il.,ig�., A n,.ir .o gin" ■■■■■ Figure 27: Cost -Burdened Renters by Census Tract - Regional This 1,aQe intentionally left blank 0 Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-254 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT WILDOMAR MURRIETA • o O • O - 0 oh! . O IF i 0 ®• • i °0 0 1 i o 00 0 •� !o° ° 0 o o 0a 0 ! � TEMECULA O !� i 91 O00 .,po �° ° 0•� Legend o z O p o o r ��. — �� O 4�--� �••---i City of Temecula OO Q oo �O O 79 •� _ _ _ _� Other Incorporated Area �CS n County Boundary Potential Housing Sites �• '�__.. Site Suitable for All Income \\\���\ •�••�••/•f•�•• �� 0 00 �•_ • Levels \�� •�'•'• 1 '\O' Site Suitable for \��� ,.�••�• '� '�`' `�, �•� O Moderate/Above Moderate 1 %0._ Income Levels ---- i Percent of Oner w Households with Mortgages Riverside Count whose Monthly Owner Costs 7 are 30 % or More of I-------y—.--.._.._.._.._.--•--•--.._--------- Household Income San Diego County --------------- L _ < 20% © 20 - 40% — 40 - 60% u1 ® 60 - 80% Miles - , 80% Sources: A FFH Do to and Mapping Resources, California Deportment of Housing and Comm unityDevelopment, NO Data "Overpayment Tract 2015-19." Map date: December 14, 2021. Pl.e ", G' F L` ■■■ Figure 28: Cost -Burdened Owner Households by Census Tract A I..,�.I lla. P1. `.�.R.Il..lg�., •.I IL�.ir���i�..o.tal Ins This 1,aQe intentionally left blank Im 0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-256 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT 330 18 • 10 259 Ln i ss 38 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ANG L S -- ' foil.LOS COU II a r I 83 I {------- ----- ) I A �\ C, 0 2% 5 Miles� Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "Overpayment Tract 2015-19." Map date: December 14, 2021. D e. No Plxu ,ug Gr np A I..,,d 11,. PI.`, i.g, Il.,ig�., A n,.ir .o gin" ■■■■■ O 0 2 ii RIVERSIDE COUNTY J) (7 Legend 371 City of Temecula L _ Riverside County i L _ Surrounding County Percent of Renter -___________________ Households for whom Gross Rent (Contract Rent Plus Tenant -Paid Utilities) is 30% or More of Household Income 79 S A EGO COUNTY < 20% 20 - 40% 40 - 60% 76 60 - 80% 1 > 80% No Data Figure 29: Cost -Burdened Owners by Census Tract - Regional This 1,aQe intentionally left blank la 0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-258 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT WILDOMAR --- --3' LAKE SKINNER 79 MURRIETA tb 'S oh To ®• • • % 00 0 0 0 i o 00 0 i� o o 'b® 0 i � TEMECULA ;�7 ` o ®e C 00 '\0P1P4 0 �00 0 � � 0 '•. 9 0 .�- r•' 00 CC)0 0 79 •i .`• O t4w4t 0 .o •_ ���\\\\\ •'••'••�,'• p..I' �,. 0 00 I I ' I Riverside County I San Diego County-------------------------1 L — 0�� Miles Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "OvercrowdedHouseholds_ Tract"and"OvercrowdedHouseholds_Severe _Tract." Map date: December 14, 2021. VAIL LAKE Legend jCity of Temecula Other Incorporated Area County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income • Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels Percentage of Households that are Overcrowded < 8.2% (Statewide Average) - 8.2 - 12% - 12 - 15% - 15 - 20% - > 20% Dr ■■■■■ Noco Plxuning Group ,,.,..d,,.. --.-x.D..,R,..,,,dn,- r,.," Figure 30: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract This 1,aQe intentionally left blank la CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-260 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Substandard Housing As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, the City's housing stock is relatively new with only 7.2% of dwelling units in Temecula having been constructed Prior to 1980. As such, while structural deterioration and maintenance Problems may exist, only a small Portion is likely to require rehabilitation. The City will continue to implement its Residential Improvement Program using CDBG funds to he1P lower -income homeowners to rehabilitate substandard housing. In comparison, the housing stock in Riverside County is older than the City's. The County Al found that as of 2017, 32.3% of housing was at least 38 years old, with the ority of the housing being developed from 1960 to 2009. OEM - RA ._ "IN=1""Im" r MORRIS" - - ----- -- - - -- - --------- CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-261 DE. Displacement Risk As previously discussed, there are two deed -restricted affordable projects representing 180 units which can be considered as high risk as converting to market -rate units within the planning period. The City is actively engaged with the property owners of these projects (Rancho Creek Apartments and Rancho West Apartments) to evaluate preservation options. The City also has a number of units which are affordable to lower -income families but are not deed -restricted. As described in Section V of this Background Report, the City plans to accommodate the vast majority of its 2021-2029 RHNA on vacant parcels already zoned for residential development, with a focus on new development in the City's Specific Plan areas (Harveston, Altair, Uptown, and Old Town), which have good access to transit, amenities, and programmed infrastructure improvements. Given that new development is expected to occur on vacant parcels, there is not a significant displacement risk associated with the City's current affordable housing stock. The City has included Program 17 in the Housing Plan to assist in the preservation of at -risk housing units. There are four census tracts in the City that according to the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources Map, are considered "Sensitive Communities" where residents may be particularly vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and shifts in housing costs. Communities were designated sensitive if they currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as share of very low-income residents is above 20% in 2017 and the tract meets one other criteria related to renters, diversity, and housing burden. As shown in Figure 31, this includes census tracts 512.00, 496.00, 432.16, and 432.20, located in north -central Temecula along the I-15 freeway corridor. There are potential housing sites located in all four census tracts, that would potentially displace existing residents due to redevelopment. The City recognizes that even though it has identified sufficient vacant land to accommodate its RHNA at all income levels, there is still the potential for economic displacement because of new development and investment. This "knock -on" effect can occur at any time, and it can be challenging for the City to predict market changes and development patterns which have the potential to impact rental rates and sales prices for housing units available in the marketplace. To date, the City has no evidence that new development (affordable or market -rate) has resulted in economic displacement. However, the City appreciates the CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-262 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT possibility that economic displacement might occur in the future and has developed Program 24-27 to study and address potential issues related to displacement. The City has also considered the risk of displacement specifically for protected classes, including persons with disabilities, female -headed households, seniors, and nonwhite residents (as discussed previously throughout Section 3 of this Background Report). The highest levels of persons with disabilities, seniors, and female -headed households are not located in areas where no residential development is planned, and the risk of displacement to these groups (like to the City's lower -income residents) is low. However, some future housing sites are located in areas with high levels of Hispanic and non-Wwhite residents, and these groups appear to be more vulnerable to potential future displacement. As discussed above, Program 24-27 has been included in the City's Housing Plan to study and address issues related to future displacement, and the City remains committed to maintaining its existing affordable housing stock, which includes deed -restricted affordable units throughout the City, including in the census tracts with high levels of Hispanic and nonwhite residents. To the extent that future development occurs in areas where there is existing housing, all housing must be replaced according to SB 330's replacement housing provisions (Government Code Section 66300). SB 330 also provides relocation payments to existing lew4Reennelow- income tenants. The State has also adopted just cause eviction provisions and statewide rent control to protect tenants from displacement. The City is committed to making diligent efforts to engage underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in studying displacement. Programs 2-2-25, 27, and 284, among others, detail efforts the City will take to engage these communities during the planning period. Research has shown that low-income renter populations are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards and that housing tenure is a telling determinant of social vulnerability to disasters. Renters bear the brunt of the existing affordable housing shortage, and their adaptive capacity to cope and recover from the impacts of environmental hazards may be reduced due to systemic inequities and limited resources. As discussed in the Housing Constraints section under Environmental Constraints; Temecula is impacted by various environmental hazards that include active fault traces, liquefaction and subsidence, steep slopes, and flooding. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents in Temecula, the City has adopted regulations that limit development within areas of high risk and/or require design standards that can withstand natural hazards. The City has a1121ied a CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-263 Flood Plain Overlay District to portions of the City that are threatened by flooding hazards. The overlay district includes design requirements that must be met for new construction and substantial improvement of structures within the district. Liquefaction and other seismic -related issues are addressed by the State Universal Building Code BC). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas encroach at the City's western and southern boundaries, encompassing or partially encompassing several large vacant developable parcels including the Altair Specific Plan. As included in the Altair Specific Plan, the project's Western Bypass will serve as a fire break between wildland areas and new development. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-264 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT LOS ANGELES COUNTY O � 18 330 O 38 247 59 � 66 r ss SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY y 164 — — — — — ` 62 l 39 57 r � k1E RIVERCOUNTY 61 \\\ ' �`® ORANGE COUNTY ss % �-� 74 / I \ �— ------ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 \/ \\ 79 © SAN DIEGO COUNTY \ 0 2% s \ NEEZ30K--3 2 \ MilesSour—\ 76 Deparmento Dataand Mappingumityces,Califrnt, \`` J Department and Community Development, \ "OvercrowdedHouseholds_ Tract, " and "OvercrowdedHouseholds_Severe _Tract. " Map date: December 14, 2021. 78 Legend City of Temecula L— Riverside County L— j Surrounding County Percentage of Households that are Overcrowded < 8.2% (Statewide Average) 8.2 - 12% 12 - 15% — 15 - 20% — > 20% Percentage of Households that are Severely Overcrowded >0 - 20% ® >20% Plxa"`n, GP-- ■■■■■ Figure 31: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract - Regional A 1..,�.111,. PI.��.�i�R, II..Ig�.,..i��I Pi�.ir���i�...�.tal Fln� This 1,aQe intentionally left blank la CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-266 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT E. Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues in Temecula In its 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing, the City identified the following contributing factors to fair housing issues in Temecula: • Increased demand of affordable housing with supportive services to serve special needs populations (Disproportionate Housing Needs) • High demand for affordable housing, due to the high housing costs in the community and the region (Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy) • Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations (Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources) The analysis above regarding other fair housing issues within Temecula yielded the following results: • The City does not have any racial or ethnic groups that score higher than 60 on the dissimilarity index, indicating that while there are racial and ethnic groups with higher levels of segregation than others within Temecula, none meet the standard set to identify segregated groups. • The City does not have any racially or ethnically concentrated census tracts (RECAPS) as identified by HUD. This indicates that there are no census tracts within Temecula with a non- white population of 50%pereent=or more or any census tracts that have a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area. • The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index shows that the majority of residents within Temecula have average- to high - levels of access to opportunity throughout the majority of the City, with three census tracts showing lower people -based access to opportunity and two census tracts showing lower place -based access to opportunity. Based on the data used to identify opportunity access, the City has varying degrees of ability to influence the trajectory of the indicator (for example, low rates of US citizenship result in a lower opportunity assessment for place -based civic life). The City accommodates a significant portion of its RHNA in areas planned for a mix of uses located in proximity to each other, where new residential CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-267 development can be supported by easy access to goods and services (like supermarkets and financial institutions), and the introduction of new residential development into areas where these challenges exist can expand opportunities for existing residents. • Analysis of the TCAC/HCD opportunity Area Maps show that most census tracts in Temecula are classified with either the "High Resource", or "Highest Resource" designation, and the remaining one tract is classified as "Moderate Resource". This indicates that the most census tracts designated as "High Resource" or "Highest Resource" are within the top forty percent in the region in terms of areas that lower -income residents may thrive if given the opportunity to live there. • The City has demonstrated the ability to meet the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community through the designation of sites to meet the very low and low ineo RHNA need of all income levels (Section 5 of the Background Report) and Programs 1 and 2 address the City's ability to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation and outline the mechanism to ensure continued compliance for the duration of the planning period. Existing deed -restricted affordable units are located throughout the community and new accessory dwelling unit production throughout the City will result in new development affordable to a variety of income levels. The City plans to accommodate its very low and low income RHNA need in key planned growth areas located near transit facilities and adjacent to major infrastructure projects, to ensure adequate access to goods, facilities and jobs, while jobs and housing to be located closer together, thereby reducing vehicle miles travels, improve air quality, and create a more equitable jobs -housing balance. The relationship between existing affordable units and comprehensively planned growth on vacant parcels in and outside of Specific Plan areas allows the City to minimize displacement and improve access to opportunities for existing and future residents. • There are 4-80-256 existing affordable units at -risk of converting to market -rate within the planning period. Program 4-7---20 addresses monitoring and working with partners, as feasible, to preserve at -risk units within the City over the planning period. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-268 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT WILDOMAR -- --3' LAKE SKINNER 79 MURRIETA 1 00 .0�1 � . 0 0 IF O 0 0 ! 0 0 o re 0 i 00 0p0 0 •'� 0 GO 0 'b® 0 •'`'� TEMECULA ° ®e C 00 0 CD 0 ,N) 0 6BRo0 0o r z 00 6 0 79 •�, , ..� i' .�..J I I ' I I Riverside County L — — -- — — — — — �........................... — — — — — — — — — — — SanDiegoCounty -----------------------� L _ Zk Miles Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources California Department of Housing and Community Development, "YensitiveComm unities_ UCB_ Urban DisplacementProject," PlaceWorks 2021, UCBerkeley Urban Displacement Project. 2021. D e. Novo Plae ng G-p L� ��� A,.. d11,. Pi--i-g,,l..ig�., ,A n,.ir���i�...�nal m. VAIL LAKE Legend _! City of Temecula Other Incorporated Area County Boundary Potential Housing Sites Site Suitable for All Income Levels Site Suitable for O Moderate/Above Moderate Income Levels Sensitive Communities - Vulnerable Other Figure 32: Displacement Risk This 1,aQe intentionally left blank Im CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-270 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT F. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686 AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification requirement involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA (provided in Section 5), but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. This section analyzes the role of all sites, regardless of income level, in assisting to affirmatively further fair housing. However, special attention is paid to those sites identified to accommodate a portion of the City's lower -income RHNA to ensure that the City is thinking carefully about how the development of new affordable housing options can promote patterns of equality and inclusiveness. Segregation/ Integration Both existing affordable units and proposed vefy low and low incom-e RHNA candidate sites, including very low and low-income sites, are well dispersed throughout the eity-ELty-and do not disproportionately impact areas with larger concentrations of the Hispanic population, although as described previously, the City has no historic patterns of segregation or isolation and there are no trends to indicate that a pattern may emerge in the future (see Figures 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 16). The City of Temecula is proud to have adopted an Affordable Housing Overlay to promote the development of affordable housing options throughout the community. In addition, the City is proactively taking steps to plan for, promote, and streamline development of accessory dwelling units as part of the solution to the City's housing needs. Together, the City's plan to accommodate its lower income RHNA at AHO sites and through ADUs will further strengthen the City's reputation as being a well -integrated community without patterns of isolation or segregation. R/ECAPs The City does not have any racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and the identification of sites to accommodate the City's RHNA is not expected to alter this finding. Access to Opportunity No sites identified to accommodate the City's lower income RHNA and only two sites identified to accommodate the City's moderate and above moderate income RHNA are located in areas with low levels of place -based opportunity (representing approximately 230 units) —and CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-271 only a limited number of sites (representing 500 units,), all within the City's Affordable Housing Overlay, are located in areas with lower levels of people -based opportunity (see Figures 19 and 21). The concerns in these limited areas include high housing cost burdens, low levels of homeownership, and low voting rates. The introduction of new affordable housing options in this area, facilitated through the City's new Affordable Housing Overlay, will help to create more housing affordable to households at lower -income levels, introduce new residents to an area which can contribute to higher levels of civic engagement, and expand opportunities for people to live and work in the same area. Additionally, the Specific Plan areas identified to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA (specifically Harveston, Altair, Uptown, and Old Town) are located in areas with relatively high opportunity and resources. By locating new affordable housing in these areas, the City continues to promote an integration of economic backgrounds and household incomes and ensure that all Temecula residents have access to high levels of opportunity, regardless of income or other characteristics. Displacement Risk The City plans to accommodate its RHNA for all income levels at vacant sites throughout the City. Past residential development projects have not caused displacement to existing Temecula residents, and there is no expectation that the City's program to accommodate its RHNA at vacant sites throughout the City would create displacement risk for current or future lower income residents. However, there are four census tracts that have been designated as "Sensitive Communities" that are at risk for displacement (see Figure 32).—Most of the new development anticipated in "Sensitive Communities" will be part of Specific Plans, particularly Altair and Harveston. As master planned projects, these developer�ments are required to plan for comprehensive development in accordance with the City's vision for the area. The City envisions that housing affordable to lower -income households will be part of both developments and does not find that development in "sensitive communities" has a high probability of resulting in displacement. so iFrl a cue ea-trten-,--+The City Chas included Program 2 -27 to study the risk if displacement to residents as a result of new residential development at vacant sites in and outside of Specific Plan areas. Site Analysis Findings The City of Temecula has a history of developing affordable housing projects throughout the community, at vacant and infill sites. To accommodate the City's RHNA, the City has undertaken a robust inventory of available vacant residential sites inside and outside of Specific Plan areas, many of which are identified as part of the City's Affordable CITY OF TEMECULA GLNLRAL PLAN HBK-272 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT Housing Overlay. tThe City's vefy low and RHNA needs at all income levels are largely accommodated in its Specific Plan areas 15,753 units, of which 1,851 units are accommodated at densities and intensities consistent with providing housing affordable for lower income households). These Specific Plan areas, -_� do not represent extremely concentrated racial or ethnic populations, nonetheless, the City has included programs to encourage additional development of lower - income units throughout the community through its accessory dwelling unit program and through its Affordable Housing Overlay. For these reasons, the City finds that the sites proposed to accommodate its RHNA need do not unduly burden existing areas of concentrated racial or ethnic homogeneity, poverty, or other characteristics. Moreover, the sites contribute to affirmatively further fair housing by helping to stimulate investing in areas where additional people- and place -based opportunity is desired, and where new residential and/or mixed -use development can help to improve some of the opportunity level characteristics discussed earlier in this section. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-273 G. Analysis of Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Priorities and Goals The December 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Guidebook identifies examples of contributing factors by each fair housing issue area: outreach, fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disparities in access to opportunities for persons with disabilities, disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risks, and sites inventory. Based on the analysis ineluded in 4tis Baekground Report, has developed of speeifie pragfaffis to adds these The following are contributing factors that have been identified on the fair housing issues jresented in the 2017 Assessment and the analysis in this document that affect fair housing choice in Temecula.; sSpecifically Table 794 lists the fair housing issues and contributing factors that exist in the City of Temecula and outlines the meaningful actions to be taken. The meaningful actions listed in the table relate to the actions identified in the Housing Plan. Table 794: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Fair Housing Issue Contributing Priority Meaningful Action Factors Disparities in Access to High demand for Highes 0 Program 1 Opportunity affordable housing, 0 Program 2 due to the high housing costs in the Program 4 community and the 0 Program 5 region 0 Program 7 Land use and zoning 0 Program 8 laws 0 Program 9 • Lack of resources for 0 Program 10 fair housing agencies and organizations Program 14 • Private discrimination 0Program 15 Availability o 0Program 17 affordable units in a 0 Program 18 range of sizes 0 Program 25 • Location and type o 0 Program 28 affordable housing Disproportionate Housing High demand for affordable housing, High 0 Program 1 0 Program 2 Needs, Including Displacement Risks due to the high housing costs in the • Program 4 community and the 0 Program 5 region Program 7 CITY OF TLMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-274 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT • Availability o 0 Program 8 affordable units in a 0 Program 9 range of sizes • Program 10 • Location and type of Program 11 affordable housing • Land use and zoning • Program 14 laws 0 Program 17 • Increased demand of 0 Program 18 affordable housing 0 Program 23 with supportive • Program 25 services to serve special needs populations Disparities in Access to 0 Increased demand of High 0 Program 10 affordable housing with supportive Opportunity for Persons with 0 Program 25 Disabilities services to serve special needs populations • Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure • Inaccessible government facilities or services Outreach 0 Lack of resources for Medium 0 Program 25 fair housing agencies and organizations Fair Housing Enforcement • Lack of resources for Medium 0 Program 22 and Outreach Capacity fair housing agencies and organizations The City has identified the following top three contributing factors and prioritized them in order of importance. 1. Increased demand of affordable housing with supportive services to serve special needs populations. The City of Temecula is home to residents with special needs who need additional opportunities for safe and affordable housing. This includes persons with developmental disabilities. Program 910 Special Needs Housing Construction, has been included in the City's Housing Plan to address this contributing factor. Program 28. a new Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel. has also been eextedadded to bring together developers of special needs housing, providers of supportive services, and other housing advocates to ensure that this issue can be adequate addressed during the planning period. 2. High demand for affordable housing, due to the high housing costs in the community and the region. Temecula is located in an area easily accessible to San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles counties. Due to its proximity to a variety of jobs centers, Temecula is a desirable and relatively affordable place to reside, and this pressure has increased demand for CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-275 affordable housing options within the City. The City has included numerous programs in its Housing Plan to increase the supply of affordable housing, including Programs 1 and 2 to ensure that the City provides sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA at all income levels for the duration of the planning period, Program 4 which addresses the replacement of affordable units, and Program 5 which promotes ADUs as an option to expand the City's affordable housing stock. Throughout the Housing Plan, the City is also committed to engaging the development community biennially to discuss a host of factors, including nongovernmental constraints such as high land and construction costs (see new Program 19, Mitigation of Nongovernmental Constraints). Through this effort, the City will seek input on how it can help to reduce nongovernmental constraints to the extent feasible, such as accelerated Permit processes, land assemblage, making eCity- owned sites available for development of affordable housing, and other programs within the City's control. Moreover, given the high costs of housing it is critical to maintain the City's supply of affordable housing. The City has included Program 20 to preserve existing at -risk units, so that the City's existing affordable housing stock can be maintained in light of the high cost of construction of new/replacement units. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations. Like agencies throughout the region, Temecula has limited resources available to implement a variety of fair housing plans and programs. Other agencies with which the City regularly partners, including the Riverside County Consortium and Fair Housing Program of Riverside County, also face limited resources. The City has included Program 22, Equal Housing Opportunity, to do its part in promoting fair housing agencies and organizations and working with partner agencies to affirmatively further fair housing in Temecula. The City has created Program 28 to create a new Fair Housing Task Force to bring together the City Council Finance Subcommittee, fair housing service providers, community roups, nonprofits, and/or other advisory groups to ensure that community interests are well -represented. The City will work diligently to specifically engage panelists focused on the issues of lower -income communities and communities with special needs, including persons with disabilities and persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The assistance panel will meet in conjunction with the City's CDBG annual program review (this is composed of nonprofits, stakeholders, and agencies) which are conducted near the end of each calendar year (near the APR timeframe). To affirmatively further fair housing in Temecula, the City is committed to implementing its Affordable Housing Overlay, promoting affordable accessory dwelling units, and providing sites CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-276 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT suitable for affordable housing in areas near transit, which are not unduly racially or ethnically concentrated, and where new residential development affordable to very -low and low income households can help to expand people- and place -based opportunities. The City of Temecula has a long history of supporting affordable housing development and as described previously in this Background Report. Moving forward, the City remains committed to providing a diversity of housing options for all income levels, and is committed to encouraging their development throughout the community to help overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. The vast majority of the City's Housing Programs designed to address fair housing are required to be implemented on an ongoing basis, with annual progress reports and programs evaluations to ensure they are achieving the City's objectives. The following list summarizes those programs identified in this Housing Element which affirmatively further fair housing and implement the City's 2017 Fair Housing Assessment: • Program 5, to promote ADUs including ADUs affordable to lower -income households • Program 67, to ensure that the City's density bonus ordinance continues to be in compliance with state law • Program -8, to promote land assemblage and affordable housing development • Program 89, to address the special needs of the City's extremely low income households • Program +314, to expedite processing of affordable housing projects • Program 4-617, to accommodate specialized housing types and update the City's policies and procedures regarding low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, employee housing, and farmworker housing • Program 4-720, to monitor and preserve at -risk housing • Program 2-225, to promote equal housing opportunities • Program 2326, to continue offering housing referral services Program -427, to study and address economic displacement risks CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-277 • Program 28, to create a new Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel To the extent that these programs represent ongoing work efforts, these programs are evaluated for effectiveness within Section 2 of this Background Report. The City has already undertaken a series of proactive amendments to its Zoning Ordinance to address new requirements related to density bonus law and accessory dwelling units, and the City will continue to partner with local and regional stakeholders to affirmatively further fair housing in Temecula. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBK-278 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT APPENDIX A: SITE INVENTORY C EN ER -A L PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Site Inventory Forms must be submitted to HCD for a housing element or amendment adopted on or after January 1, 2021. The following form is to be used for satisfying this requirement. To submit the form, complete the Excel spreadsheet and submit to HCD at sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov. Please send the Excel workbook, not a scanned or PDF copy of the tables. General Information Jurisidiction Name TEMECULA Housing Element Cycle 6th Contact Information First Name Brandon Last Name Rabidou Title ior Management An, Email Ion.rabidou TemeculaCj Phone (951) 506-5142 Mailing Address Street Address 141000 Main Street C TEMECULA Zip Code 1 92590 Table C: Land Use, Table Starts in A2 Zoning Designation Table- VL -. Very Low Density Residential (VL). The very I( L-1 Low Density Residential (L-1 and L-2). The log LM Low Medium Density Residential (LM). The k M Medium Density Residential (M). The mediur H High Density Residential (H). The high densit, HT Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT). The highv SC Service Commercial (SC). The service comme PO Professional Office (PO). The professional off NC Neighborhood Commercial (NC). The neighb( CC Community Commercial (CC). The communit PDO-5 http://www.gcode.us/codes/temecuIa/view. PDO-10 The Temecula Education Center (TEC) plannE SP-2 Specific Plan 2, Rancho Highlands. Residential, of SP-4 Specific Plan 4, Paloma Del Sol. Residential, comr SP-5 Specific Plan 5, Old Town. Residential, mixed -use SP-9 Specific Plan 9, Redhawk. Residential, commerciz SP-11 Specific Plan 11, Roripaugh Ranch. Residential, cc SP-12 Specific Plan 12, Wolf Creek. Residential, comme SP-13 Specific Plan 13, Harveston. Residential, public/ir SP-14 Specific Plan 14, Uptown. Residential, open span SP-15 Specific Plan 15, Altair. Medium Residential, High This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY C EN ER -A L PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT GLOSSARY Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): An attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. Acre: A unit of land measure equal to 43,560 square feet. Acreage, Net: The portion of a site exclusive of existing or planned public or private road rights -of -way. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): As required by California Assembly Bill 686, the City of Temecula has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Affordability Covenant: A property title agreement which places resale or rental restrictions on a housing unit. Affordable Housing: Under state and federal statutes, housing which costs no more than 30 percent of gross household income. Housing costs include rent or mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, insurance, homeowner association fees, and other related costs. Area Median Income (AMI): The AMI is determined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is the midpoint income for the area —half of all wage earners have salaries higher than the median, and half of all wage earners have salaries lower than the median. Each year, HUD sets area median incomes for the Riverside area. The AMI is then used to establish income limits for certain housing programs. Annexation: The incorporation of land area into the jurisdiction of an existing city with a resulting change in the boundaries of that city. Assisted Housing: Housing that has been subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs. At -Risk Housing: Multi -family rental housing that is at risk of losing its status as housing affordable for low and moderate income tenants due to the expiration of federal, state or local agreements. California Department of Housing and Community Development — HCD: The State Department responsible for administering State -sponsored housing programs and for reviewing housing elements to determine compliance with state housing law. Census: The official United States decennial enumeration of the population conducted by the federal government. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A grant program administered by HUD. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development activities, including public facilities and economic development. Condominium: A building or group of buildings in which units are owned individually, but the structure, common areas and facilities are owned by all owners on a proportional, undivided basis. Congregate Care: Apartment housing, usually for senior citizens, or for the disabled in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 50062.5 that is arranged in a group setting that includes independent living and sleeping accommodations in conjunction with shared dining and recreational facilities (see Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.34.0103). Congregate Living Health Facility: A facility with a noninstitutional, home -like environment that provides inpatient care, including the following basic services: medical supervision, twenty- four hour skilled nursing and supportive care, pharmacy, dietary, social recreational, and at least one type of service specified in the Health and Safety Code. The primary need of congregate living health facility residents shall be for availability of skilled nursing care on a recurring, intermittent, extended or continuous basis. This care is generally less intense than that provided in general acute care hospitals but more intense than that provided in skilled nursing facilities (see Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.34.010.13). Density: The number of dwelling units per unit of land. Density usually is expressed "per acre," e.g., a development with 100 units located on 20 acres has density of 5.0 units per acre. Density Bonus: The allowance of additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is otherwise permitted usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of affordable housing units at the same site or at another location. H Development Impact Fees (DIF): A fee or charge imposed on developers to pay for a jurisdiction's costs of providing services to new development. Development Right: The right granted to a land owner or other authorized party to improve a property. Such right is usually expressed in terms of a use and intensity allowed under existing zoning regulation. For example, a development right may specify the maximum number of residential dwelling units permitted per acre of land. Dwelling, Multi -family: A building containing two or more dwelling units for the use of individual households; an apartment or condominium building is an example of this dwelling unit type. Dwelling, Single-family Attached: A one -family dwelling attached to one or more other one -family dwellings by a common vertical wall. Row houses and town homes are examples of this dwelling unit type. Dwelling, Single-family Detached: A dwelling, not attached to any other dwelling, which is designed for and occupied by not more than one family and surrounded by open space or yards. Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities provided within the unit for the exclusive use of a household. Efficiency Unit Housing: Any residential building containing five or more individual secure rooms intended or designed to be used or which are used rented or hired out to be occupied for sleeping purposes by residents as their primary residence. Elderly Household: As defined by HUD, elderly households are one- or two- member (family or non -family) households in which the head or spouse is age 62 or older. Element: A division or chapter of the General Plan. Emergency Shelter: An emergency shelter is a facility that provides shelter to homeless families and/or homeless individuals on a limited short-term basis. Fair Market Rent (FMR): Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are freely set rental rates defined by HUD as the median gross rents charged for available standard units in a county or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). Fair Market Rents are used for the Section 8 Rental Program and many other HUD programs and are published annually by HUD. First -Time Home Buyer (FTHB): Defined by HUD as an individual or family who has not owned a home during the three-year period preceding the HUD -assisted purchase of a home. Jurisdictions may adopt local definitions for first-time home buyer programs which differ from non -federally funded programs. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area; usually expressed as a numerical value (e.g., a building having 10,000 square feet of gross floor area located on a lot of 5,000 square feet in area has a floor area ratio of 2.0). Group Home: The City of Temecula's Zoning Code defines a group home as any residential care facility for six or fewer persons which is licensed by the state (Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.344.810.13). General Plan: The General Plan is a legal document, adopted by the legislative body of a City or County, setting forth policies regarding long-term development. California law requires the preparation of seven elements or chapters in the General Plan: Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Additional elements are permitted, such as Economic Development, Urban Design and similar local concerns. Group Quarters: A facility which houses groups of unrelated persons not living in households (US Census definition). Examples of group quarters include institutions, dormitories, shelters, military quarters, assisted living facilities and other quarters, including single - room occupancy (SRO) housing, where 10 or more unrelated individuals are housed. Growth Management: Techniques used by a government to regulate the rate, amount, location and type of development. HCD: The State Department of Housing and Community Development. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA): The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires larger lending institutions making home mortgage loans to publicly disclose the location and disposition of home purchase, refinance and improvement loans. Institutions subject to HMDA must also disclose the gender, race, and income of loan applicants. Homeless: Unsheltered homeless are families and individuals whose primary nighttime residence is a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (e.g., the street, sidewalks, cars, vacant and abandoned buildings). Sheltered homeless are families and persons whose primary nighttime residence is a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter (e.g., emergency, transitional, battered women, and homeless youth shelters; and commercial hotels or motels used to house the homeless). Household: The US Census Bureau defines a household as all persons living in a housing unit whether or not they are related. A single person living in an apartment as well as a family living in a house is considered a household. Household does not include individuals living in dormitories, prisons, convalescent homes, or other group quarters. Household Income: The total income of all the persons living in a household. A household is usually described as very low income, low income, moderate income, and upper income based upon household size, and income, relative to the regional median income. Housing Problems: Defined by HUD as a household which: (1) occupies a unit with physical defects (lacks complete kitchen or bathroom); (2) meets the definition of overcrowded; or (3) spends more than 30% of income on housing cost. Housing Subsidy: Housing subsidies refer to government assistance aimed at reducing housing sales or rent prices to more affordable levels. Two general types of housing subsidy exist. Where a housing subsidy is linked to a particular house or apartment, housing subsidy is "project" or "unit" based. In Section 8 rental assistance programs the subsidy is linked to the family and assistance provided to any number of families accepted by willing private landlords. This type of subsidy is said to be "tenant based." Housing Unit: A room or group of rooms used by one or more individuals living separately from others in the structure, with direct access to the outside or to a public hall and containing separate toilet and kitchen facilities. HUD: See US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Income Category: Four categories are used to classify a household according to income based on the median income for the county. Under state housing statutes, these categories are defined as follows: Very Low (0-50% of County median); Low (50-80% of County H O u s N G median); Moderate (80-120% of County median); and Upper (over 120% of County median). Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): A unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing single-family structure. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure Large Household: A household with 5 or more members. Low Income Home Energy Act Program (LIHEAP): LIHEAP helps pay the winter heating bills or summer cooling bills of low- income and elderly people. Manufactured Housing: Housing that is constructed of manufactured components, assembled partly at the site rather than totally at the site. Also referred to as modular housing. Market Rate Housing: Housing which is available on the open market without any subsidy. The price for housing is determined by the market forces of supply and demand and varies by location. Median Income: The annual income for each household size within a region which is defined annually by HUD. Half of the households in the region have incomes above the median and half have incomes below the median. Mobile Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is at least 8 feet in width and 32 feet in length, is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit when connected to the required utilities, either with or without a permanent foundation. Mobile Home Park Assistance Program (MPAP): To preserve affordable housing opportunities found within mobile home parks, HCD provides financial and technical assistance to low income mobile home park residents through MPAP. MPAP provides loans of up to 50% of the purchase price plus the conversion costs of the mobile home park so that low income residents, or organizations formed by low income residents can own and/or operate the mobile home park. Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC): Administered by Riverside County, and authorized by Congress in the Tax Reform Act of 1984, the MCC provides assistance to first-time homebuyers for the purchase of owner -occupied single-family homes, townhomes, and condominiums. An MCC reduces the amount of federal income taxes otherwise due but not to exceed the amount of federal taxes owed for the year after other credits and deductions have been taken. (Unused tax credits can be carried forward three years, until used.) I -1 Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB): A state, county or city program providing financing for the development of housing through the sale of tax-exempt bonds. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP): The Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was established in March of 2004. The plan encompasses 1.2 million acres in the western Riverside County and is designated to protect 146 species. Overcrowding: As defined by the US Census, a household with greater than 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. Severe overcrowding is defined as households with greater than 1.5 persons per room. Office of Planning and Research (OPR): The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provides legislative and policy research support for the Governor's office. OPR also assists the Governor and the Administration in land -use planning and manages the Office of the Small Business Advocate. Overpayment: The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross household income, based on data published by the US Census Bureau. Severe overpayment, or cost burden, exists if gross housing costs exceed 50 percent of gross income. Parcel: The basic unit of land entitlement. A designated area of land established by plat, subdivision, or otherwise legally defined and permitted to be used, or built upon. Poverty: The income cutoffs used by the Census Bureau to determine the poverty status of families and unrelated individuals included a set of 48 thresholds. The poverty thresholds are revised annually to allow for changes in the cost of living as reflected in the Consumer Price Index. The average threshold for a family of four persons in 1989 was $12,674. Poverty thresholds were applied on a national basis and were not adjusted for regional, state, or local variations in the cost of living. Project -Based Rental Assistance: Rental assistance provided for a project, not for a specific tenant. A tenant receiving project -based rental assistance gives up the right to that assistance upon moving from the project. Public Housing: A project -based low -rent housing program operated by independent local public housing authorities. A low- income family applies to the local public housing authority in the area in which they want to live. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA): The RHNA is based on State of California projections of population growth and housing unit demand and assigns a share of the region's future housing need to each jurisdiction within the SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) region. These housing need numbers serve as the basis for the update of the Housing Element in each California city and county. Rehabilitation: The upgrading of a building previously in a dilapidated or substandard condition for human habitation or use. Section 8 Rental Voucher/Certificate Program: A tenant -based rental assistance program that subsidizes a family's rent in a privately owned house or apartment. The program is administered by local public housing authorities. Assistance payments are based on 30 percent of household annual income. Households with incomes of 50 percent or below the area median income are eligible to participate in the program. Service Needs: The particular services required by special populations, typically including needs such as transportation, personal care, housekeeping, counseling, meals, case management, personal emergency response, and other services preventing premature institutionalization and assisting individuals to continue living independently. Small Household: Pursuant to HUD definition, a small household consists of two to four non -elderly persons. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): The Southern California Association of Governments is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which encompasses six counties: Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura. SCAG is responsible for preparation of the RHNA. Special Needs Groups: Those segments of the population which have a more difficult time finding decent affordable housing due to special circumstances. Under California Housing Element statutes, these special needs groups consist of the elderly, handicapped, large families, female -headed households, farm workers and the homeless. A jurisdiction may also choose to consider additional special needs groups in the Housing Element, such as students, military households, other groups present in their community. Single -Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing: Any residential building containing five or more individual secure rooms intended or H designed to be used, or which are used, rented, or hired out, to be occupied for sleeping purposes by residents as their primary residence. Subdivision: The division of a lot, tract or parcel of land in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.). I Substandard Housing: Housing which does not meet the minimum N standards contained in the State Housing Code (i.e., does not provide shelter, endangers the health, safety or well-being of occupants). G Jurisdictions may adopt more stringent local definitions of substandard housing. Substandard, Suitable for Rehabilitation: Substandard units which are structurally sound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is considered economically warranted. Substandard, Needs Replacement: Substandard units which are structurally unsound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is considered infeasible, such as instances where the majority of a unit has been damaged by fire. Supportive Housing: A facility that provides housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population as defined by Section 50675.14 of the California Health and Safety Code, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist tenants in retaining housing, improving their health status, maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Supportive Services: Services provided to residents of supportive housing for the purpose of facilitating the independence of residents. Some examples are case management, medical or psychological counseling and supervision, child care, transportation, and job training. Tenant -Based Rental Assistance: A form of rental assistance in which the assisted tenant may move from a dwelling unit with a right to continued assistance. The assistance is provided for the tenant, not for the project. Transitional Housing: A residential facility that provides rental housing accommodations and support services for persons and families, but restricts occupancy to no more than 24 months. Support services may include meals, counseling, and other services. Uniform Building Code (UBC): First enacted by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) in 1927, the UBC provides standards for building codes. Revised editions of this code are published approximately every 3 years. US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): The cabinet level department of the federal government responsible for housing, housing assistance, and urban development at the national level. Housing programs administered through HUD include CDBG, HOME and Section 8, among others. Western Regional Council of Governments (WRCOG): WRCOG consists of representatives from all 14 cities and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, which have seats on the WRCOG Executive Committee, the group that sets policy for the organization. Together, as a joint powers agency, they take up regional matters, from air quality to solid waste and from transportation to the environment. Zoning: A land use regulatory measure enacted by local government. Zoning district regulations governing lot size, building bulk, placement, and other development standards vary from district to district, but must be uniform within the same district. Each city and county adopts a zoning ordinance specifying these regulations. CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT APPENDIX C: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Public Engagement Summary City of Temecula Housing Element Update September 2021 In partnership with De Novo Planning Group Contents Introduction.............................................................................................................3-3 General Education and Advertisements....................................................................33 ProjectWebsite........................................................................................................44 CommunitySurvey...................................................................................................44 Survey Respondent Demographics........................................................................5-5 Survey Responses Executive Summary..................................................................5-5 Complete Responses.........................................................................................154-5 Virtual Community Meeting.................................................................................1646 Public Review of Draft Housing Element...............................................................1646 Public Comments: Open House.........................................................................184-7 Public Comment: Ortiz......................................................................................1949 Public Comment: LaMont..................................................................................204-9 Public Comment: McGlaston.............................................................................212-A FeedbackInfluence...............................................................................................2224 Figures Figure 1: Why have you chosen to live in Temecula?................................................66 Figure 2: If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time?...................................99 Figure 3: Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making on your home?...........................................................................9.9 Figure 4: How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in? .............................................................................................................................11-14 Figure 5: Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet your housing needs?.............................................................................................12-14 Figure 6: What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula? .......... 1343 City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 2 Introduction The City of Temecula is updating its Housing Element as part of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Cycle (Cycle 6). Temecula is dedicated to meeting the future housing needs of its residents. The Housing Element Update process is a unique opportunity to connect with residents of Temecula and learn more about residents' values, priorities, concerns, and ideas. The City's public engagement program connected to the Housing Element Update began in early 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the process, the City supported bilingual (English and Spanish) public engagement by sending direct advertisements, posting to social media, hosting surveys, facilitating workshops, and sharing summaries of feedback to validate what we heard. The City also circulated the Public Review Draft Housing Element for thirty days to seek community input on the draft goals, policies, and programs. The following activities have been conducted in support of the Housing Element Update and are summarized in this document; copies of key advertisements and presentations are included at the end of this document and are also available on the project website at https://temeculaca.gov/432/Housing- FIPmPnt • General Education and Advertisements • Project Webpage • Community Survey (available in English and Spanish) • Virtual Workshop • Public Review of Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element General Education and Advertisements The City of Temecula planned and implemented a robust general education campaign to advertise the Housing Element Update and seek input on housing priorities and included specific efforts to engage underrepresented communities and lower income households. As part of this work effort, the City utilized the following tools: • Newsletter sent to every resident including an article about the Housing Element Update • Social media posts using the hashtag #Housethis? • Economic Development email blast • Email to community stakeholders • Channel 3 spot • Temecula Chamber Mixer presentation • Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors advertisements • Flyers at laundromats/coffee shops to reach traditionally underrepresented residents • Emails to affordable housing property management (to share with residents with lower household incomes) • Focused in -person outreach to persons experiencing homelessness and seniors City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 3 In total over 55,000 emails were sent and dozens of social media posts were shared advertising the Housing Element Update. The #Housethis? campaign resulted in 77,068 media impressions and 849 social media clicks. Project Website The project website includes the following information: • Project overview • Regional Housing Needs Allocation discussion • Description of what's included in the Housing Element • Timeline • Upcoming events and meetings • Email sign-up • Copies of all presentations and videos of presentations • Housing Survey (and results) • Draft Housing Element • Common questions and answers • Links to more information/supporting documents Community Survey The City of Temecula is updating its Housing Element as part of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Cycle (Cycle 6). Temecula is dedicated to meeting the future housing needs of its residents. The Housing Element Update process is a unique opportunity to connect with residents of Temecula and learn more about residents' values, priorities, concerns, and ideas. As part of the community outreach, a bilingual (English and Spanish) survey was conducted. The survey was available on the City's website from March 26 through September 30, 2020 and hard copies were also available around the community, including at the Senior Center to reach the community's elderly population. Advertisements were also placed in area laundromats to target households of different incomes. The City included a Housing Element article in 33,000 newsletters that were sent to each residence, had over 52,341 social media impressions, and sent over 10,000 emails to engage the public. Over 860 responses (provided online and in hard copy) were collected —a notable accomplishment given recent COVID-19-related public engagement challenges and a testament to Temecula's focus on outreach and community engagement. The survey was 16 questions long. The surveyfocuses on housing -related issues such as maintenance, affordability, home types, and living conditions in Temecula as well as demographic questions. This report is a summary of the responses City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 4 received and the general themes that emerged. Appendix A includes a copy of the survey questions; specific questions are referenced throughout this report as relevant. Survey Respondent Demographics The survey contained 7 questions related to demographics. One of those questions included an opportunity for users to sign-up for more information about the Housing Element update process. The other 6 questions highlighted the following about the respondents: • Most respondents (42%) both lived and worked within the City. In total, approximately 86% of respondents live in Temecula, with only 13% working in the City but living elsewhere.' • Of those individuals who live in Temecula, approximately 58% have lived here for 10+ years. The next highest response (16%) was 5-10 years.Z • Most of the respondents own their home (71%), with 25% of respondents renting.' • Most of the respondents (81%) live in single-family homes, with the next highest category being multi -family homes (12%).4 • Of the respondents surveyed, the most common types of households include couples with children younger than 18 (33%), couples (25%), single -person households (11%), multi - generational households (10%) and single -parents household with children younger than 18 (6%). There was considerable range in household types including 6% (or 41 respondents), who were an unlisted household type including couples with adult children living with them, which could be a temporary phenomenon associated with the impacts of COVID-19 on housing patterns for young adults.5 • The respondents represented a valid cross-section of the community's age profile; respondents were primarily 40-55 years old (36%), followed by 56-74 years old (30%), and 24-39 years old (26%). Survey Responses Executive Summary The survey responses reveal information about housing in Temecula. The results are grouped into 5 topical categories: values and priorities; housing affordability; housing maintenance; housing fit; and general feedback. In addition to looking at the survey results as a whole, this report also considers survey responses by demographic groups including how age, homeownership status, and household type influenced responses. ' Question 1: Do you live and/or work in the City of Temecula? Z Question 2: How long have you lived in the City of Temecula? 3 Question 6: Do you currently own or rent your home? a Question 8: Select the type of housing that best describes your current home. s Question 9: Which of the following best describes your household type? e Question 11: What age range most accurately describes you? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 5 VALUES AND PRIORITIES When respondents were asked, "Why have you chosen to live in Temecula,"' the most common answers were: • Safety of neighborhood (61%) • Affordability (52%) • Quality of local school system (49%) • Local recreational amenities and scenery (38%) • Proximity to shopping and services, including Old Town Temecula (33%) • Proximity to family and/or friends (32%) Figure 1: Why have you chosen to live in Temecula? Proximity t 2g,g0% job/wor Quality o� 25.21 housing stoc Loca� 37 54°/ recreational. Proximity t 31.95% family and/o.. Affordability 51.55% Quality o 49.43% local school. Safety o 61.17% neighborhoo City service 26.36% and program Proximity t 33.24% shopping and.. Other (pleas 12.75% specify r,p- 1ro.; -n,-. Sro(: 40o::. Scot; sr4; ?ro:; 8^.:. _ , trc, When responses are broken down further by demographic groups, the following differences occur: Respondents who own their own home vs. rent are far more likely to cite affordability as a factor (60%) than those who rent (33%). Similarly, quality of the housing stock is viewed more favorably by those ' Question 5: Why have you chosen to live in Temecula? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September _ I Page 6 who own (29%) than those who rent (17%), which may reflect the "pride of ownership" that comes with being able to maintain a property you own. There are also differences between respondents of different ages. Proximity to family and friends was far more important to those 75 years and older (42%) who may be less likely/able to travel long distances, than to those 23 years old or younger (29%) who are more mobile. However, quality of the local school system and safety of the neighborhood were far more important to those 23 years old and younger (71% for both indicators) who may be thinking about their own educational experiences or planning for the education of a child, than those 75 years old and older (9% and 33% respectively). There are also differences when it relates to household type. Couples with children under 18 ranked quality of school system (76%) and safety of neighborhood (76%) as their highest concern, while these issues were less important for single person households. Affordability was seen as a key issue across the board; it was ranked as the first or second highest issue in every household type except for young adults living with parents (where it fell to third). When respondents were asked, "How important are the following concerns to you and your family?"$ the following issues were identified as the most likely to be "very important": • Ensuring that children who grow up in Temecula can afford to live in Temecula (57%) • Encourage the rehabilitation of existing housing stock in older neighborhoods (49%) • Establish special needs housing for seniors, large families, veterans, and/or persons with disabilities (48%) • Ensure that the housing market in Temecula provides a diverse range of housing types, including single-family homes, townhomes, apartments, duplex/triplex and condominiums to meet the varied needs of local residents (48%) • Fair/Equitable Housing opportunities and programs to help maintain and secure neighborhoods that have suffered foreclosures (48%) • Establish programs to help at -risk homeowners keep their homes, including mortgage loan programs (47%) When responses are broken down further by demographic groups, the following differences occur: When it comes to comparisons of answers by age of respondents, there were some nuanced trends. Ensuring that children who grow up in Temecula can afford to live in Temecula was ranked highest by those 23 years old and younger (86%) and least important to those 75 years and older (39%); these trends represent the importance of affordability for young adults looking to move into their own home for the first time, versus the established housing choices of the community's older generation. Those aged 23 years old and younger felt extremely strongly (100%) about integrating affordable housing e Question 12: How important are the following concerns to you and your family? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 7 throughout the community to create mixed -income neighborhoods while only 28% of those 75 years and older felt that it was very important. Those 23 years old and younger also ranked "fair/equitable housing opportunities and programs to help maintain and secure neighborhoods that have suffered foreclosures" (86%) and "provide shelters and transitional housing for the homeless, along with services to help move people into permanent housing" as very important (71%). There were also differences in what mattered the most to homeowners versus those who rent. The issue of "ensuring that the housing market in Temecula provides a diverse range of housing types, including single-family homes, townhomes, apartments, duplex/triplex and condominiums to meet the varied needs of local residents," was far more important to those who rent (70%) than to those who own their own home (38%). Similarly, renters ranked the issue of, "integrate affordable housing throughout the community to create mixed -income neighborhoods," far higher (63%) than homeowners (25%). Likewise, renters placed higher value (61%) on the issue of "establish special needs housing for seniors, large families, veterans, and/or persons with disabilities," than did homeowners (42%). When it comes to household types, young adults living with parents and multi -generational households ranked "ensuring that children who grow up in Temecula can afford to live in Temecula," as much higher (74% and 71% respectively) that do single person households (36%). Multi -generational households also ranked "establish special needs housing for seniors, large families, veterans, and/or persons with disabilities," much higher (58%) than did couples with children under 18. However, for single parents with children under 18, the issue of "integrate affordable housing throughout the community to create mixed -income neighborhoods," ranks much higher (58%) than single person households (32%). HOUSING AFFORDABILITY When respondents were asked, "If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time?"' the answers pointed to issues of affordability. The top 3 responses included: • 1 cannot find a home within my price range in Temecula (55%) • 1 do not currently have the financial resources for an appropriate down payment (52%) • 1 do not currently have the financial resources for an adequate monthly mortgage payment (33%) • Potential answers related to housing stock diversity or housing quality were not heavily selected, indicating that if people were able to overcome the financial obstacles, the housing choices available in Temecula are generally desirable. 9 Question 7: If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 8 Figure 2: If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time? No homes 55."% within price.. No homes th-M 12.98% ..it my need Do not have 51.58% down paymen Do not have 32 98% enough for... No homes tha� 7.02% fit quality. do not wis= 17.54% to own or re.. 10'i11-�0'1911- Ir b�1011 i� Z7�j� b�Ih l�iZ :Z�in1EZ�iYiHZ�iZ? When responses are broken down further by demographic groups, the following differences occur: When it comes to differences between respondents of different age groups, Millennials (age 24-39) had the highest financial barriers: 71% say there are no homes within their desired price range; 64% do not have a down payment; and 46% do not have enough for a mortgage payment. When it comes to household type, couples with children under 18 had the most significant financial constraints, with 75% responding that there were no homes within their price range, and 55% reporting that did not have enough for a down payment. HOUSING MAINTENANCE When respondents were asked, "Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making to your home?"10 the top responses included: • Painting (42%) • Solar (28%) • HVAC (22%) Figure 3: Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making on your home? " Question 3: Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making to your home? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 9 Room addition dditio 11.21% Roofing - 12.52% HVAC 22.42% Painting 41.92% Solar 27.66% Accessory 8.73% Dwelling Unit Does not appl 33.92% Other (please 14 99°/ specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% While a large proportion of respondents indicated 1 or more improvements, over a third stated that this question does not apply, meaning that they are not considering any upgrades or expansions at this time. Not surprisingly, this question applied more to homeowners than renters. However, while 80% of renters responded, "Does not apply," the other 20% indicated that there were minor improvements including painting (10%) that occupants have considered making. When it comes to comparing respondents based on age, respondents age 40-55 had the longest list of upgrades and expansions they were considering including room additions (15%), roofing (12%), and accessory dwelling units (11%). Respondents were also allowed to provide specific feedback regarding other (non -listed) types of improvements they were interested in pursuing. The most popular write-in responses include: • New windows • New flooring • Pool construction • Upgraded landscaping • Kitchen renovation • Patio cover installation • Garage improvements When asked, "How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in?" respondents stated that their home: • Shows signs of minor deferred maintenance (i.e., peeling paint, chipped stucco, etc.) (46%) • Excellent condition (33%) City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 10 • Needs 1 or more modest rehabilitation improvements (i.e., new roof, new wood siding, etc.) (13%) • Needs 1 or more major upgrades (i.e., new foundation, new plumbing, new electrical, etc.) (5%) Figure 4: How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in? Excellent 33.24°0 condition Shows signs o 46 420,6 deferred... Needs modes 12.61% rehabilitati.. Needs major 5.01% upgrades (i.... other(pleas 272% specify 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Homeowners were more likely than renters to rate the physical condition of their residence as excellent (40% as opposed to 16%). Single parents with children under 18 (17%), young adults living with parents (17%), and single persons living with roommates (20%) were the 2 household groups least likely to rate their housing condition as excellent. Respondents ages 75 and older were the age group most likely to rate their housing quality as excellent. HOUSING FIT When asked, "How satisfied are you with your current housing situation?"77 the top responses were: • 1 am very satisfied (48%) • 1 am somewhat satisfied (35%) • 1 am somewhat dissatisfied (10%) • 1 am dissatisfied (6%) There were significant differences in responses, however, between homeowners and renters. 61% of homeowners were "very satisfied" as opposed to only 15% of renters. " Question 10: How satisfied are you with your current housing situation? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 11 Single parents with children under the age of 18 showed the highest levels of dissatisfaction with a 20% stating, "I am very dissatisfied," and 17% stating, "I am very satisfied." Only 14% of respondents age 23 and younger were very satisfied with their housing situation, as opposed to 61% of those 75 years old and older. When asked, "Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet your housing needs?1112 respondents answered: • Yes (65%) • No (35%) Figure 5: Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet your housing needs? les CA. 8440 No 35.16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Wk 1 c", However, the breakdown along homeownerships lines were different with 77% of homeowners answering "Yes", as opposed to 40% of renters. The contrast was even more stark along household type comparisons. 63% of single parents with children under age 18 answered, "no" with the next lowest score being single persons living with roommates (56%). Those on the opposite end of the scale for age, had nearly opposite reactions. For those age 23 and younger, 71% said that Temecula did not meet their housing needs as opposed to 81% of those 75 years old and older who stated that it did meet their housing needs. When asked, "What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula?"13 respondents answered: • Single family detached (49%) 12 Question 13: Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet your housing needs? 13 Question 14: What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 12 • Senior Housing (34%) • Condominiums (multifamily ownership homes) (24%) • Other (24%) • Duplex/Attached Housing (20%) Figure 6: What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula? Single Family 49.10 % (Detached) Duplex/Attache 20.33% Housin CondominiumsJkl24.40% (multifamily.. Apartments 13.40% (multifamily.. Senior Housin 33.73% Accessory 10.39% Dwelling Unit Housingfo 1265% people with.. Other (pleas 23.95% specify 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The household group most interested in more single-family homes are adult head of households (non - parents) with children under age 18 (75%) and the least interested in more single-family housing are single persons with roommates (22%). When it comes to age comparisons, Millennials are most interested in more single-family homes (61%) as opposed to seniors 75 years old and older (27%). A significant percentage of the respondents indicated that "other" (non -listed) types of housing options are needed in Temecula. Respondents provided a range of specific answers, many of which were already identified as an answer choice (i.e., senior housing, housing for persons with disabilities). Moreover, many respondents used this opportunity to indicate that they did not support new development of any type, generally due to concerns related to traffic, safety, and access to public facilities and infrastructure. Of those "other" types of housing identified in the individual responses, which were not already listed as a possible answer, the responses generally included: • Housing options affordable to people with lower incomes • Multigenerational homes • Permanent supportive housing City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 13 • Mixed use development • Housing options specific to the needs of single parents • Single -story homes GENERALFEEDBACK At the conclusion of the survey, respondents could provide general feedback on topics not addressed in earlier questions. As expected, general feedback received was varied in tone and content. Written responses were divided but fell into 2 general categories. Group A: Those who feel that Temecula is unaffordable and housing prices are too high across the board. These individuals suggested building more affordable housing of all types (from single family homes to multi -family housing) as well as taking care of seniors and the homeless. Some sample responses include: "The cost of rent here does not match the income that many of us have forcing many to struggle, have roommates, constantly move etc. More affordable housing that matches the jobs available that only want to pay $17 or less would help out a great deal so people can afford to live without roommates and without struggling to pay everything." "Just want affordable housing for all income types. It would reduce homelessness and bring diversity to the city." Group B: Those who moved to Temecula for its affordability and safety, and feel that it has changed in a negative way over the years. These individuals are worried about continued impacts on congestion and lack of infrastructure. They want the City to focus on improving current conditions and adding more infrastructure (such as improved roadway conditions) instead of building additional housing. Some sample responses include: "It is disappointing to see zonings changed and other adjustments that are aimed to please the person(s) financially benefitting rather than thinking about the value in the original zoning as well as congestion and overloading the market." "Too much growth without infrastructure to support. Roads/traffic too heavy and maintenance not adequate to support the additional homes being built." "Temecula is overcrowded. Way too many apartments and condos. The city council was going the right direction with making it more of a destination or tourist town but now they want to ruin the natural beauty with more housing. There are areas north of Menifee that can take more housing and where new infrastructure can be built. Temecula is maxed out." City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 14 Other issues that were raised include: • Making the process of building an accessory dwelling unit easier • Increasing the number and availability of bike and walking trails • Keeping water usage for landscaping low • Preserving open space and views of the mountains • Focusing on Temecula as a tourist destination • Address issues of housing discrimination and diversity Complete Responses A copy of the complete Community Survey along with responses is provided under separate cover and can be accessed via the project website at https://temeculaca.gov/432/Housing-Element. City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 15 ■ Virtual Community Meeting The City hosted a Virtual Community Meeting on the Housing Element in September, 2020. The intent of the Community Meeting was to provide another avenue/opportunity for the public to learn about the Housing Element, provide input, and ask questions. The Community Meeting included a live presentation in English and Spanish via Zoom. Given that this meeting was held at the end of the two - month window to participate in the Community Survey, and covered the same topics as what was available on the Project Website, the Community Meeting did not have a large attendance (fewer than a dozen participants), which can be interpreted to mean that individual interested in the Housing Element may have already participated in the online survey and did not necessarily feel the need to attend a meeting which occurred at a set time and place. A copy of this presentation was also made available on the project website. Public Review of Draft Housing Element The Public Review Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was made available to the public on August 17, 2021. That same evening, the City of Temecula hosted an in -person Open House to educate the community about the Housing Element Update and present the draft goals, policies, and programs contained therein. The material was also posted to the project website and a press release was posted to the City's website and advertised at public hearings and to individuals registered for project notifications. The City is also advertising the Public Review Draft and providing direction on how individuals can provide public comment via its social media challenges and direct letters to stakeholder engaged in housing services in and around Temecula. Interested parties are invited to submit public comments using a fillable comment card at the Open House, provide written comments via mail to City Hall, or email comments to the City's Housing Element Project Manager. The City received two written comments at the Open House and three subsequent public comments (sent to the Housing Element Project Manager via email) on the draft Housing Element. These comments are included in this section and responses to these comments are included at the end of this Report. The Public Draft Housing Element was also presented to the City of Temecula Planning Commission on September 15, 2021 and City Council on October 12, 2021. At this -these meetings, the City received additional comments via public testimony. Responses to these comments are included at the end of this Report. City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 16 Fair Housina Outreach The City hosted two additional public outreach workshops on October 27, 2021, with notices in English, Spanish, and Tagalog. The focus of these hearings included specific topics of AFFH and Fair Housing feedback as well as affordable housing. The City is also currently conducting a resident survey (in conjunction with CDBG) which discusses housing, AFFH, and other housing related priorities. City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 17 Public Comments: Open House V'0 "e S 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element Update Public Comment Card "'l \ F e"e-Zvw -s: B(j .PP cemn.e.z . l f Comment: Wa,td love +a sew snore. r,\iw.-L Sr- o11.4 A7Us Inlo,(A Ukt- 6 se, more SCIAJDr �0—Si�� i,.�-"wk4, T-e mec" l& (s l bGs cr Mt„d: -5maJ I I b4- A-e-\X l- b WV I F ilia! It l v'-Ae-f ai- 32-30 0,1 " T f ej l . 6, - OCGa. �d+�� Gornme2i0 l P"< "A,� off:,._ _ JeAt:�U -) I-./ —d �r Ic ' ,\n) .i Wo V-ldL I ove- 6 see, "isf ir-A c4)MMi,,n �,.� n� S I r. Wol Crew Te,= L �i met 61 ;�o�h.ui� i .aN �ecl.o�nrt� �o n'•� °� Name: Phone: S+Dres� res&45 Email: b ri,,e, 19.8 Address: a,-P-s o,,,,n . 'D ;sass wl 0--A. 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element Update Public Comment Card Comment: 1n av �,1� o o,n 5 LdS��o A, �yr, dZ v0 2,S c.\\'c,\v,v- ra�jz'o- a� Name: Phone: Email: Address: City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C - September 2021 1 Page 18 Public Comment: Ortiz From: Rynicia Ortiz <ryniciaw(@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 2:22 PM To: Brandon Rabidou<brandon.rabidou(cDtemeculaca.gov> Subject: Housing element Hello, I am currently a resident of south Temecula. I am strongly against the new housing plan. My family and I moved to Temecula because of the safe area and the family friendly environment. I believe having very low income housing will drastically change the dynamics of the city. Most of the housing being built will be for those of very low income levels. This will bring crime to the area and change the entire environment of the city. Temecula is a rare area in Southern California, where there are many families, a strong sense of community, low crime, and maintained very well. I do not want to see this city change. Please reconsider this housing plan. I have spoken to many friends in Temecula regarding this and we all agree this would be a disaster for the city. Thank you for your time. Rynicia Ortiz Sent from my iPhone City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 19 Public Comment: LaMont Good morning, In preparation for today's discussion, my concerns are as follows; I recognize the City has met the state required boxes for the Housing Element; however, a series of checked boxes simply is not enough. It will make state -inflicted headaches go away, but it won't resolve the housing crisis. And I've heard council members publicly comment about ineffective California policies enough to know that you know this. So please. Let's make solutions the goal, not strictly compliance with a state mandate. During this meeting, please highlight the tangible steps the city will make toward solutions to the housing crisis and how it will specifically address the local workforce, often referred to as the missing middle. I'd like to emphasize the words "tangible" and "specific." Meaning, every staff member here knows I've dedicated an obscene amount of personal time advocating for the local workforce and attainable home ownership. I'd venture to say I've dedicated more hours to this cause than any person, paid or unpaid, since Temecula's inception. None of this advocacy has centered on trigger words or divisive rhetoric. Typical activists pounce on the opportunity to turn a well -intended statement by city officials into accusations of "corruption" "white supremacy" or any number of click bait words that attack rather than resolve. Moreover, I've never expected the City to wave a magic wand and fix a complicated and longstanding issue. My point here is that I've done my due diligence, put in my time, and worked to create real solutions. I've been honest, reasonable, and direct. I expect the same from you tonight. Please spare me flowery terms and vague statements. Please share with us, your constituents, the City's plan to provide attainable home ownership for its local workforce. We request the City specifically respond to the following points and whether it will adopt any of these action items: A) policy of inclusion B) eliminate the segregation of the affordable housing overlay zone C) Land trusts D) provide incentives to local businesses to help contribute to employee housing E) Down zone (up zoning costs the city money, down zoning would not) F) Pilot programs designed to incorporate specific employees into "mixed use" housing. As to meet the true intentions of mixed use by supplying the housing to the employees who work below. I would have ccd Amanda Tropiano in this thread however I do not have her email information. Please feel free to forward. Looking forward to speaking in detail later today. Thank you, Laurel LaMont Director of Upward Community City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 20 Public Comment: McGlaston Hi Brandon, I hope this message finds you well. This is my initial suggestion on the housing element work you're doing, in particular on getting the word out to more people. My husband and (at the time) infant daughter sold our house in SD and moved to Temecula about 2.5 years ago. We bought in the Redhawk area and have loved being here since we moved. I've noticed a lot of similar family dynamics and recent moves to Temecula for the same reasons that brought us here (more affordable, more family friendly, clean and beautiful communities with wide streets and many parks, etc.). To get to the point, I think you all need to have some sort of ambassador program to share this info with people (and perhaps specifically target the women/moms) of the area. I learned about this via text from one of my neighbor friends who is a stay at home mom and I can see this spreading quickly if it got passed around similarly. That's all I have for now, but I'll likely be at the meeting next week. Thanks for the work you're doing!! Kindly, Rachael City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 21 ■ Feedback Influence The feedback received from the public during preparation of the Housing Element and on the Public Draft Housing Element directly influenced the goals, policies, and programs included in the Housing Plan. Table 1 below summarize how public input is reflected in the Housing Plan. General Input Applicable Reference Goal Policy Program Other Received There should be more • Goal 2 • Policy 2.1 • Program 10 affordable housing • Goal 3 • Policy 2.2 • Program 12 choices for people • Policy 3.1 who want to own a home in Temecula • Policy 3.2 Existing homes are in • Goal 4 • Policy 4.2 • Program 18 • good condition by • Program 19 need general maintenance A variety of home • Goal 1 • Policy 1.2 • Program 1 types are needed in • Goal 2 • Policy 1.3 • Program 5 Temecula • Policy 1.6 • Program 6 • Policy 2.1 • Program 7 • Program 8 • Program 9 Temecula should not Existing General Plan and have any more Zoning designations allow housing/traffic for development. No new sites are identified in the Housing Element. Work with regional • Goal 2 • Policy 2.8 • partners to address affordable housing issues Work with local • Goal 2 • Policy 2.9 • employers to address affordable housing issues Adequate parking • The City's Zoning near new future Ordinance requires housing sites should minimum parking be considered standards for all new development City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 22 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT APPENDIX D: 2017 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing Prepared by City of Temecula Community Development Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Approved March 2017 The Heart of Sou#h ern California Wine Country • � 1 This page intentionally left blank. Cover Sheet 1. Submission date: October 4, 2016 2. Submitter name: City of Temecula 3. Type of submission (e.g., single program participant, joint submission): Single program participant 4. Type of program participant(s) (e.g., consolidated plan participant, PHA): Consolidated Plan 5. For PHAs, Jurisdiction in which the program participant is located: N/A 6. Submitter members (if applicable): N/A 7. Sole or lead submitter contact information: a. Name: Lynn Kelly -Lehner b. Title: Principal Management Analyst c. Department: Community Development Department d. Street address: 41000 Main Street e. City: Temecula f. State: CA g. Zip code: 92590 8. Period covered by this assessment: July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2022 9. Initial, amended, or renewal AFH: Initial 10. To the best of its knowledge and belief, the statements and information contained herein are true, accurate, and complete and the program participant has developed this AFH in compliance with the requirements of 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.150-5.180 or comparable replacement regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; 11. The program participant will take meaningful actions to further the goals identified in its AFH conducted in accordance with the requirements in §§ 5.150 through 5.180 and 24 C.F.R. §§ 91.225(a)(1), 91.325(a)(1), 91.425(a)(1), 570.487(b)(1), 570.601, 903.7(o), and 903.15(d), as applicable. All Joint and Regional Participants are bound by the certification, except that some of the analysis, goals or priorities included in the AFH may only apply to an individual program participant as expressly stated in the AFH. Aaron Adams City Manager 12. Departmental acceptance or non -acceptance: Date U.S Department of Housing & Urban Development/Date This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents I. Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... 1 II. Community Participation Process.......................................................................................................... 4 III. Assessment of Past Goals and Actions.................................................................................................. 9 IV. Fair Housing Analysis......................................................................................................................... 14 A. Demographic Summary B. General Issues i. Segregation/Integration ii. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs C. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis D. Disability and Access Analysis E. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities........................................................................................................ 42 Appendices A. HUD -Provided Maps B. HUD -Provided Tables C. City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing Resident Surveys (English/Spanish) D. City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing Stakeholder Survey E. Stakeholder Consultation List F. General Plan Land Use Map G. CDBG-Eligible Area Map H. Public Transportation Maps (Employers, Public Facilities, Publicly Assisted Housing) I. List of Public Services funded with CDBG and General Fund J. List of Units Funded with Redevelopment Agency Funds i K. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data L. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County Fair Housing Initiatives Program Testing Results (2010-2015) M. Survey Results N. Eagle Soar Program O. Public Hearing Notices P. Summary of Public Comments at Public Hearings and Community Meetings Q. City Resolution Approving Assessment of Fair Housing ii I. Executive Summary 1. Summarize the fair housing issues, significant contributing factors, and goals. Also include an overview of the process and analysis used to reach the goals. The City of Temecula is located in the extreme southwest corner of the Riverside -San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is the largest MSA in area in the continental United States. Temecula is 45 miles from Riverside, the County Seat, and nearly 70 miles from the City of San Bernardino, the County Seat of San Bernardino County. At 60 miles away, Temecula is closer to the City of San Diego than to San Bernardino. It is 172 miles from Blythe in Riverside County and 240 miles from Needles in San Bernardino County. Because of its location in the corner of the region, one must be cautious to draw too many conclusions in comparing Temecula to the regional data supplied by HUD. This Assessment compares and contrasts the City with the regional data, but as one would expect, there are some substantial differences in the data profiles and the needs between the City and the region. Many of these differences are evident and detailed in the HUD -supplied maps and charts included in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. The City is located in a cluster of cities in Temecula Valley in southwest Riverside County. The other cities include Murrieta, Menifee, Wildomar and Lake Elsinore. All have experienced tremendous growth in the past twenty years, yet they remain separate and some distance from the metropolitan areas to the north and south. Through its growth, Temecula has remained an integrated and diverse City with racial and ethnic groups spread evenly throughout the City. There are no HUD -identified racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) in the City. During the housing crisis of 2007-2008, the City was hit with many foreclosures and, as such, that issue was the greatest concern in the previous Analysis of Impediments, completed in 2010. Now with the housing industry in recovery, the greatest need in the City is affordable housing, as many new homebuyers find themselves priced out of the market. Like all cities in the State of California, Temecula is challenged by a lack of financial resources to address its affordable housing needs due to the dissolution of all the State's redevelopment agencies. This was the main source of hundreds of affordable housing units constructed in the City since the 1990s. Fair housing issues in Temecula appear to be individualized and not systemic, but preventing systematic issues requires continuous training and education of those persons employed in the housing industry, as well as educating the residents of their fair housing rights. The City has developed four fair housing goals to overcome the contributing factors identified in the Assessment of Fair Housing. These goals have been prioritized based on feedback from community meetings, surveys, stakeholder interviews, staff, and data analysis. Highest priority is given to those contributing factors that limit or deny fair housing choice of access to opportunity. The goals are listed below, from highest to lowest priority. Goal 1: Amend Zoning Code to promote the development of affordable housing Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 1A: Land use and zoning laws Goal 2: Increase and preserve affordable units for renters and homeowners Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 2A: The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Contributing Factor 213: Location and type of affordable housing Goal 3: Provide greater access to public facilities and improvements for persons with disabilities Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 3A: Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure Contributing Factor 3B: Inaccessible government facilities or services Goal 4: Provide equal housing opportunities for protected classes Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 4A: Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations Contributing Factor 413: Private discrimination Based on the above goals and contributing factors, a number of actions were identified that can be taken over the next five years that will promote fair housing for its residents. These action items will be discussed at the end of this report, but a summary of these actions items is provided below. • Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Program by Amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to accommodate Temecula's regional housing need for 2,007 affordable units for lower income households. The City will establish an AHO on at least 100 acres. After the establishment of the AHO, sites identified will require: • minimum densities of 20 units per acre • 50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing exclusively residential uses • multi -family uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed by right, without a conditional use permit Enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a developer to allocate $12.4 million in remaining affordable housing Tax Allocation Bond proceeds to create or rehabilitate an estimated 100 affordable housing units, subject to market forces. The selection process includes priority consideration for proposals that incorporate housing units for persons with disabilities. Based on a preliminary review of the siting for these proposals, none are located in the three Census Tracts identified as having relatively high exposure to poverty. Interviews with developers expected by July 2017; Selection of developer to occur by December 2017; Exclusive Negotiating Agreement by June 2018; Entitlements to be secured by June 2019. Construction to begin by June 2020. Estimates are subject to financing, property negotiations, market demand, and economic forces. All (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned affordable complexes constructed as a result of the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds will include affirmative outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals including Hispanic and Native American households as well as households that include persons with disabilities. Units advertised to contain specific accessibility features shall be prioritized for occupancy by persons identifying themselves as disabled. At least 50 units will benefit the aforementioned protected classes identified as having disproportionate housing needs. All (100%) of marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula Community Development Department prior to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%) affordable developments shall be required to maintain records related to marketing and protected classes and provide annual reports to the City. Marketing plans will be based conceptually on HUD form 935.2A, the Affirmative Fair 2 Housing Marketing Plan — Multi -Family Housing, where applicable or practical. (Completion date subject to completion of affordable housing construction and commencement of sale or leasing. Expected June 2021) • Require marketing materials for any new City of Temecula -assisted affordable housing project to be made available in Spanish. (July 1, 2017) • Translate City Affordable Housing Brochure in Spanish to promote meaningful access to affordable housing. (July 1, 2017) • Continue the partnership with Habitat for Humanity for the administration of a Critical Home Repair program to provide funding to at least 30 low income home owners to make repairs addressing disabled access, inadequate kitchen facilities, and/or inadequate plumbing. • Complete construction of Phase III of Madera Vista (formerly Summerhouse), which includes 30 affordable units. 14 units are moderate income, 7 units are low income and 8 units are very low income. (Entitlements are complete; Building permits to be issued by September 2017; Construction to be completed by September 2019) • Complete substantial rehabilitation of Rancho California Apartments, a 55 unit affordable housing complex. 43 units are restricted to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted 50% AMI. (One manager's unit.) (Rehab has begun. Expected completion date — March 2018.) • Adopt an ADA Transition Plan to evaluate public facilities to ensure equal access for persons with disabilities. The assessment will include 38 city parks, three trail systems, four tennisibasketball courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities, four fire stations, 110 signalized intersections, 95 bus stops and 310 miles of roadways with ADA ramps. (Adopt Plan by December 31, 2018) • Include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan to use CDBG funds to upgrade the City's infrastructure and public facilities to provide accessibility for those with disabilities. An average of one accessibility project will be constructed each year with CDBG funds, with an average allocation of $100,000, based on level CDBG funding during the planning cycle. (Consolidated Plan adopted by May 15, 2017. Allocation adopted annually by June 30.) • In the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, allocate $150,000 for the construction of a new sidewalk on Ynez Road that serves several bus lines and County of Riverside social services, subject to level CDBG funding throughout the entire planning period. (Plan adopted by May 15, 2017; Construction completed by December 31, 2018) • Construct accessibility upgrades at Pala Park, located in Census Tract 432.50, including 4 additional disabled parking spaces, truncated domes, and a new playground with approximately 7 play structures designed to be all inclusive and provide access to those with special needs. (Construction completed by January 2019). • Complete the construction of a new playground at Sam Hicks Park, located in Census Tract 512.00, utilizing a total of $350,000 in CDBG funding for an ADA accessible play structure, and two ADA compliant ramps. (Construction completed by December 31, 2017). Annually provide approximately 12% of CDBG public service funds to a fair housing provider to provide outreach, education and assistance enforcing fair housing laws — particularly those protecting the rights of disabled residents. (Annually by June 30) Increase public awareness of accessibility and fair housing requirements by inviting representatives of the building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries to one annual workshop hosted by the City of Temecula and fair housing providers. Invitations will be extended to 25 frequent developers, 50 members of the local real estate community that graduated from the City's Temecula Trekkers program, and all 13 affordable housing complexes in the City. (Annually by June 30) The City will distribute and replenish the supply of fair housing materials, including literature concerning reasonable accommodation / modification rights and responsibilities at five City facilities including the Temecula Community Center, City Hall, the Mary Phillips Senior Center, Ronald H. Roberts Library, and the Community Recreation Center. (Monthly, by the 30' day of each month) The City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless Alliance, will host three different panels of representatives from organizations such as the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County and Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25 local homelessness and affordable housing advocates on fair housing issues and affordable housing issues, particularly those affecting residents with disabilities. (June 2022) 4 II. Community Participation Process 1. Describe outreach activities undertaken to encourage and broaden meaningful community participation in the AFH process, including the types of outreach activities and dates of public hearings or meetings. Identify media outlets used and include a description of efforts made to reach the public, including those representing populations that are typically underrepresented in the planning process such as persons who reside in areas identified as R/ECAPs, persons who are limited English proficient (LEP), and persons with disabilities. Briefly explain how these communications were designed to reach the broadest audience possible. For PHAs, identify your meetings with the Resident Advisory Board. The City planned a robust community outreach program in the development of the City's Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). To reach the largest number of people and a wide variety of interests, the City conducted two surveys, one directed primarily at residents and the second toward the stakeholders. The City believed that a separate stakeholder survey was necessary, because many of the stakeholders did not reside in the City and many of the housing quality questions in the resident survey might not be relevant. At the same time, the City sought more in-depth responses from the stakeholders about the needs of the community and as well as to obtain data supporting their responses. The resident survey was available on the City webpage and advertised in the San Diego Union Tribune newspaper, a media of general circulation in Temecula. The City engaged with City staff that interacts with the public, including Senior Center staff and the Public Works, Community Development, City Manager's office and Community Services departments. The survey was also distributed at the front counter and permit center at City Hall. To further reach the public, paper copies of the survey were given to various focus groups including: • Temecula Pantry • Regional Homeless Alliance • Churches whose congregation mostly served minority populations In the process, the City doubled the number of stakeholders from its previous consolidated planning process as part of its outreach efforts to ensure a broader citizen participation process to fully assess the City's fair housing issues and community development needs. In many cases, the City followed up with individual phone calls to achieve clarification and a greater understanding of needs that they identified. The City notified over 150 stakeholders by email of the City's Assessment of Fair Housing preparation process and solicited their insight and input. On June 20, 2016, stakeholders were asked to complete a fair housing and community development needs assessment survey. A copy of the survey completed by residents is included in this report as Appendix C in English and Spanish, with a copy of the survey completed by stakeholders included in Appendix D and a full list of stakeholders consulted in Appendix E. The City conducted two public hearings. A public hearing before the City Council was convened on June 28, 2016 to obtain the views of the community on affirmatively furthering fair housing in the jurisdiction's housing and community development programs prior to drafting this AFH. No public comments were received during this hearing. A second public hearing before the City Council was convened September 27, 2016 to obtain comments on the draft Assessment of Fair Housing. No comments were received. The City conducted three community workshops. The first two community meetings were held on June 29, 2016. The first was conducted at 4:00 p.m. to accommodate those who preferred to come during working hours, followed by another after hours at 6:00 p.m. for those who could not attend during the day A third community meeting was conducted on Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. The community meetings were interactive workshops with questions and answers on various needs of the City including: fair housing, community facilities and infrastructure, affordable housing and economic development. A concerted effort was made to reach out to organizations that represented persons with disabilities, both through the community meetings and during the City's consultation stage of its citizen participation process. During the outreach, the City talked with pastors of three ethnocentric churches and provided surveys to them for their members. The City does not have any Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). 2. Provide a list of organizations consulted during the community participation process. The City expanded its mailing list of stakeholders to over 150 persons and agencies. (See Appendix E for a list of the persons contacted.) 3. How successful were the efforts at eliciting meaningful community participation? If there was low participation, provide the reasons. Public hearings before the City Council were convened on June 28, 2016 and September 27, 2016 to obtain the views of the community on AFH-related data and affirmatively furthering fair housing in the jurisdiction's housing and community development programs. No public comments were received during this hearing. Low community participation is attributed to that fact that community feedback was overwhelmingly positive during the public outreach process and the community was generally satisfied with the fair housing efforts in the City. This would consistent with previous community outreach surveys that indicated a 96% satisfaction rating with the City. A total of 91 persons responded to our surveys, 45 responses from residents and 46 responses from stakeholders. While the response rate was lower than expected, the City received valuable feedback from the surveys received. Another recent City -sponsored survey for local municipal issues was undertaken separately, and just prior to the launch of the Assessment of Fair Housing Survey. In response to outreach and marketing efforts for the resident survey, a number of residents indicated to staff that they had already taken the survey when in fact they did not realize the Assessment of Fair Housing survey was a separate survey on different topics. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities also conducted a workshop during this same period. Despite significant promotional efforts, they also faced low response issues. The City conducted a random telephone survey for a Community Opinion Study in 2014 and was able to secure the participation of 400 respondents. This survey found that 96 percent of Temecula residents felt that they had a good or excellent quality of life in the City. Less than one percent had a poor opinion of the City. There was no difference between the responses from renters and homeowners. The greatest response was that they liked the small town feeling and 0 community involvement of its residents. Traffic congestion was cited as the greatest problem. Over 90 percent of respondents were satisfied with City services, facilities and programs. Only four percent said that the Temecula schools were poor. When compared to a similar study in 2000, there was no significant difference in opinion of the respondents, despite the fact that the City had grown substantially during that period. At the June 29, 2016 community meetings, eight residents and stakeholders participated in a discussion of fair housing issues and community needs. The attendance at these meetings was lower than expected due to local traffic challenges associated with a Cal -Trans freeway closure at Rancho California Boulevard and the I-15 near City Hall. At the July 30, 2016 community meeting, five residents and stakeholders participated in the discussion. For future planning efforts, the City wishes to improve stakeholder and resident feedback. The next AFH will be due 195 days prior to the start of the program year instead of 270 days prior to the start of the program year. This will allow the City to schedule its community participation process to coincide with a time of the year when many residents and stakeholders are not on summer vacations. 4. Summarize all comments obtained in the community participation process. Include a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons why. On June 3, 2016, the City consultant met with the pastors of Iglesia Bautista del Valle de Temecula and they agreed to work with the City in obtaining input from their 300 member Spanish-speaking congregation. In talking with the pastor, they considered traffic congestion to the greatest problem that the City currently has. To reach the African American and Filipino communities, the City consultant contacted Nu -Way International Christian Ministries, which serves a mostly Black congregation and the Love of Christ Fellowship, which serves a mostly Filipino congregation. The City also connected with Rancho Community Church and St. Catherine Catholic Church which have ministries to minority groups. June 29, 2016: At the two community meetings on June 29, 2016, participants had the following comments. There was a discussion for the need of accessible sidewalks and the group was excited about the improvements being made with CDBG funds to Old Town. According to the participants, there is a need for another senior center and felt that an intergenerational facility would be important to the residents. This could address the great need for more programs for the teens. Participants pointed out that since most of the Pujol neighborhood needs have been met, the area of greatest need for community facilities and programs is the Margarita corridor, where Eagle Soar, a new community facility, was recently completed to serve the area. There was considerable discussion about the need for support services for families with special needs children. Currently, many of those services are only available in Riverside, which is forty minutes away. They believed that the homelessness need is great in the City. Affordable housing is the greatest need in the City with home prices climbing again. With the demand for housing, it is hard for those who cannot provide all cash in a purchase. This is especially important issue for the increasing senior population who will need care facilities in the future. Job training for local employers is needed. There is an issue with the school district not having the resources to fully fund special education programs. There was a discussion about historic preservation with respect to the Vail Ranch project. The City should look at whether there are any ADA issues at private facilities that could 7 be addressed with CDBG funds. There is a high demand for first time home buyer assistance, especially for off -base military personnel and veterans. A complete summary of the comments is provided in Appendix P. July 30, 2016: At the community meeting on July 30, 2016, the participants had the following comments. They noted that the City has made great strides in addressing the needs of the Pujol community. There is still a need to include an additional bridge on Via Montezuma over the creek from Jefferson to Diaz Road to provide greater access to that side of the community. There was talk about the need for additional centers for teens. There was a discussion about the increased demand for mental health facilities especially for the young people. The expansion of programs for the special needs community seemed to be a recurring theme at the community meetings for the City. There was a discussion for the increased in demand for services for homeless persons and for an additional homeless shelter in the region, and it was suggested that the City consider a zoning change to allow for "tiny houses" for the homeless. Affordable housing is a major problem in the City, so much so that many of the local workforce is priced out of the market. This is exasperated by the fact that the FHA mortgage limits are artificially too low to assist many new homebuyers in Temecula's housing market. Participants in the meeting indicated that any racial/ethnic segregation was likely more of a function of minorities, and particularly immigrants, choosing to locate near family and friends for support. With housing prices increasing beyond many families' income, there are increased instances of multi -generational households. To address this issue, there are several private housing projects, adjacent to Temecula, in unincorporated Riverside County, that provide a large number of bedrooms to multi -generational families. This is believed to especially benefit immigrant families with their assimilation process, who are accustomed to this familial situation. There was discussion about the Temecula Elementary School neighborhood. It is the only Title 1 School in the City and participants thought that the area may be experiencing some problems. A complete summary of the comments is provided in Appendix P. Survey Results: Two surveys were conducted with two purposes in mind. The first was to address fair housing issues and the second was to initiate the five-year consolidated planning process. Some of the consolidated planning process applied to the fair housing assessment and the results are summarized below. (See Appendix M for a summary of the survey results and comments.) While the survey responses were less than anticipated, the results reflected a good cross section of the community. Respondents included residents, various public services sectors, homeless providers, youth and senior services, agencies serving the disabled, AIDS groups, health care, mental health, service providers for the developmentally disabled, real estate and banking industries, affordable housing industry, apartment association, law enforcement, regional government and City officials. The survey revealed that if there is discrimination occurring in the community, most people, whether residents or stakeholders, are unaware that it is occurring. Consultations: In conducting this assessment, the City consulted with a number of stakeholders including meetings on June 3, 2016 with various church groups; June 29, 2016 with Habitat for Humanity; August 3, 2016 with the Southwest Riverside Association of Realtors and Temecula Valley Unified School District; August 5, 2016 with the State Council on Developmental Disabilities and the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County; August 11, 2016 with the Southwest Riverside County Homeless Alliance, Riverside County Continuum of Care, Wells Fargo Bank, and Inland Regional Center; and on August 12, 2016 with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department and on August 15, 2016 with the Riverside County Economic Development Agency and Housing Authority of Riverside County. 0 III. Assessment of Past Goals, Actions and Strategies 1. Indicate what fair housing goals were selected by program participant(s) in recent Analyses of Impediments, Assessments of Fair Housing, or other relevant planning documents: a. Discuss what progress has been made toward their achievement: The Analysis of Impediments identified the following impediments and observations: Observation No 1 — Lack of affordable housing could become a future barrier to housing choice. • Action Item No. 1-1 Continue to diversify housing stock. The City should make a concerted effort to increase the number of affordable rentals located east of 1-15. Progress Made: The City continues to support the development affordable housing. The City issued a request for proposal(s) out for the remaining Tax Allocation Bond proceeds ($12.4 million), which could include more than one site, some of which are located east of 1-15. The request for proposals closed in May 2016. The City received twenty proposals from interested developers. The proposals are currently being reviewed by City staff. Action Item No. 1-2. Address the basic needs of low income households. The City should also use CDBG and other HUD funds it may receive to preserving the safety net for its lowest income households who have difficulty finding affordable rentals and are likely cost burdened and/or at risk of homelessness. This could include supporting homeless shelters, food pantries, emergency assistance programs and social services operations. Progress Made: Since the adoption of the City's previous Analysis of Impediments, the City has focused its CDBG public services funds on addressing its homeless needs as well as those at -risk of becoming homeless by providing assistance to the Inclement Weather Shelter Program, clothing for low income school children, domestic violence services, child care services and assistance to three organizations that provide food services to the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. The City also provides discretionary General Fund moneys to a number of organizations, which are listed in Appendix 1. The City also participates in the Continuum of Care as well as a Southwest Riverside County Regional Homeless Alliance that includes four cities in the region. In addition, the City is providing a home repair and maintenance grant program to low income households administered by Habitat for Humanity. The City has also funded a solar energy installation program for low income homeowners through GRID. The City amended its ordinances to efficiency units housing structures in 2013. The City now allows the use of Section 8 vouchers for those with second units on their property. 10 The City supported retaining the affordability of the Rancho California apartments at the TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) hearing which were at - risk of being converted to market rate rents. Observation No. 2 — Steering may be a fair housing impediment. Action Item 2. Conduct fair housing outreach and education with Temecula's real estate professionals. Progress Made: The City has annually provided CDBG funding to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County for fair housing education, training and enforcement program for low income households. The City also provides fair housing information on its City website and includes referrals to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County for residents and nonprofits. Impediment No. 3 —Zoning regulations could be improved to facilitate affordable housing development. • Action Item 3. The City should clarify the definition of family so that it does not exclude unrelated parties living in group home settings and add congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants to some residential zones. Progress Made: On April 23, 2013, the City adopted Ordinance 13-03 which defined certain housing -related terms, designated zoning districts for residential care facilities, transitional, supportive and efficiency unit housing and established development standards for efficiency unit housing. Included in that ordinance was a change in the definition of family. The City is intending to bring to the City Council an ordinance in 2017 that would establish an Affordable Housing Overlay that will identify sites throughout the City where transitional and supportive housing is allowed by right, identify incentives for affordable and senior housing and establish a density bonus program. This will assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets established by the Southern California Association of Governments. Staff is continuing to encourage opportunities for senior and affordable housing projects throughout the City. In the update of the City's Housing Element, the City committed to taking the following actions to address fair housing: o Provide incentives for affordable housing development o Increase housing options through better definition of both transitional and supportive housing o Provide homebuyer assistance o Subdivide larger sites for development of housing for low-income households. Like all cities in California, the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies has had a major adverse impact in the ability of the City to aggressively accomplish some of 11 its affordable housing goals. As a result, the City's homebuyer program has been put on hold as well as its land assemblage programs. The City has $12.4 million in Tax Allocation Bond proceeds. The City recently issued a request for proposals (RFP) seeking innovative projects that address one or more of the following housing needs: special needs, veterans, seniors, housing first, transitional and supportive housing. Reductions in HUD funding for housing has further limited the City to address these needs. Observation No. 4 — High loan denials in low income area. Action Item No. 4. Invest in low income neighborhoods. The City should invest in community projects in its low income areas. Such investments will mitigate neighborhood deterioration, which is particularly important given the high rates of loan denials in the areas east of 1-15. In addition, public improvements in low- income areas ensure that the amenities offered in these areas are comparable to amenities in higher income areas. Inequality of neighborhood amenities can become a fair housing concern if lower quality neighborhoods predominantly occupied by members of protected classes. Progress Made: The City has focused its CDBG capital funding in CDBG eligible census tracts, including the Pujol neighborhood and Old Town. The City has upgraded Temecula Community Center and parks and is providing sidewalk improvements in those areas. Mixed -income housing developments are transforming this area into a vibrant place to live and work, while maintaining its diversity. Five years ago, the City was coping with a high foreclosure rate as a result of the housing bust of 2007-2008. It was estimated that nearly 15% of the housing stock was bank -owned or in some state of foreclosure. According to Property Radar, there were only 97 bank -owned properties (REO inventory) in the City in May 2016. This was a drop of 22.4% in the past year. Since 2007-2008, housing prices have rebounded and fewer homeowners are under water with their mortgages. According to the Southwest Riverside County Realtor Report published in 2016, the median home price is $436,577 with the average home sale exceeding $500,000 for the first time since December 2007. This indicates that median home prices have increased by 5% in the last 12 months. Compared to 2007 sales price levels, the City is now less than 10% of what it was at its highest levels. While this is good for the homeowner, it can be difficult for the first-time homebuyers to afford homes in Temecula. Nonetheless, home sales have increased by 18% for both April and May of 2016 over 2015 levels. The City evaluated home loans for both mortgages and refinancing. The data revealed that none of the racial or ethnic groups experienced disproportionately lower approval rates, compared to other groups in the City. (See Appendix K for Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data charts.) Observation No. 5 — There is a lack of information and knowledge about fair housing. 12 • Action Item No. 5. Improve access to fair housing information. The City of Temecula should add easy to find fair housing information on its website. It is critical that the City have a link to HUD's complaint -taking website and the State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), where residents may file complaints if they so desire. Progress Made: The City has added information on its website directing residents with fair housing questions to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County website that contains resource links to HUD, DFEH and other legal and regulatory agencies. The City site also provides an explanation of the services provided by the Fair Housing Council. b. Discuss how you have been successful in achieving past goals, and/or how you have fallen short of achieving those goals (including potentially harmful unintended consequences); and As described above, the City has been very successful in achieving its goals. They are reflected in its commitment to address the needs that were identified as well as by the results of the survey. The greatest deterrent in meeting the needs for affordable housing has been the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies by the State of California. This had been the greatest source of funding for cities such as Temecula in addressing its affordable housing needs. c. Discuss any additional policies, actions, or steps that you could take to achieve past goals, or mitigate the problems you have experienced. Without the use of redevelopment funds, the City will be highly dependent upon the limited funds available through the Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and HUD funded programs. The City will continue to pursue affordable housing grant program opportunities and partnerships with nonprofits, county, regional, and State agencies. As mentioned earlier in this Assessment, the City is intending to bring to the City Council an ordinance in 2017 that would establish an Affordable Housing Overlay that will identify sites throughout the City where transitional and supportive housing is allowed by right, identify incentives for affordable and senior housing and establish a density bonus program. This will assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets established by the Southern California Association of Governments. Also previously mentioned, the City issued a request for proposal(s) out for the remaining Tax Allocation Bond proceeds ($12.4 million), which could include more than one site, some of which are located east of 1-15. The request for proposals closed in May 2016. The City received twenty proposals from interested developers. The proposals are currently being reviewed by City staff. d. Discuss how the experience of program participant(s) with past goals has influenced the selection of current goals. Until the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies, the City had an aggressive and effective program in addressing its affordable housing needs. Through the redevelopment program, the City assisted eleven rental projects that provided 588 units for low and moderate income 13 families and individuals. In addition, it provided for 18 owner -occupied housing units. (See Appendix J for a list of the redevelopment projects completed by the City prior to the dissolution of the redevelopment agency.) Current goals are being established as part of this planning process with the understanding that housing and community development resources are scarcer and the development of affordable housing is more challenging. 14 IV. Fair Housing Analvsis A. Demographic Summary 1. Describe demographic patterns in the jurisdiction and region, and describe trends over time (since 1990). In comparing Map 1-Race and Ethnicity 2010 with Map 2-Race and Ethnicity Trends 1990, the City of Temecula has grown substantially in population. Through this period of tremendous growth, the City remains a diverse and integrated community, and there are no significant concentrations of segregation. Table 2-Demographic Trends describes the growth rates during the twenty year period from 1990 to 2010 and provides trends for race/ethnicity, national origin, limited English proficiency, sex, age and families with children. While all racial and ethnic groups, except Native Americans, have increased numerically, Hispanics and Asians have far exceeded the proportionate growth of other racial and ethnic groups. Whites are continuing to increase, but at a slower rate. This is also true for the region as a whole. This trend is also reflected in the percentage of persons from other nations. However, the proportion of those with limited English proficiency has not increased as dramatically as the ethnic populations have, both within the City and in the region as whole. The number families with children in proportion to the general population (and correspondingly those under the age of 18) increased over the twenty year period, but decreased in the last ten years for both the City and region. 2. Describe the location of homeowners and renters in the jurisdiction and region, and describe trends over time. Multi -family areas are located throughout the City particularly along major arterials, in the downtown area and west side of the town. Undeveloped land in the north and south is projected on the General Plan for higher density residential. (See Appendix F for a map of the land use element of the City's adopted General Plan.) B. General Issues i. Seuegation/Integration 1. Analysis a. Describe and compare segregation levels in the jurisdiction and region. Identify the racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of segregation. According to the HUD provided Map 1-Race and Ethnicity, Temecula had no areas of concentrations of racial or ethnic groups. All ethnic groups are spread evenly throughout the City. The City also had no HUD -defined racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP areas). Local knowledge confirmed this observation. Map 2 shows no appreciable difference from 1990. This is also confirmed with Table 3-Racial and Ethnicity Dissimilarity Trends. According to HUD, if a jurisdiction has an Index value of less than 40, there is high 15 diversity (low segregation) in the City. The City has a score between 18.93 and 26.05 for the various racial and ethnic groups. Likewise, Map 3-National Origin shows no segregation pattern based on national origin. The top five population groups are spread evenly throughout the City, showing the City's diversity and high integration. In comparing the City with the region from Table 2-Demographic Trends, the percentage of Blacks and Hispanics is about half that in the region. There are more Whites and Asians in Temecula than the regional average. Twenty-two percent of the City's Hispanics were born in Mexico compared to 27% for the region based on calculation of figures in Table 1. Eighty-nine percent of the Hispanic immigrants are Limited English Proficiency (LEP). This is roughly the same as for the region. There was a significant increase in the percentage of foreign born over the past twenty years, but the percentage of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons remained about the same, even though their population increased. Although only 3% of the population, 40% of Filipinos are LEPs, compared to 27% region -wide. According to Map 4-Persons with LEP, their populations are spread evenly across the City. According to Table 1, the largest disabled population are those who are ambulatory (3.83%), followed by those with cognitive difficulty (3.54%), independent living difficulty (2.90%) and those with hearing loss (2.67%). There is probably considerable overlap in these populations. According to Table 1, eight percent of the City's population is seniors compared to 10.4% region -wide. Fifty-six percent of the households are families with children compared to 51% region -wide. While all age groups increased in population, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of children and an increase in those of middle age. That could further be seen in a decrease in the proportion of families with children, even though it remains higher than the regional percentages. b. Explain how these segregation levels have changed over time (since 1990). According to Table 2-Demographic Trends, racial and ethnic diversity has increased dramatically in the City over the past twenty years. Except Native Americans, the population of all racial and ethnic groups has grown; however, the Hispanic and Asian populations have increased at a much faster rate than the other population groups. Hispanics have increased from 14.5% to 25% of the population and Asians / Pacific Islanders from 2.40% to 9.71%. Despite an increase in population of over 28,000 in twenty years, the proportion of Whites has decreased from 80.23% in 1990 to 57% in 2010. Blacks have increased at a less dramatic rate from 1.3% to 4% from 1990 to 2010, but showed a slight decline percentagewise from 4.16% in 2000 to 3.88% in 2010, even though their population increased. While Native Americans constitute only .6% of the population, they were the only ethnic group to show a decrease in population between 2000 and 2010. Through the tremendous growth in populations, Table 3 demonstrates that the Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index range was still between 18.93 and 26.05, well below the HUD threshold of 40, meaning there is minimal segregation and high 16 integration within the City. This compares to a range between 41.29 and 47.66 for the region. c. Identify areas with relatively high segregation and integration by race/ethnicity, national origin, or LEP group, and indicate the predominant groups living in each area. According to Maps 1 through 4 pertaining to racial and ethnic data and dissimilarity indexes, there are no patterns of segregation by race and ethnicity, national origin or LEP groups in the City. d. Consider and describe the location of owner and renter occupied housing in determining whether such housing is located in segregated or integrated areas. Based on the above discussion, there are no patterns of segregation in the City by race, ethnicity, national origin or LEP. The majority of multi -family residential is located in areas with easy access to transit systems and employment centers throughout the City. e. Discuss how patterns of segregation have changed over time (since 1990). There has been little change in segregation patterns over the last twenty years even though the City has grown dramatically during that period. The City has no patterns of segregation. f. Discuss whether there are any demographic trends, policies, or practices that could lead to higher segregation in the jurisdiction in the future. Based upon data in Table 2, the trend is that the City is becoming increasingly diverse as it has grown over the last twenty years. This is in line with trends throughout the region. Maps 1 and 2 do not reveal trends of segregation patterns forming within the City as a result of the growth. 2. Additional Information a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about segregation in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics. Information gathered from community meetings and surveys along with data sources provided stakeholders did not provide any information that segregation exists in the City affecting other protected characteristics was provided through stakeholder consultations. Workshop participants also concluded that the City is highly diverse. The region does have higher scores than the City, indicating a very diverse and integrated population, but as mentioned in the introduction, the region represents the largest MSA in the nation. 17 b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of segregation, including activities such as place -based investments and mobility options for protected class groups. CDBG funds have been focused on the needs of the City's CDBG eligible census tracts. Public services and housing programs have been focused on the CDBG eligible areas of the City. (See Appendix F for the location of the CDBG eligible areas.) 3. Contributing Factors of Segregation Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of segregation. ❑ Community Opposition ❑ Displacement of residents due to economic pressures ❑ Lack of community revitalization strategies ❑ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods ❑ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities ❑ Lack of regional cooperation ❑ Land use and zoning laws ❑ Lending Discrimination ❑ Location and type of affordable housing ❑ Occupancy codes and restrictions ❑ Private discrimination © Other: There are no patterns in the City. ii. R/ECAPs 1. Analysis a. Identify any R/ECAPs or groupings of RECAP tracts within the jurisdiction. HUD data and mapping does not identify any R/ECAPs within the City. b. Which protected classes disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs compared to the jurisdiction and region? N/A c. Describe how R/ECAPs have changed over time (since 1990). N/A 2. Additional Information a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about R/ECAPs in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics. 18 N/A b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of R/ECAPs, including activities such as place -based investments and mobility options for protected class groups. N/A 3. Contributing Factors of R/ECAPs Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of R/ECAPs. ❑ Community Opposition ❑ Displacement of residents due to economic pressures ❑ Lack of community revitalization strategies ❑ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods ❑ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities ❑ Lack of regional cooperation ❑ Land use and zoning laws ❑ Lending Discrimination ❑ Location and type of affordable housing ❑ Occupancy codes and restrictions ❑ Private discrimination X❑ Other: Not Applicable. HUD data and mapping does not identify any R/ECAPs within the City. iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity 1. Analysis a. Educational Opportunities i. Describe any disparities in access to proficient schools based on race/ethnicity, national origin, and family status. The City does not have jurisdiction over the local schools. They are administered by independent public school districts, such as the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Table 12 - Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity provides an index regarding how well fourth graders of the various racial and ethnic groups are doing on their State exams in comparison with national indices. Higher scores indicate higher proficiencies in the schools. According to Table 12, the school proficiency index is essentially the same for all races and ethnic groups in the City. On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the highest, Hispanics scored 79.00, Blacks at 80.36, Native Americans at 80.86, 19 Asians at 81.58 and Whites at 82.20. In comparison, the region scored between 40.97 for Hispanics on the low end and 58.09 for Whites on the high end. The City has one Title 1 school (Temecula Elementary School) in the northern end of the City. A school is a Title 1 School if at least 40% of the children participate in a free or reduced lunch program. The school is located in one of the City's CDBG eligible areas. There are no Title 1 Middle Schools or High Schools in the City. The school district has a policy that parents can transfer their children from school to school subject to availability. Parents would responsible for providing transportation to the new school. Public transportation is available, although it may be limited based on the location of the school from their place of residence. ii. Describe the relationship between the residency patterns of racial/ethnic, national origin, and family status groups and their proximity to proficient schools. There is no difference in the school proficiency index Citywide between the higher income households and those populations below the poverty line; however, there is some difference in scores between some of the schools in the higher income areas and one school in a lower income area in the northwest part of the City. This can be found on Map 9 Demographics and School Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity, National Origin and Family Status. The lower income area is predominately Whites along with some Mexican, Korean, and Filipino immigrants. The Temecula Elementary School is located in this neighborhood. iii. Describe how school -related policies, such as school enrollment policies, affect a student's ability to attend a proficient school. Which protected class groups are least successful in accessing proficient schools? The City does not have jurisdiction over the public schools. However, all protected classes Citywide are performing at above regional levels as discussed above and there is virtually no difference between the various racial groups. The school district has a policy that parents can transfer their children from school to school subject to availability. Parents would be responsible for providing transportation to the new school. Public transportation is available, although it may be limited based on the location of the school from their place of residence. b. Employment Opportunities i. Describe any disparities in access to jobs and labor markets by protected class groups. The Jobs Proximity Index in Table 12-Opportunity Indicators provides an index for the physical distances between place of residence and jobs by race/ethnicity. The Labor Market Index also in Table 12 provides a measure of unemployment 20 rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor's degree, by neighborhood. The higher scores represent greater the access to employment opportunities, and are better prepared to enter the labor market with higher incomes. According to the Map 10 series for Job Proximities, persons in the lower -income areas live substantially closer to employment opportunities than their counterparts in the higher -income areas, often located farther away from the Interstate. Again, there was little difference between racial and ethnic groups or national origin according to Map 10 and Table 12 for Job Proximity. The Labor Market Index for the various races and ethnicities range from 46.38 for Native Americans to 49.79 for Whites. These scores, which are based on a scale from 1 to 100, would be in the average range based on HUD's perspective nationwide. There was no difference between the City as a whole and those below the poverty line. In fact, all races except Asians who were below the poverty line had slightly higher scores than those above the poverty level. They ranged between 44.15 for Asians and 51.31 for Blacks with Whites at 48.79. When compared with the region, the City residents scored much higher. The region ranged from 24.20 for Hispanics to 43.02 for Asians and unlike the City, there was a substantial difference for those below the poverty line. They ranged from 16.42 for Hispanics to 30.51 for Asians. Whites were at 25.55. Although some classes are available locally, the lack of a community college in Temecula in 2010 is probably part of the reason for this deficiency. However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula, including Cal State San Marcos at Temecula, University of Redlands, Concordia University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would likely show an improvement in job readiness of the labor market. Other areas in the region have notably higher ratings such as in the vicinity of UC Riverside, Cal State San Bernardino and Redlands College in the north and in Orange County to the west. ii. How does a person's place of residence affect their ability to obtain a job? According to Map 11 Labor Market Engagement, those living in the high income areas have a greater labor -force participation rate than those who are living in the lower income areas. The Job Proximity Index on Table 12 demonstrates virtually no difference between racial and ethnic groups, ranging from 43.37 for Asians on the low end to 44.36 for Hispanics on the upper end. There was a wider range for those below the poverty line. They ranged from 39.32 for Native Americans to 57.42 for Asians. Except for Native Americans, all their scores exceeded the counterparts who were above the poverty line. There was no substantial difference between the City and the region for these indices. Which racial/ethnic, national origin, or family status groups are least successful in accessing employment? 21 There was no appreciable difference between the various groups. c. Transportation Opportunities i. Describe any disparities in access to transportation based on place of residence, cost, or other transportation related factors. The Transportation Cost Index in Table 12 provides an index regarding the cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation. The score for this index was the only index where the City fared lower than the region. The low scores indicate that the City needs to improve access to public transportation, however low transportation costs are a challenge to the entire region, and are not just limited to City boundaries. According to Map 12-Demographics and Transit Trips and Map 13- Demographics and Low Transportation Costs, the lower -income areas had the highest scores, indicating that lower income residents have greater usage of public transportation than the higher income residents. This would be expected since the lower income persons are more dependent upon public transportation. The scores in Table 12 ranged from 18.10 for Native Americans and 19.98 for Whites to 25.05 for Hispanics. The scores for those below the poverty line have greater usage of public transportation as well, but higher than those who are above the poverty level. They ranged from 24.93 for Whites to 3 5. 10 for Asians. The exception is that Native Americans had a low score at 15.77. The reason for that anomaly is unclear. There is one area in the north that has a low usage of public transportation. This is Census Tract 432.17 known as the Meadowview neighborhood. It is not an eligible CDBG area, because its median income is too high. It is also an area, as shown in Map 11, with a higher than average labor market engagement. This would indicate that there is not a great of a need for public transportation in that particular area. The scores for the region were low, from 25.75 to 32.68 for the region as a whole; and 29.20 to 37.05 for those populations below the poverty line; however, somewhat higher than for the City for racial and ethnic groups. ii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups are most affected by the lack of a reliable, affordable transportation connection between their place of residence and opportunities? Except for Native Americans below the poverty line, there was no difference with the various protected class groups with access to low cost transportation. The reason for the anomaly is unclear. iii. Describe how the jurisdiction's and region's policies, such as public transportation routes or transportation systems designed for use personal vehicles, affect the ability of protected class groups to access transportation. Public transportation is provided by the Riverside Transit Agency and is not under the authority of the City. However, the City is served by several bus 22 lines that provide service throughout the week and weekends. (See Appendix H for a map showing the service provided to the community.) As it has done in the past, the City will continue to partner with developers to privately fund transportation options as development occurs. d. Low Poverty Exposure Opportunities i. Describe any disparities in exposure to poverty by protected class groups. The Low Poverty Index rates family poverty by household (based on the federal poverty line) provides an index regarding the access to poverty by census tract. The higher the scores, the less likely a neighborhood is exposed to poverty. There was little difference between the various ethnic and racial groups. Indices ranged from 65.42 for Hispanics to 71.23 for Whites, which indicates that all racial and ethnic groups have low exposure to poverty in Temecula. Except for Asians, there was little difference between those below the poverty line. They ranged for 54.98 for Blacks to 67.95 for Native Americans. The only anomaly was for Asians at 46.21 who were more exposed to poverty than their counterparts. This could be reflective of recent Filipino immigrants which now constitute over 3% of the City's population and 40% are limited English speaking according to Table 1. Though a small minority group, there are a number living in a low income area. Again, there was a substantial difference between the City residents and those within the region. In the region, the range was between 37.51 for Hispanics to 60.42 for Asians. For those below the poverty line, there was even a larger difference. They ranged from 23.78 for Hispanics to 42.30 for Asians. City residents have less exposure to poverty than the region as a whole. ii. What role does a person's place of residence play in their exposure to poverty? According to Map 14-Demographics and Poverty, there were three adjoining census tracts in north Temecula that had low scores indicating a higher exposure to poverty. Three of the census tracts are CDBG eligible lower -income areas, but one of the adjoining areas is not, yet affected by its exposure to poverty. Another adjoining area is an eligible CDBG area but did not indicate a high exposure to poverty. The area has a number of market -rate and subsidized apartment complexes in the vicinity of the Temecula Elementary School, which may be affecting this index score. The corridor also contains many of the City's commercial shopping centers. iii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups are most affected by these poverty indicators? There is not a substantial difference among the groups, except for Asians below the poverty line. This group may include recent immigrants from the Philippines, some of which have limited English proficiency. 23 iv. Describe how the jurisdiction's and region's policies affect the ability of protected class groups to access low poverty areas. The City has adopted land use policies concentrating multi -family housing projects along major arterials, shopping, employment centers, and recreational facilities. This allows lower income persons easier access to opportunities; but at the same time, concentration of multi -family housing may statistically increase residents' exposure to poverty. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) represents six counties in the southern California area, which includes Temecula and Riverside County. In an effort to meet the affordable housing needs of the region and distribute this need evenly across the region, SCAG has provided Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets for creating a certain number of affordable housing units in every city in the region. The City's goal is to provide housing for 375 very low income households and 251 low income households. The City is using its available resources and the Affordable Housing Overlay to meet those targeted amounts. e. Environmentally Healthy Neighborhood Opportunities i. Describe any disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups. The Environmental Health Index measures exposure based on EPA estimates of air quality carcinogenic, respiratory and neurological toxins by neighborhood. The higher the scores, the less likely households are exposed to adverse environmental conditions. According to Table 12 Environmental Health Index, there was virtually no difference between the racial/ethnic groups with ranges from 39.99 to 40.42. For those below the poverty line, the range was similar with a range from 38.06 to 40.93. This means that in this category, all City's racial/ethnic population groups and income groups are slightly below the national average in their exposure to environmental issues. The City scored somewhat better than the region where the scores ranged from 26.57 to 41.33 and for those below the poverty line, ranging from 24.89 to 40.58. The wide scoring range for the region would reflect the enormous size of the region. The areas with the greatest exposure to environmental health concerns are located along the freeway. Temecula's exposure to environmental health issues is lower than the region, on average. ii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups have the least access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods? According to Map 15-Demographics and Environmental Health and Race/Ethnicity, there was one area east of the Interstate, north of Temecula Parkway, west of Margarita Road and south of Pauba that had a low environmental score in this category, but there was no concentration of any of the protected groups in that area. The only distinguishing feature was that there were 24 few households with families in that area. The Temecula Valley Hospital is located in that area. f. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity i. Identify and discuss any overarching patterns of access to opportunity and exposure to adverse community factors based on race/ethnicity, national origin or familial status. Identify areas that experience an aggregate of poor access to opportunity and high exposure to adverse factors. Include how these patterns compare to patterns of segregation and R/ECAPs. Analysis of the HUD -provided maps and data did not reveal any overarching patterns of poor access to opportunity and did not reveal adverse community factors. However, Census Tract 432.16 along the Margarita Corridor, is identified on Map 14 as having high exposure to poverty. Two of the three block groups are in CDBG-eligible areas and the third is not. Yet the HUD data indicates that the third block group also has a high exposure to poverty. The only Title 1 School in the district is located in this neighborhood. The area is characterized by commercial retail and uses and the presences of a mix of multi- family and single family housing. Two of the multi -family complexes in one of the block groups are subsidized, the 40-unit Oak Tree Apartments on Lyndie Lane and the 55 unit Rancho California Apartments off of Margarita Road. There are a number of subsidized units west of Interstate 15, which is a CDBG- eligible area, but that area does not have a high exposure factor. This could be partly because the City has focused its CDBG and local funds in addressing this area. The City does not show any patterns of segregation, nor does it have any RECAPS. 2. Additional Information a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about disparities in access to opportunity in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics. Consultations with residents and stakeholders confirmed the HUD -provided information regarding the lack of disparities in access to opportunity in Temecula affecting groups with other protected characteristics. b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of disparities in access to opportunity, including any activities aimed at improving access to opportunities for areas that may lack such access, or in promoting access to opportunity (e.g., proficient schools, employment opportunities, and transportation). Consultations with residents and stakeholders confirmed the HUD -provided information regarding the lack of disparities in access to opportunity in Temecula affecting groups with other protected characteristics. 25 The City is involved in a number of efforts aimed at improving air quality of the entire region including the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Clean Cities Coalition, which aims to reduce the consumption of petroleum fuels. The City also participates in WRCOG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The TUMF program makes improvements to the regional transportation system and provides transportation demand management through funds from new development. 3. Contributing Factors of Disparities in Access to Opportunity Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of disparities in access to opportunity. ❑ Access to financial services ❑ The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation ❑ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods ❑ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities ❑ Lack of regional cooperation ❑ Land use and zoning laws ❑ Lending Discrimination ❑ Location of employers ❑ Location of environmental health hazards ❑ Location of proficient schools and school assignment policies ❑ Location and type of affordable housing ❑ Occupancy codes and restrictions ❑ Private discrimination © Other: None of the maps and tables provided by HUD, nor our consultations with residents and stakeholders, revealed any significant disparities in access opportunities. iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs 1. Analysis a. Which groups (by race/ethnicity and family status) experience higher rates of housing cost burden, overcrowding, or substandard housing when compared to other groups? Which groups also experience higher rates of severe housing burdens when compared to other groups? HUD requires all grantees to compare and assess the burdens for housing for different groups in the community. A disproportionately greater burden exists when the members of a particular group experience a housing problem at a greater rate (90 percent or more) than the group as a whole. Table 9-Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs shows the percentage of race/ethnicity groups and families with children experiencing two potential categories of housing burden. The first category is households experiencing one of four housing problems: 26 ■ Housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 30% of income for monthly housing costs including utilities) ■ Overcrowding ■ Lacking a complete kitchen ■ Lacking plumbing The second category is households experiencing "one of four severe housing problems" which are: ■ Severe housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 50% of one's income for monthly housing costs including utilities) ■ Overcrowding ■ Lacking a complete kitchen ■ Lacking plumbing Table 10-Demographics of Household with Severe Housing Cost Burden demonstrates the number and percentage of persons by race/ethnicity and family size experiencing severe housing cost burden. There is no substantial difference between racial and ethnic groups. Non -family households demonstrated the highest cost burdens. The City scores are reflective of the region. According to Table 9, half of the City's households are experiencing one of the four housing problems identified above. There is a disparity in this category with 47.37% of the White households experiencing a housing problem, Asians at 54.31% and Blacks at 55.04%. Hispanics are higher at 62.24% and Native Americans at 80.90%. For severe housing problems, they range from 20.76% for White households to 35.56% for Hispanic households. Native Americans were at 33.71%. Map 5 - Publicly Supported Housing and Map 6 - Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) provides the location of the limited number of publicly supported and HVC housing units in the City. Given the housing costs in the City and the region, there is a high demand for affordable rental housing. While comparable with the region, all households, except Black households, were slightly more burdened in the City than in the region. For those below the poverty level, all groups, except for Native Americans, were less burdened in the City than in the region. Based on our examination of the data in Table 9 and demonstrated in Map 7-Housing Cost Burden and Race/Ethnicity, there were no disproportionate housing problems based on race, ethnicity, national origin, household type and size. These results are not unexpected with the high costs of housing in Southern California as a whole. 27 b. Which areas in the jurisdiction and region experience the greatest housing burdens? Which of these areas align with segregated areas, integrated areas, or R/ECAPs and what are the predominant race/ethnicity or national origin groups in such areas? There are no R/ECAPS in the City. While mostly uniform throughout the City, the greatest housing burden appears to be in the far north and adjacent to it in the wealthier parts of the City. In the lower -income neighborhoods, there is much less of a housing burden. According to Map 7-Housing Cost Burden, the greatest housing burdens are in the Temecula Elementary School neighborhood which has a concentration of apartments on the far north, indicating the need for affordable rental housing. While there are two subsidized housing projects in the area, which should lower the housing burden scores, there are also several market -rate apartment complexes as well. c. Compare the needs of families with children for housing units with two, and three or more bedrooms with the available existing housing stock in each category of publicly supported housing. Based on the data in the Table 11, there are a limited number of Project Based Section 8 units for families in the City. There are 54 two- and three -bedroom units and only 36 units are households with children. There are also a limited number of Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) units where there are 30 two- and three -bedroom units and only thirteen units are households with children. Additional affordable housing units for families continue to be a high demand in the City. d. Describe the differences in rates of renter and owner occupied housing by race/ethnicity in the jurisdiction and region. For the City, 67% of the households are owner -occupied and 33% are renter occupied. While general conclusions may be drawn, the data was not provided by HUD and is not available at the local level by tenure. It is evident that there continues to be a high demand for Section 8 vouchers due to the housing cost burden experienced by renters. 2. Additional Information a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about disproportionate housing needs in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics. Based on a consultation with Inland Regional Center, and feedback from the community workshops, there is a large need in the region for affordable housing for adults with developmental disabilities. According to the Center, there are 651 persons with developmental disabilities in the three zip codes (92590, 92591 and 92592) that comprise the Temecula area. Some of these include large rural areas outside the City and it is believed that at least 200 of these individuals live outside the City limits. Regionally, many of those who independently live in group homes face substandard conditions, according to Inland Regional Center. However, they 28 indicate that this is not an issue within the City. The greatest demand is for studio and one -bedroom units for those with low and moderate disabilities. In addition, there is a growing number of families for families with autistic children in the community. The stress on families with autistic children is creating a demand for housing single parent units. Often there is more than one child with autism in the home creating the demand for larger three and four bedroom units. Children with autism require housing units to address their sensory needs, such as dimmer lights and controls on hot water faucets. Inland Regional Center also advised that these units not be concentrated in a single complex so that integration of these families can be achieved. The City has met with developers regarding the needs of residents with special needs. Some developers are willing to include options in the construction of new homes that meet the sensory needs of residents with disabilities. b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of disproportionate housing needs. For PHAs, such information may include a PHA's overriding housing needs analysis. The City does not manage any public housing projects. 3. Contributing Factors of Disproportionate Housing Needs Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of disproportionate housing needs. ® The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes ❑ Displacement of residents due to economic pressures ❑ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods ❑ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities ❑ Land use and zoning laws ❑ Lending Discrimination ® Other: Increased demand of affordable housing with supportive services to serve special needs populations. C. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis 1. Analysis a. Publicly Supported Housing Demographics i. Are certain racial/ethnic groups more likely to be residing in one category of publicly supported housing than other categories (public housing, project -based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments, and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV))? 29 Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be living in Project -based Section 8 housing units than reflective of the overall City percentages for these racial and ethnic groups. According to the Housing Authority, there are 109 households receiving Tenant -based Section 8 vouchers in Temecula. Ninety are White, seventeen are Black, one is Asian, and one is Native American. Of the 109, 30 are Hispanic and 79 are non -Hispanic. Eighty five (85) are one person households and the rest are families. Seventy-six (76) are elderly and 53 have disabilities. The households are spread across the City with 47 households are in zip code 92590; 51 in 92591 and 11 in 92592. ii. Compare the demographics, in terms of protected class, of residents of each category of publicly supported housing (public housing, project -based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments, and HCV) to the population in general, and persons who meet the income eligibility requirements for the relevant category of publicly supported housing. Include in the comparison, a description of whether there is a higher or lower proportion of groups based on protected class. According to Table 6-Publicly Supported Housing Residents by Race/Ethnicity, the HCV program (better known as the Tenant Based Section 8) generally reflects the population composition of the City, with the exception of Asians. There are 57% White, 16% Black, 27% Hispanic, but no Asians receive vouchers. It should be noted that Asians do not comprise a large percentage within the City's Section 8 population. There are a greater proportion of Blacks and Hispanics taking advantage of the Project -Based Section 8 program than the general population of the City. Only 37.04% of the residents were White with 20.37% Black and 40.74% Hispanic. Most of the units are occupied by those with incomes less than 30% of the County's median income. According to the Housing Authority of Riverside County, there are 109 tenant -based Section 8 rental assistance vouchers in Temecula. Seventy-six of the households are elderly and 53 have disabilities. Some of the households are elderly and have disabilities. b. Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy i. Describe patterns in the geographic location of publicly supported housing by program category (public housing, project -based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments, HCV, and LIHTC) in relation to previously discussed segregated areas and R/ECAPs. There are no R/ECAPs or segregated areas in the City. Most of the publicly supportive housing units are located near employment centers and transportation opportunities. ii. Describe patterns in the geographic location for publicly supported housing that primarily serves families with children, elderly persons, or persons with disabilities in relation to previously discussed segregated areas or R/ECAPs? 30 There are no R/ECAPs or segregated areas in the City. iii. How does the demographic composition of occupants of publicly supported housing in RECAPS compare to the demographic composition of occupants of publicly supported housing outside of R/ECAPs? N/A iv. (A) Do any developments of public housing, properties converted under the RAD, and LIHTC developments have a significantly different demographic composition, in terms of protected class, than other developments of the same category? Describe how these developments differ. Black populations have a greater proportion living in public housing than the general population of the City, while Asians have a lower percentage. But with the limited number of units available in the City, it is not believed that these differences are considered significant. (B) Provide additional relevant information, if any, about occupancy, by protected class, in other types of publicly supported housing. No additional data is available. v. Compare the demographics of occupants of developments, for each category of publicly supported housing (public housing, project -based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments, properties converted under RAD, and LIHTC) to the demographic composition of the areas in which they are located. Describe whether developments that are primarily occupied by one race/ethnicity are located in areas occupied largely by the same race/ethnicity. Describe any differences for housing that primarily serves families with children, elderly persons, or persons with disabilities. All races except Asians are represented in the HUD and LIHTC developments. Black populations have a higher percentage living in publicly supported units compared to the general population of the City. But with the limited number of units available in the City, it is not believed that these differences are considered significant. c. Disparities in Access to Opportunity i. Describe any disparities in access to opportunity for residents of publicly supported housing, including within different program categories (public housing, project -based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted Developments, HCV, and LIHTC) and between types (housing primarily serving families with children, elderly persons, and persons with disabilities) of publicly supported housing. 31 According to the HUD supplied data, there were no significant disparities in access to opportunity for residents in publicly supported housing. Anecdotal information gathered through the consultation and stakeholders meetings confirm this. 2. Additional Information a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about publicly supported housing in the jurisdiction and region, particularly information about groups with other protected characteristics and about housing not captured in the HUD -provided data. Consultations with residents and stakeholders did not reveal other information to disparities in publicly -supported housing in Temecula affecting groups. b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of publicly supported housing. Information may include relevant programs, actions, or activities, such as tenant self-sufficiency, place -based investments, or mobility programs. According to the Housing Authority of Riverside County, there are 109 tenant - based Section 8 rental assistance vouchers in Temecula. Seventy-six of the households are elderly and 53 have disabilities. Some of the elderly are also disabled. 3. Contributing Factors of Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues related to publicly supported housing, including Segregation, RECAPS, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each contributing factor that is significant, note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor relates to. Consultations with residents and stakeholders did not reveal other information to disparities in access to opportunity in Temecula and the region affecting groups with other protected characteristics. ❑ Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing ❑ Land use and zoning laws ❑ Community opposition ❑ Impediments to mobility ❑ Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods ❑ Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods, including services and amenities ❑ Lack of regional cooperation ❑ Occupancy codes and restrictions ❑ Quality of affordable housing information programs 32 ❑ Siting selection policies, practices and decisions for publicly supported housing, including discretionary aspects of Qualified Allocation Plans and other programs ❑ Source of income discrimination ® Other: High demand for affordable housing, due to the high housing costs in the community and the region D. Disability and Access Analysis 1. Population Profile a. How are persons with disabilities geographically dispersed or concentrated in the jurisdiction and region, including R/ECAPs and other segregated areas identified in previous sections? There are no R/ECAPs or segregated areas in the City. According to Map 16- Disability by Type and Map 17-Disability by Age Group demonstrating the location where the persons with disabilities live, persons with disabilities are scattered throughout the City. There are 53 households with persons with disabilities that receive tenant -based rental assistance. Their addresses are confidential. b. Describe whether these geographic patterns vary for persons with each type of disability or for persons with disabilities in different age ranges. There is no difference in the geographic patterns for persons with disabilities. 2. Housing Accessibility a. Describe whether the jurisdiction and region have sufficient affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes. Data is not available for the total number of accessible units; however, 33% of the City's occupied housing units were built after 2000, according to the 2008- 2012 American Community Survey five year estimates, suggesting that a number of units are adaptable based on California Building Codes in effect during those years. b. Describe the areas where affordable accessible housing units are located. Do they align with R/ECAPs or other areas that are segregated? There are no R/ECAPs in the City and the HUD data did not reveal any areas that were segregated. c. To what extent are persons with different disabilities able to access and live in the different categories of publicly supported housing? According to the Housing Authority, their programs have a Reasonable Accommodation Process to assure that all persons with disabilities are provided with reasonable accommodations for equal access to housing programs. That includes regulations regarding live-in aide and changes in voucher size. 33 3. Integration of Persons with Disabilities Living in Institutions and Other Segregated Settings a. To what extent do persons with disabilities in or from the jurisdiction or region reside in segregated or integrated settings? There are five licensed developmentally disabled adult residential (18-59) facilities within the City or in unincorporated Riverside County. There are 26 beds provided in these facilities. Additional facilities provide day services but would not be considered as institutional settings. Despite these facilities, there are not concentrations of persons with disabilities within the City, according to the Map 16 — Disability by Type. b. Describe the range of options for persons with disabilities to access affordable housing and supportive services. As mentioned above, based on a consultation with Inland Regional Center, there is a large need in the region for affordable housing for the developmentally disabled adults. According to the Center, there are 651 persons with developmental disabilities in the three zip codes (92590, 92591 and 92592) that comprise the Temecula area. Some of these include large rural areas outside the City and it is believed that at least 200 of these individuals live outside the City limits. Regionally, many of these adults independently live in group homes, or face substandard conditions, according to the Inland Regional Center. However, none of those homes are located in the City. The greatest demand is for studio and one -bedroom units for those with low and moderate delays. In addition, there is a growing population of for families with children with autism. The stress on families with children with autism is creating a demand for housing units with additional bedrooms. Children with autism require housing units to address sensory needs such as dimmer lights and controls on hot water faucets. Mr. Toms also advised that these units not be concentrated in a single complex so that integration of these families can be achieved. The City of Temecula employs an inclusion program specialist in the Human Services Division of the Community Services Department. The City has pioneered a progressive program called "High Hopes" that provides recreation programs for adults and children with developmental disabilities. They offer a wide variety of recreation, enrichment and vocational programs that are geared toward those with specific needs of individuals with disabilities. They not only serve those within the City of Temecula, but the program is so popular that people drive their family members more than two hours away to participate in the inclusionary programs. In addition to a City staff inclusion specialist, the City has developed a webpage that provides parents, caregivers and individuals with a list of local resources in the community. The Human Services Resource Guide includes information on local resources that serve special needs, aging adults and military, limited income, and at - risk youth/families and much more. The site also provides the phone number of the City staff person who can provide additional assistance. The City also has a Facebook page for the "Family First" program that connects people with special needs. 34 The website for the guide is located here: hqp://www.ciiyoftemecula.or /Temecula/Residents/Youth/Human+Services+Resour ce+Guide.htm In addition there are a number of other programs in the area designed for persons with special needs. They include the following in the Temecula-Murrieta area: • Top Soccer: Temecula • Up H.O.P.E: Temecula, Horseback riding. • Kindermusik: Temecula, Music program • High Hopes: Temecula, Performing arts. Singing, dance, photography, and more. Older teens and adults. • My Gym (Capp's Kids): Murrieta • S.C.E.G.: Temecula. Gymnastics, special needs friendly. • Actors Unlimited: Temecula. Performing Arts • Cal Oaks Pool: Murrieta. Summer swim lessons sponsored by the Special Olympics. • Baseball: Murrieta. • Musicians Workshop: Temecula. http://www.musiciansworkshop.org Guitar, choir, orchestra. • Pump it Up/Fun Zone: Murrieta. • Sensory Time: Murrieta. Child Play Center. http://www.sensoWimecenter.com Periodically, Building and Safety holds workshops for the construction industry to discuss changes in the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements. The last workshop was held on March 1, 2015. 4. Disparities in Access to Opportunity a. To what extent are persons with disabilities able to access the following? Identify major barriers faced concerning: i. Government services and facilities: City Hall and other City facilities are fully accessible to persons with disabilities. The City needs to adopt an ADA Transition Plan to identify if there are any remaining ADA needs at other public facilities. ii. Public infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, pedestrian signals): Many of the City's sidewalks and intersections are ADA compliant and where there are existing needs, the City is addressing them in conjunction with other construction projects. The City is currently constructing segments of missing sidewalks in Old Town, which can be an impediment to residents accessing City services, the neighborhood park, and the neighborhood grocery store. The City intends to replace wooden sidewalks along Old Town Front Street, removing an impediment to seniors and those with disabilities. The City is at the forefront in the region in terms of addressing the recreational needs of those persons with physical disabilities. The City recently completed the construction of the Eagle Soar Playground and Splash Pad at Margarita Park. The 35 purpose of the park is to be inclusive and accessible in addressing the unique needs of children with and without disabilities. A description of this popular program is included as Appendix N. The City continues to upgrade its infrastructure to address the physical barriers of persons with disabilities. Nearly all of the intersections along major streets have accessible ramps. Whenever there are improvements made to an intersection, the intersection is upgraded to address the needs of residents with vision impairments. iii. Transportation: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) has accessibility ramps on their buses. RTA also provides a Dial -A -Ride program designed to meet the needs of those with disabilities. Fares are significantly reduced for the elderly and persons with disabilities. According to the RTA Short Range Transit Plan 2014- 2016, "All RTA vehicles comply with clean fuel policies and come fully equipped with ADA accessible wheelchair lifts, including the paratransit vans. In addition, all fixed route vehicles are equipped with bicycle racks." According to the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, the greatest problem with the Dial -A -Ride programs is that persons cannot depend upon these services for timely pickups. iv. Proficient schools and educational programs: The City does not have jurisdiction over the school district, and thus has limited influence on its programming. There was a lawsuit claiming that the Temecula Valley Unified School District discriminated against special education students at Vail Ranch Middle School by denying them instruction in social studies and sciences, instead doubling up on math and English classes. They doubled up on math and English classes instead. The case determined that the School District cannot discriminate against those with disabilities. Their situation has been corrected. v. Jobs: According to the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, the greatest priority in California is providing meaningful jobs that are not below the minimum wage for those working adults with disabilities. It was originally thought that it was acceptable to provide less that minimum wage to give persons with disabilities access to jobs; however, research has found this leads to employer abuse. There are now steps to being taken to change this practice at the State level by introducing legislation. The City's Office of Economic Development and Community Services Department have an annual internship program for teenagers and adults with special needs and developmental disabilities to learn valuable job skills and lead them on the path towards self- sufficiency. b. Describe the processes that exist in the jurisdiction and region for persons with disabilities to request and obtain reasonable accommodations and accessibility modifications to address the barriers discussed above. The City is in compliance with State and federal law with respect to its ordinance providing reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. In addition to information provided elsewhere in this assessment, the City has adopted a reasonable accommodation ordinance to provide exceptions in zoning and land use for housing persons with disabilities. The City annually evaluates constraints on development, maintenance, and improvement to housing for persons with disabilities, including the review of land use controls, permit procedures, and building codes for the development of housing for persons with disabilities. 36 c. Describe any difficulties in achieving homeownership experienced by persons with disabilities and by persons with different types of disabilities. Affordable housing is an issue for most segments of the community, but it is especially a challenge for persons with disabilities. According to Inland Regional Center, the demand for affordable housing is high in the City. There is a demand for studio and one -bedroom units for persons with disabilities with low and moderate delay issues as well as larger units for especially single parent families with children with autism. 5. Disproportionate Housing Needs a. Describe any disproportionate housing needs experienced by persons with disabilities and by persons with certain types of disabilities. In consulting with the Fair Housing Council, the greatest proportion of fair housing complaints are from persons with disabilities in both the City and the region. Landlords are unaware or unwilling to make requested accommodations, either in modifications to a unit or allowing for service animals. State law requires landlords to make reasonable accommodations, when requested, to their units so that accessibility issues are mitigated. Therefore, the greatest priority in this area continues to be educating landlords and property managers on the rights of persons with disabilities to ensure that discrimination is not limiting their access to housing. 6. Additional Information a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about disability and access issues in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics. The City treats licensed residential care units serving six or fewer residents as single family dwellings permitted by right as part of the zoning ordinance. Facilities serving more than six are similarly permitted by right in high density residential zone districts and are also conditionally permitted in any other residential zone. Table 14 provides data of persons with disabilities by age range (5-17, 18-64, and 65+) for the City and region. The table reflects the greatest numbers of those with disabilities are adults between ages 18 and 64 followed by the elderly. Proportionately, compared to the region, the City has fewer people with disabilities, except for children. Some of this may be because of the large draw of the City's services for the special needs population. This belief was reflected in the community meetings. b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of disability and access issues. No additional information. 7. Disability and Access Issues Contributing Factors Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the 37 severity of disability and access issues and the fair housing issues, which are Segregation, RECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each contributing factor, note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor relates to. ❑ Access to proficient schools for persons with disabilities ❑ Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities ❑ Access to transportation for persons with disabilities ❑ Inaccessible government facilities or services ® Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure ❑ Lack of affordable in -home or community -based supportive services ❑ Lack of affordable, accessible housing in range of unit sizes ❑ Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services ❑ Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications ❑ Lack of assistance for transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing ❑ Land use and zoning laws ❑ Lending Discrimination ❑ Location of accessible housing ❑ Occupancy codes and restrictions ❑ Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for persons with disabilities ❑ State or local laws, policies, or practices that discourage individuals with disabilities from being placed in or living in apartments, family homes, and other integrated settings ® Other: City will prepare and adopt an ADA Transition Plan. E. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis 1. List and summarize any of the following that have not been resolved: A charge or letter of finding from HUD concerning a violation of a civil rights - related law, A cause determination from a substantially equivalent state or local fair housing agency concerning a violation of a state or local fair housing law, a letter of findings issued by or lawsuit filed or joined by the Department of Justice alleging a pattern or practice or systemic violation of a fair housing or civil rights law, or A claim under the False Claims Act related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, or civil rights generally, including an alleged failure to affirmatively further fair housing. In addition to the City's CDBG funding to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, the Fair Housing Council received a five year Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grant from 2010-2015 for private enforcement, and in 2015 received an additional $270,895 for another three-year grant for that purpose. Under the previous contract, the Council conducted fifteen tests in Temecula. Six of the tests were conducted for lending institutions and nine for rental projects. Two of the cases warranted sending to HUD as civil rights violations. One of those cases was against a lending agent who did not provide an African American all of the loan options that other applicants were provided. The 38 second case was a rental manager who was accused of discriminating against a person with disabilities who was not allowed a support animal. Of the remaining thirteen, seven are pending further testing and six were closed. (For more detail the FHIP investigations, refer to Appendix L.) In 2013, the Fair Housing Council also settled a familial status case. The Council noted that those who have had fair housing complaints filed against them, often voluntarily send new employees to Council training sessions. In addition to the enforcement grant, the Fair Housing Council has applied for an additional $125,000 grant for education and operations which, if approved, would begin in October. According to the Fair Housing Council, the patterns of discrimination are more individualized than systemic. They saw a spike in complaints, particularly against persons with disabilities, during the recession when many realtors turned to rental management. They were not as familiar with rental fair housing laws as they were with sale of property. The greatest priority for the Fair Housing Council in the category is in training and education, especially new real estate agents and property managers. 2. Describe any state or local fair housing laws. What characteristics are protected under each law? The California Fair Employment and Housing Act provides protection from harassment or discrimination based on the following: age, ancestry, color, disability, marital status, medical condition, genetic information, national origin, race, sex, familial status, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, source of income, and arbitrary discrimination. This year the State legislature added primary language, citizenship and immigrant status to the protected class status. 3. Identify any local and regional agencies and organizations that provide fair housing information, outreach, and enforcement, including their capacity and the resources available to them. The City of Temecula contracts with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. The City has funded this organization with CDBG since becoming an Entitlement City in 2012. The Fair Housing Council is located 45 miles from Temecula, and unfortunately Fair Housing does not have sufficient funds to locate an office in the Temecula Valley. The Fair Housing Council indicates that, because of the distance, it is difficult to provide the same level of service as with other cities in the County. 4. Additional Information a. Provide additional relevant information, if any, about fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resources in the jurisdiction and region. As described above, the City provides CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County for landlord tenant services, training and discrimination complaints. During the last fiscal year (July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016), there were calls from fifteen households regarding discrimination issues above the ones described under the FHIP discussion above in Temecula. Of that group, 87% were from White renter households. Most were from households with disabled persons. The City provides fair housing 39 brochures at City counter, public libraries and community centers. Links and information are provided on the City webpage. During that same period, there were 222 calls to the Fair Housing Council regarding landlord -tenant issues. Of those calls, 57% were from White households, 20% from Hispanic households and 17% from Black households. The greatest number of calls pertained to lease and rental terms, notices to vacate and evictions, security deposits, repairs and rent increases. The greatest gap in the City in this category is the provision of affordable housing for new homebuyers and renters. There are a number of issues that the Fair Housing Council has identified: large families have difficulty finding landlords that will rent to them; unreasonable conditions placed on children; homeowners associations have restrictions on service animals for the disabled; rent increases are forcing lower income renters out of the local market; and crime -free restrictions create disparate treatment of minorities. In addition, HUD's fair market rent limits are lower than the average rents in Temecula. It is increasingly difficult for tenants to find units that meet those limitations with their vouchers, as there are an insufficient number of rental units that charge rents at or below HUD's current rental limits. b. The program participant may also include information relevant to programs, actions, or activities to promote fair housing outcomes and capacity. The Fair Housing Council provides training for the Southwest Riverside Realtors Association twice a year. City staff refers residents to the Fair Housing Council and there is a link on the City's website that directs them to the Fair Housing Council's website. 5. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Contributing Factors Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resources and the fair housing issues, which are Segregation, RECAPS, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each significant contributing factor, note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor impacts. ❑ Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement ❑ Lack of local public fair housing enforcement ❑x Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations ❑ Lack of state or local fair housing laws ❑ Unresolved violations of fair housing or civil rights law ❑ Other: 40 V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities 1. For each fair housing issue, prioritize the identified contributing factors. Justify the prioritization of the contributing factors that will be addressed by the goals set below in Question 2. Give the highest priority to those factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance. The City has developed four fair housing goals to overcome the two fair housing issues and related contributing factors identified in the AFH analysis. These goals and the respective contributing factors have been prioritized based on feedback from community meetings, surveys, stakeholder interviews, staff, and data analysis. Identified metrics, milestones and timeframes for achievement were chosen specifically to address disparities in access to opportunity and disproportionate housing needs that were identified in the analysis in an effort to preserve Temecula as an inclusive community with integrated living patterns. The goals are listed below, from highest to lowest priority. Goal 1: Amend Zoning Code to promote the development of affordable housing Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 1A: Land use and zoning laws Goal 2: Increase and preserve affordable units for renters and homeowners Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 2A: The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Contributing Factor 213: Location and type of affordable housing Goal 3: Provide greater access to public facilities and improvements for persons with disabilities Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 3A: Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure Contributing Factor 3B: Inaccessible government facilities or services Goal 4: Provide equal housing opportunities for protected classes Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 4A: Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations Contributing Factor 4B: Private discrimination Based on the above goals and contributing factors, metrics, were identified to measure progress over the next five years to address disparities in access to opportunity and disproportionate housing needs while continuing to promote fair housing for its residents. The fair housing issues identified in Temecula, in order of greatest priority, include: 1) Disproportionate Housing Needs; and 2) Disparities in Access to Opportunity. The contributing factors identified for each fair housing issue are ranked in priority order. Identified action items and goals were chosen based on their ability to increase access to opportunity and positively impact fair housing choice for members of protected classes. Priority was given based on feedback from the community, surveys, stakeholder 41 interviews and consultations, staff, data analysis, as well as factors that will have the greatest impact on fair housing choices. Fair Housing Issue 1) Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors in order of priority: • The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes (Addressed at Goal 2) • Land use and zoning laws (Addressed at Goal 1) Based on data analysis, and community feedback, a lack of affordable housing units in a range of sizes is the highest priority contributing factor in Temecula. Due to the lack of public financial resources because of the dissolution of redevelopment, the City must look to the private sector to construct affordable housing and provide necessary incentives to achieve the highest priority goal of increasing access to affordable housing. Temecula is not alone in this problem — the region and the entire state of California is approaching an affordable housing crisis. In recognition of finite public financing available for affordable housing, the City places a high priority on deploying its available resources and exploring alternative resources during the planning period for this AFH. In 2016, the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) to utilize $12.4 million in remaining Tax Allocation Bond proceeds for the development of affordable housing. The City may entertain and accept more than one proposal for more than one site. In addition to the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds, the City owns sites that may have been considered as part of the City's contribution to the project. In response to the RFP, the City received 20 proposals from 13 developers for eight sites throughout the City. The City expects to hold interviews with potential developers by July 2017; select developers by December 2017; enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with at least one developer by June 2018; and entitlements to be secured by June 2019. At this time, the City cannot provide the specific number of units to be constructed or rehabbed, but although outside this planning period, the City expects that at least 100 affordable units will be constructed and/or rehabbed using the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds. As part of the process, the City will continue to make specific efforts to encourage the development of affordable housing that increases housing opportunities for residents with special needs. While the City cannot divulge details of the proposals due to the nature of property negotiations and confidentiality, there is a wide range of needs proposed to be addressed including housing for the homeless, veterans, seniors, and persons with special needs. Most proposals include tax credits where at least 30% of the units will be set aside for the very low income (below 30 percent). A maximum of 20% of the units will be affordable between 60 — 80% AMI, and no rents may exceed 80% AMI, in conjunction with the requirements of Senate Bill 341. To ensure meaningful, inclusive access to housing in the community for low- and moderate -income persons of all racial and ethnic backgrounds and special needs populations, the City will modify its land use and zoning laws to adopt and implement an Affordable Housing Overlay program that was included as a recommended program in the City's Housing Element, adopted by City Council in 2014. This new ordinance will create the conditions necessary for increased private -sector affordable housing production in a range of sizes for the general low- and moderate -income populations 42 where the greatest need is. The City will amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to accommodate Temecula's regional housing need for 2,007 affordable units for lower income households, as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA). The Housing Element program stipulated that the City will establish an AHO on at least 100 acres. After the establishment of the AHO, sites identified will require: • Minimum densities of 20 units per acre. • 50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing exclusively residential uses. • Multi -family uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed by right, without a conditional use permit. Fair Housing Issue 2) Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factors in order of priority: • Land use and zoning laws (Addressed at Goal 1) • Location and type of affordable housing (Addressed at Goal 2) • Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure (Addressed at Goal 3) • Inaccessible government facilities or services (Addressed at Goal 3) • Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations (Addressed at Goal 4) • Private discrimination (Addressed at Goal 4) To address land use and zoning laws to address disparities in access to opportunity, please see the discussion above concerning the Affordable Housing Overlay. To address the location and type of affordable housing, please refer to the discussion in Goal 2. With respect to segregation, it is noteworthy that the City has no R/ECAPs and that the City's dissimilarity index score and mapping all indicate a highly integrated community. The City wishes to emphasize that there is no history of segregation. With that understanding, the City further evaluated mapping to identify areas that may be susceptible to future designation as a RECAP. Through that analysis, it was noted that Census Tract 432.66 and Census Tract 496.00 are approximately 38% Hispanic, compared to other Census Tracts in the City. The City's overall population of Hispanics is 23%. Further, the analysis of disparities in access to opportunity revealed three adjoining Census Tracts in north Temecula, including 432.16, 432.20 and 432.66 that are characterized by higher than expected exposure to poverty (Low Poverty Index scores of 50 or less), given that the Citywide scores ranged from 65.42 to 71.23. None of the 20 proposed developments would be located in or near any of the five Census Tracts cited in the paragraph above. The various potential affordable sites are located throughout the City in Census Tracts 512.00, 432.22, 432.54, and 432.50. While some sites are in the same Census Tracts as existing affordable housing, most potential sites are not located directly adjacent to existing affordable housing sites. Development of new affordable housing is unlikely to result in any new patterns of segregation, or create any new areas of concentration. The City will continue its commitment on affirmatively furthering fair housing and work with developers to prevent any patterns of segregation. To address disproportionate housing needs through the construction of units using the $12.4 million in remaining affordable housing Tax Allocation Bond proceeds, the City shall require that all (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned affordable complexes 43 constructed as a result of the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds will include affirmative outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals including Hispanic and Native American households as well as households with disabilities All (100%) of marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula Community Development Department prior to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%) affordable developments shall be required to maintain records related to marketing and protected classes and provide annual reports to the City. Marketing plans will be based conceptually on HUD's form 935.2A, the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan — Multi -Family Housing, where applicable or practical. During the five-year planning period covered by this AFH, none of the City's current affordable housing units are at -risk of converting to market -rate housing. During future planning periods, the City will include efforts to preserve those units at -risk of conversion to market rate as affordable units through the Consolidated Plan. The City conducts and an annual inspection and audit of each of the affordable housing complexes in Temecula. During inspections, critical issues are addressed and resolved. In the previous cycle of the City's Consolidated Plan, the City worked with two affordable housing complexes at risk of converting to market rate. Both complexes successfully extended their term of affordability. During this planning period, the City will continue to partner with Habitat for Humanity for the administration of a Critical Home Repair program. This program focuses on low- income home owners to make repairs addressing disabled access, inadequate kitchen facilities, and/or inadequate plumbing. The third and final phase of construction for the Madera Vista (previously known as Summerhouse) will also be completed during this planning period. This phase includes 30 affordable units. 14 units are moderate income, 7 units are low income and 8 units are very low income. Entitlements are complete for this project. Rancho California Apartments, a 55 unit affordable housing complex, will complete substantial rehabilitation during this AFH cycle. In this project, 43 units are restricted to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted 50% AMI. (It also includes one manager's unit.) Rancho California recently successfully extended the term of their affordability covenant in the previous Consolidated Plan cycle, and the rehabilitation will further preserve the stock of affordable housing. In November 2015, the City adopted the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. The area, encompassing 580 acres, is located north of Rancho California Road, west of the 1-15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Street. Recognizing the demand for housing in the area, the Specific Plan allows up to an additional 3,726 multi -family housing units in the area, in a range of sizes, in a range of affordability levels. The City is currently working with several developers that are proposing housing targets towards special needs populations including seniors and residents with disabilities. One proposed project currently in the entitlement phase, in the south side of the City, near Pechanga Parkway, is proposing 245 multi -family units which will offer options for families with special needs. Options include downstairs bedrooms; flex space, adjacent handicap parking, and more. If approved, the City will process a General Plan Amendment for this project, allowing increased density and expanding our existing 44 housing stock. The City will work with the developer on outreach to potential residents with special needs. The City is also processing a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the proposed Altair project, adjacent to Old Town. If approved, the Altair Specific Plan allows accessory dwelling units and micro units throughout the entire site. Because of their size, accessory dwelling units and micro units are a more affordable option to many segments of the community including seniors, veterans, students, and residents with special needs. These options offer housing units in a range of sizes to the community. Upon buildout, there will be between 870 and 1,750 total dwelling units, subject to financing, the economy, and other market conditions. Other action items the City will complete during the 2017-2021 AFH Cycle include: • Consider proposals for using, when feasible, City -owned or City -controlled land for affordable housing projects. Several City sites, located in Census Tracts 512.00, 432.22, 432.54, and 432.50, were included in the Affordable Housing RFP and it is expected at least one project will utilize this incentive. • Continue to support and promote the County's Mortgage Credit Certificate program as a source for new homebuyer assistance. The City Council approves a resolution affirming the support for this County program every 1 — 2, at the County's request, years and will continue to do so during the planning cycle. • Support and promote the State of California Housing Finance Agency (Ca1HFA) to provide assistance to new homebuyers. • In order to increase funding resources, the City will consider applying for State HOME funds for affordable housing programs such as first time homebuyer, housing rehabilitation or new construction • The City will continue to support the County of Riverside to administer the Section 8 program through annual review of the PHA Plan and issuance of the certification of consistency and to assure sufficient numbers of vouchers for lower income residents in the City and the region. In 2015-16, there were 109 Section 8 vouchers utilized in the City of Temecula. Community outreach and consultations suggest that demand for vouchers is quite high; however, demand exceeds the supply of Section 8 units within the City. Temecula will continue to work with the County of Riverside to educate property owners on the Section 8 program. To address inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure as well as inaccessible government facilities or services, the City will implement the metrics discussed below that are a part of Goal 3. To make it possible for residents to fully avail themselves of all public facilities, services, and infrastructure in the City as a means of promoting access to all opportunities afforded in the community, the City has recently identified improvements that can be made to public improvements and facilities, such as the replacement of sidewalks. Old Town and the adjacent area have over 500 affordable units. Old Town is in a CDBG Eligible Census Tract, 432.15. There are several sections of sidewalk needed for safe access to public facilities, parks, and a grocery store. The City funded two sections of the construction of new sidewalks in Old Town in the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan cycle. 45 The Ynez Road sidewalk improvements will install missing sections of sidewalk to connect residents using the bus to access mainstream services offered at the Riverside County Offices located at 41000 County Center Drive. Residents, including those with disabilities, use this route to access services such as the mental health clinic, substance abuse program, WIC program and County courts. To help the City ensure that all such facilities posing barriers to residents are addressed, the City will complete and adoption of an ADA Transition Plan. The ADA Plan is expected to be adopted by December 31, 2018 and identify accessibility issues at public facilities including The assessment will include 38 City parks, three trail systems, four tennis/basketball courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities, four fire stations, 110 signalized intersections, 95 bus stops, and 310 miles of roadways with ADA ramps. Approximately 587 locations will be analyzed. Both City Hall and the Old Town Police Substation were constructed in 2010 and are ADA compliant. Once the ADA Transition Plan is updated, those accessibility needs shall be prioritized for funding. Each deficiency will be evaluated based on the level of inaccessibility, funding availability, number of persons affected, and priorities established. The City typically budgets one accessibility infrastructure project with CDBG funds per year. Other projects may be undertaken as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program. The City will include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan to use CDBG funds to upgrade the City's infrastructure and public facilities to provide accessibility for those with disabilities. An average of one accessibility project will be constructed each year with CDBG funds, with an average allocation of $100,000, based on level CDBG funding during the planning cycle. In the City's proposed 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, $150,000 will be allocated for the construction of a new sidewalk on Ynez Road that serves several bus lines and County of Riverside social services, subject to level CDBG funding throughout the entire planning period. This segment will complete a critical connection between regional bus lines and a regional job center (Promenade Mall) and County services. In a developer -driven project, upgrades to Pala Park will be constructed to improve accessibility, including 4 additional disabled parking spaces, truncated domes, and a new playground with approximately 7 play structures designed to be all inclusive, that are designed to provide access to those with special needs. During this AFH cycle, the City will also complete the construction of the new playground at Sam Hicks Park, utilizing a total of $350,000 in CDBG funding for an ADA accessible play structure, and two ADA compliant ramps. The park is located in a CDBG eligible Census Tract (432.15) that serves many low income families. The analysis in the AFH has demonstrated that there is an ongoing need to provide fair housing education, outreach and enforcement, especially as it pertains to the special needs community — particularly for persons with disabilities. At the local, state and national level, discrimination on the basis of disability is the leading basis for fair housing discrimination cases. According to consultation with the City's fair housing service provider, the lack of knowledge on fair housing issues amongst property owners and landlords continues to be the primary reason for discrimination complaints against persons with disabilities in Temecula and the region. This denies persons with disabilities the right to avail themselves of housing opportunities in the City or the right 46 to remain housed in place when, for example, a landlord refuses a disability -related modification. To address the contributing factor of lack of resources for fair housing organizations, the City will provide approximately 12% of public service funds from CDBG to a fair housing service provider to provide outreach, education and assistance enforcing fair housing laws — particularly those protecting the rights of disabled residents. To further supplement resources for fair housing organizations and actively participate in addressing private discrimination, the City will increase public awareness of accessibility and fair housing requirements by inviting representatives of the building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries to one annual workshop hosted by the City of Temecula and fair housing providers. Invitations will be extended to 25 frequent developers, 50 members of the local real estate community from the City's Temecula Trekkers program, and all 13 affordable housing complexes in the City. Additionally, the City will increase support for fair housing training and education by adding the most current fair housing information on the City's website. The City will also distribute and replenish the supply of fair housing materials, including literature concerning reasonable accommodation / modification rights and responsibilities at five City facilities including the Temecula Community Center, City Hall, the Mary Phillips Senior Center, Ronald H. Roberts Library, and the Community Recreation Center. Furthermore, the City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless Alliance, will host three different panels of representatives from organizations such as the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County and the Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25 local homelessness and affordable housing advocates on fair housing issues and affordable housing issues, particularly those affecting residents with disabilities. 2. For each fair housing issue with significant contributing factors identified in Question 1, set one or more goals. Explain how each goal is designed to overcome the identified contributing factor and related fair housing issue(s). For goals designed to overcome more than one fair housing issue, explain how the goal will overcome each issue and the related contributing factors. For each goal, identify metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved, and indicate the timeframe for achievement. In the initial submission of the Assessment of Fair Housing on October 3, 2015, the City listed nine contributing factors with corresponding goals. The subsequent resubmission of the AFH on January 14, 2017 resulted in a consolidation of goals and contributing factors that were identified in the analysis of the AFH. Below is a detailed analysis on the consolidation of the City's initial goals and contributing factors from subsequent submissions. Original Goal 1: Increase the affordable housing stock in the City. o Change: Tied into Goal #2 in resubmission. Original Contributing Factor: Location and type of affordable housing. o Change: Removed. It was not identified as an original contributing factor in the AFH analysis. Original Milestone: Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay o Change: Moved to Goal #1 — Amend zoning ordinance to promote the development of affordable housing. 47 Original Milestone: Enter into an agreement with potential developers to allocate $12.4 million in Tax Allocation Bond proceeds. o Change: Updated verbiage to include more specific, measurable metrics. Associated with Goal #2 — Increase and preserve affordable housing units for renters and homeowners • Original Goal 2: Partner with local organizations for the provision of services to address homelessness. o Change: Per a recommendation from HUD, the City has chosen to focus on goals associated with jurisdictional programs, as opposed to regional programs. This allows the City to have more control and focus on the outcomes. As such, the City can provide more specific metrics. The City will continue to partner with local organizations for the provision so services to address homelessness. • Original Contributing factor: High housing costs in region; distance from social services; lack of homeless shelters in Southwestern Riverside County o Change: Removed from matrix. This contributing factor was not identified in the AFH analysis. Relevant metrics and milestones are included in the discussion. • Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal #2 are related to partnerships and regional organizations. Per HUD's guidance, they remain in the analysis as examples of efforts the City is currently participating in to affirmatively further fair housing. • Original Goal 3: Increase homeownership opportunities in the City. o Change: Removed. Contributing factor was not identified as a contributing factor in the original AFH analysis. Repetitive of other contributing factors. • Original Contributing factor: High housing costs in the region; location and availability of affordable new and existing homes. o Change: Modified into new Contributing Factor 2A. • Original Metrics, Milestone, for Original Goal #3: o Changes: Action items listed were regional programs that the City supports. The City's participation is discussed in the AFH analysis. Per HUD's recommendation, the City's goals and milestones focus on City programs. • Original Goal 4: Increase accessibility to public facilities. o Change: New Goal #3. • Original Metrics, Milestones for Goal 4: Adopt an ADA Transition Plan o Change: Have been updated to reflect more specific and measurable metrics. Reflected in new Goal #3. • Original Metrics, Milestones for Goal 4: Continue to increase public awareness and educate representatives of the housing industry on ADA requirements by holding workshops. o Change: Metric more specifically defined in matrix below. • Original Metrics, Milestones for Goal 4: Continue to upgrade the City's infrastructure to make them more accessible for those with disabilities. o Change: Improved action item to be more specific and measurable. • Original Goal 5: Support the Fair Housing Council on education on fair housing laws. 48 o Change: Modified and included in new Goal #4. • Contributing Factor: Landlords and property managers have a lack of knowledge on fair housing issues. o Change: Removed because it was not identified as a contributing factor in the original AFH analysis. • Original Goal #6: Preserve affordable rental housing. o Change: Combined into new Goal #2. • Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal 6: Continue to promote the preservation of affordable housing projects at -risk of converting to market rate housing. o Change: Included in the discussion of Goal 2. However, no affordability covenants are set to expire during this planning period, so no metrics could be defined. Therefore, it was removed as a specific goal. The City will continue to promote the preservation of affordable housing. • Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal 6: Continue to support the County of Riverside to administer the Section 8 program. o Change: Per HUD's technical assistance, the City focused on jurisdictional programs for inclusion in metrics and milestones. This milestone is discussed and elaborated upon in the discussion for Goal #2. • Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal 6: Continue to use, when feasible, City -owned and City -controlled land for affordable housing projects. o Change: Moved into the discussion of Goal 2. The City will still continue this program; however, it depends heavily upon developer demand and market forces. • Original Goal #7: Increase housing choices for those with special needs and disabilities. o Change: Modified and combined into new Goal #2. • Original Contributing Factor: Increased demand of affordable housing for seniors and persons with disabilities. o Change: Modified and combined into new Goal #2. It was not listed as a specific contributing factor in the original AFH analysis. • Original Metrics and Milestone Goal 7: Continue to promote housing design standards that improve accessibility for those with special needs. o Change: Included in the discussion for Goal #2. The City will continue to work with developers on this action item. • Original Goal #8: Increase access and usage of public transportation. o Change: Removed. It was not tied to any contributing factor identified in the AFH analysis. • Original Contributing Factor: Demand for public transportation. o Change: Removed. It was not identified as a contributing factor in the AFH analysis. • Original Metrics and Milestones for Goal 8 o Change: Removed. They did not tie to any contributing factor identified in the AFH analysis. • Original Goal #9: Improve the environmental health of neighborhoods. 49 o Change: Removed. It was not tied to any contributing factor identified in the AFH analysis. Original Contributing Factor: Proximity of the 1-15 freeway and major arterial corridors. o Change: Removed. It was not identified as a contributing factor identified in the analysis. Original Metrics and Milestones Goal 9 o Change: Removed. They did not tie to any contributing factor identified in the AFH analysis. Subsequent to the January 14, 2017 resubmission, HUD convened a technical assistance conference call on February 2, 2017 to discuss the need for more well-defined metrics, milestones and timeframes. On February 9, 2017, an excerpt of the Executive Summary and the Goals Section was emailed to Arturo Cardenas, Equal Opportunity Specialist in the L.A. Field Office. Subsequently, HUD sent correspondence of withdrawal of the AFH on February 10, 2017, and followed this correspondence with a Technical Assistance letter dated February 14, 2017, the City made further revisions to the four goals to more closely align the goals with the HUD -defined fair housing issues and the contributing factors identified in the AFH. After three rounds of technical assistance and guidance from HUD, the following matrix represents the final goals designed to overcome the contributing factors to fair housing issues identified in the preceding sections. The City of Temecula wishes to express its sincere appreciation to HUD Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity staff in the Los Angeles local field office, the San Francisco regional office and in Washington D.C. at HUD Headquarters for their efforts and contributions to this AFH. 50 Goal Contributing Factors Fair Housing Issues Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement Responsible Program Participant(s) • Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Program by Amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to accommodate Temecula's regional housing need for 2,007 affordable units for lower 1. Amend income households. The City will establish an AHO on Zoning Code Disproportionate at least 100 acres. After the establishment of the AHO, to promote Housing Needs sites identified will require: the 1A: Land use and zoning - minimum densities of 20 units per acre City of Temecula development laws Disparities in - 50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing of affordable Access to exclusively residential uses housing Opportunity - multi -family uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed by right, without a conditional use permit Affordable Housing Overlay expected adoption by City Council by June 30, 2018. (CF IA) Discussion: The analysis of disproportionate housing needs revealed a disproportionate housing burden for Hispanic and Native American households. According to Table 9, 51.52 percent of the City's households are experiencing housing problems. There is a disparity in this category because Hispanic households (62.24 percent) and Native American households (80.90 percent) experience housing problems at a rate that is 10 percentage points higher than all households. Only 47.37% of the White households in Temecula experience a housing problem. None of the racial or ethnic groups experienced a disproportionate level of severe housing problems. HUD -defined housing problems include housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 30% of income for monthly housing costs including utilities), overcrowding, lack of a complete kitchen and lack of plumbing. Based on consultation and other data, the most prominent housing problem is cost burden. Additionally, consultation with the Inland Regional Center revealed a high need for affordable housing for developmentally disabled adults as well as housing appropriate for families with autistic children. The analysis of disparities in access to opportunity revealed three adjoining Census Tracts in north Temecula, including 432.16, 432.20 and 432.66 that are characterized by higher than expected exposure to poverty (Low Poverty Index scores of 50 or less), given that the Citywide scores ranged from 65.42 to 71.23. 51 The adoption of an Affordable Housing Overlay Ordinance is the City's highest priority in the AFH because it is a critical first step toward meaningfully addressing the factors that contribute to disproportionate housing burden and disparities in access to opportunity for protected classes including Hispanic households, Native American households and households that include person(s) with disabilities. First, the AHO will create the conditions for the development of new affordable housing units in a range of sizes including micro units and efficiencies that may be beneficial to developmentally disabled adults. Second, the AHO will remove barriers to affordable housing development by allowing multi -family uses at higher densities by right without a conditional use permit. This will promote the development of additional affordable units needed to reduce the number of cost -burdened Hispanic and Native American households. Third, the AHO will establish this zone on at least 100 acres throughout the City to promote inclusive living patterns with respect to the location of affordable housing outside of areas with relatively higher exposure to poverty. The AHO sets the stage for the accomplishment of the metrics included in Goal 2. In 2014, the City Council approved and the City implemented an updated Housing Element. The Housing Element included a program to amend the Temecula Municipal Code with an Affordable Housing Overlay program (AHO), which will accommodate Temecula's regional housing need for 2,007 affordable units for lower income households, as determined by Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA). The City will establish an AHO on at least 100 acres. The ordinance will allow transitional and supportive housing by right in certain areas, identify incentives for affordable and senior housing, and strengthen the City's density bonus program. The strengthened density bonus program will be calculated using the available maximum density of 30 units per acre under the AHO, rather than any allowable base density of the underlying zone. Incentives also include planning application priority and fast tracking. After the establishment of the AHO, sites identified will require: • minimum densities of 20 units per acre • 50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing exclusively residential uses • multi -family uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed by right, without a conditional use permit The Affordable Housing Overlay is expected to be successfully adopted by City Council by June 30, 2018. The City has a long history that demonstrates its support of affordable housing. As noted above, the City Council approved the Housing Element in 2014 that contained the Affordable Housing Overlay program. The City has not previously tried to adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay, and is optimistic at the AHO's ability to provide incentives at developing affordable housing. Through the use of redevelopment funds, the City has assisted 600 affordable housing units throughout the community. Madera Vista, previously known as Summerhouse, was publicly opposed by many members of the community. Recognizing the need for affordable housing, the project was ultimately approved by the City Council, and is a very successful example of affordable housing in the City. The public has embraced the development, and there have been no issues since its approval. Madera Vista will complete its third and final phase of development during this Consolidated Plan cycle. The AHO is expected to be as successful as the City's other numerous affordable housing projects. During the five-year planning period covered by this AFH, none of the City's current affordable housing units are at -risk of converting to market -rate housing. During future planning periods, the City will include efforts to preserve those units at -risk of conversion to market rate as affordable units 52 through the Consolidated Plan. The City conducts and an annual inspection and audit of each of the affordable housing complexes in the City. During inspections, critical issues are addressed and resolved. In the previous cycle of the City's Consolidated Plan, the City worked with two affordable housing complexes at risk of converting to market rate. Both complexes successfully extended their term of affordability. The City is currently working with several developers that are proposing housing targets towards special needs populations including residents with disabilities. One proposed project currently in the entitlement phase, in the south side of the City, near Pechanga Parkway, in Census Tract 432.50, is proposing 245 multi -family units which will offer options for families with special needs. Options include downstairs bedrooms; flex space, adjacent handicap parking, and more. If approved, the City will process a General Plan Amendment for this project, allowing increased density and expanding our existing housing stock. The City will work with the developer on outreach to potential residents with special needs. The City is also processing a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the proposed Altair project, adjacent to Old Town. If approved, the Altair Specific Plan allows accessory dwelling units and micro units throughout the entire site. Because of their size, accessory dwelling units and micro units are a more affordable option to many segments of the community including seniors, veterans, students, and residents with special needs. These options offer housing units in a range of sizes to the community. Upon buildout, there will be between 870 and 1,750 total dwelling units, subject to financing, the economy, and other market conditions. 53 Goal Contributing Factors Fair Housing Issues Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement Responsible Program Participant(s) • Enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a developer to allocate $12.4 million in remaining affordable housing Tax Allocation Bond proceeds to create or rehabilitate an estimated 100 affordable housing units, subject to market forces. The selection process includes priority consideration for proposals that incorporate housing units for persons with disabilities. Based on a preliminary review of the siting for these proposals, none are located in the three Census Tracts identified as having relatively high exposure to poverty. 2. Increase Interviews with developers expected by July 2017; and 2A: The availability Disproportionate Selection of developer to occur by December 2017; preserve of affordable units in Housing Needs Exclusive Negotiating Agreement by June 2018; affordable a range of sizes Entitlements to be secured by June 2019. Construction to City of Temecula units for Disparities in begin by June 2020. Estimates are subject to financing, renters and home 2B: Location and type of affordable Access to property negotiations, market demand, and economic owners housing Opportunity forces. (CF 2A and CF 2B) • All (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned affordable complexes constructed as a result of the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds will include affirmative outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals including Hispanic and Native American households as well as households that include persons with disabilities. Units advertised to contain specific accessibility features shall be prioritized for occupancy by persons identifying themselves as disabled. At least 50 units will benefit the aforementioned protected classes identified as having disproportionate housing needs. All (100%) of 54 marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula Community Development Department prior to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%) affordable developments shall be required to maintain records related to marketing and protected classes and provide annual reports to the City. Marketing plans will be based conceptually on HUD's form 935.2A, the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan — Multi - Family Housing, where applicable or practical. (Completion date subject to completion of affordable housing construction and commencement of sale or leasing. Expected June 2021) (CF 2A and CF 213) • Require marketing materials for any new City of Temecula -assisted affordable housing project to be made available in Spanish. (July 1, 2017) (CF 2A) • Translate City Affordable Housing Brochure in Spanish to promote meaningful access to affordable housing. (July 1, 2017) (CF 2A) • Continue the partnership with Habitat for Humanity for the administration of a Critical Home Repair program to provide funding for at least 30 low income home owners to make repairs addressing disabled access, inadequate kitchen facilities, and/or inadequate plumbing. (Complete by June 2022) (CF 2A) • Complete construction of Phase III of Madera Vista (formerly Summerhouse), which includes 30 affordable units. 14 units are moderate income, 7 units are low income and 8 units are very low income. (Entitlements are complete; Building permits to be issued by September 2017; Construction to be completed by September 2019) (CF 2A) 55 • Complete substantial rehabilitation of Rancho California Apartments, 55 unit affordable housing complex. 43 units are restricted to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted 50% AMI. (One manager's unit.) (Rehab has begun. Expected completion date — March 2018.) (CF 2A) Discussion: The analysis of disproportionate housing needs revealed a disproportionate housing burden for Hispanic and Native American households. According to Table 9, 51.52 percent of the City's households are experiencing housing problems. There is a disparity in this category because Hispanic households (62.24 percent) and Native American households (80.90 percent) experience housing problems at a rate that is 10 percentage points higher than all households. Only 47.37% of the White households in Temecula experience a housing problem. None of the racial or ethnic groups experienced a disproportionate level of severe housing problems. HUD -defined housing problems include housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 30% of income for monthly housing costs including utilities), overcrowding, lack of a complete kitchen and lack of plumbing. Based on consultation and other data, the most prominent housing problem is cost burden. Additionally, consultation with the Inland Regional Center revealed a high need for affordable housing for developmentally disabled adults as well as housing appropriate for families with autistic children. The analysis of disparities in access to opportunity revealed three adjoining Census Tracts in north Temecula, including 432.16, 432.20 and 432.66 that are characterized by higher than expected exposure to poverty (Low Poverty Index scores of 50 or less) given that the citywide scores ranged from 65.42 to 71.23. The deployment of Tax Allocation Bond proceeds to develop 100 affordable housing units will address disproportionate housing needs by increasing the number of affordable units in a range of sizes, which when combined with affirmative marketing efforts, will help to alleviate disproportionate 56 housing needs for Hispanic and Native American households. Preliminary evaluation of proposals received indicates that none of the proposed projects are located within the three Census Tracts in north Temecula exhibiting higher than expected exposure to poverty as discussed above. As a result, this metric will facilitate access to opportunity and promote economically balanced living patterns. To improve access to publicly supportive and publicly subsidized housing, the City issued an RFP in February 2016 to allocate $12.4 million in remaining Tax Allocation bond proceeds and possibly also utilize City -owned or City -controlled land for the development of affordable housing. The RFP specified that interested developers were required to address one or more housing needs in the community: 1) Special Needs; 2) Veterans; 3) Seniors; 4) Housing First / Transitional / Supportive and/or 5) Other Needs. The City is currently evaluating 20 proposals, but has not made any commitments of funds or land to a specific project. The City expects to hold interviews with potential developers by July 2017; select developers by December 2017; enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with at least one developer by June 2018; and entitlements to be secured by June 2019. At this time, the City cannot provide the specific number of units to be constructed or rehabbed, but although outside this planning period, the City expects that at least 100 affordable units will be constructed using the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds. Estimates are subject to financing, property negotiations, market demand, and economic forces. As part of the process, the City will continue to make specific efforts to encourage the development of affordable housing that increases housing opportunities for residents with disabilities. While the City cannot divulge details of the proposals due to the nature of property negotiations and confidentiality, the proposals seek to address a wide range of housing options including housing for persons with disabilities. Developers were required to identify a service provider that would provide services to targeted groups. Most proposals include tax credits where at least 30% of the units will be set aside for the very low income (below 30 percent). A maximum of 20% of the units will be affordable between 60 — 80% AMI, and no rents may exceed 80% AMI, in conjunction with the requirements of Senate Bill 341. All (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned affordable complexes constructed as a result of the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds will include affirmative outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals including Hispanic households, Native American households and households that include persons with disabilities. All (100%) of marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula Community Development Department prior to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%) affordable developments shall be required to maintain records related to marketing and protected classes and provide annual reports to the City. Marketing plans will be based conceptually on HUD's form 935.2A, the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan — Multi -Family Housing, where applicable or practical. Marketing plans will included, at a minimum, information on targeted marketing activity, evaluation of marketing activities, fair housing, and staff training. Although the City has no R/ECAPs, the City has noticed pockets of higher populations of certain races and ethnicities. It is noteworthy that none of the 20 proposed developments would be located in or near Census Tract 432.66 and Census Tract 496.00, which are approximately 38% Hispanic, compared to other Census Tracts in the City. The City's overall Hispanic population is 23%. Several Census Tracts reflect increases of Hispanic 57 residency that are significantly higher than in other areas of the City. The City's overall Hispanic population is increasing, while Whites/Non-Hispanic is decreasing. Although these trends exist, the City wishes to emphasize that there is no history of segregation. The various potential affordable sites are located throughout the City. Most potential sites are not located near existing affordable housing sites. Through this process, the City will continue to promote an inclusive, integrated community. To further address disproportionate housing needs and promote access to opportunity through the creation of affordable units in a range of sizes and in locations that promote access to opportunity, the third and final phase of construction for the Madera Vista complex, formerly known as Summerhouse, will be completed during this planning period. This phase includes 30 affordable units - 14 units will be moderate income, 7 units will be low income, and 8 units will be very low income. Entitlements are complete for this project. According to the Riverside County draft PHA Plan, 7 of the units will include project -based voucher assistance. Additionally, Rancho California Apartments, a 55 unit affordable housing complex, will complete substantial rehabilitation during this AFH cycle. In this project, 43 units are restricted to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted 50% AMI. (It also includes one manager's unit.) Rancho California recently successfully extended the term of their affordability covenant in the previous Consolidated Plan cycle, and the rehabilitation will further preserve the stock of affordable housing. Other City of Temecula Initiatives to Generally Promote Affordable Housing: To address housing needs for homeless and those at -risk of homelessness in the region, the City continues to explore and evaluate partnership opportunities with the Riverside County Continuum of Care (CoQ for the provision of services for the homeless in southwestern Riverside County. The City continues to take a lead in the Regional Homeless Alliance, work with other local jurisdictions, the Riverside County Sherriff's Department and Homeless Outreach Team, and local nonprofits. The City understands the importance of collaboration with a wide array of organizations throughout the community and County to address a regional issue. The City negotiates with developers requesting zone changes to provide units to assure that those with special needs are met. A recent example was a 245-unit multi -family residential development on the south side of town near Temecula Parkway, where the developer will provide options for families with special needs. While dependent on the private sector to propose multi -family projects, the City will continue to create housing opportunities for persons with disability. The City will explore other action items with regional and County organizations during the 2017-2021 AFH Cycle. Because these are not all City programs, the City has limited control over the metrics and the outcomes of the programs. However, it is important to recognize the broader effort of actions intended to affirmatively further fair housing. These actions include: 58 • Consider proposals for using, when feasible, City -owned or City -controlled land for affordable housing projects. Several City sites were included in the Affordable Housing RFP and it is expected at least one project will utilize this incentive. • Continue to support and promote the County's Mortgage Credit Certificate program as a source for new homebuyer assistance. The City Council approves a resolution affirming the support for this County program every 1 — 2 years, as the County requests, and will continue to do so during the planning cycle. • Support and promote the State of California Housing Finance Agency (Ca1HFA) to provide assistance to new homebuyers. • In order to increase funding resources, the City will consider applying for State HOME funds for affordable housing programs such as first time homebuyer, housing rehabilitation or new construction. If the City is successful in securing funds for these programs, all (100%) marketing plans will include affirmative outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals. All (100%) of marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation to assure there is no discrimination or barriers to fair housing. All (100%) affordable complexes will be required to keep metrics related to marketing and protected classes and provide data to the City. No protected classes will be discriminated against. At least 50% of the applicants that will benefit will include protected classes such as seniors, female heads of households, families with children, disabled, veterans, and ethnic groups. Marketing plans will be based off of HUD form 935.2A, the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan — Multi -Family Housing, where applicable. Marketing plans will included, at a minimum, information on targeted marketing activity, evaluation of marketing activities, fair housing, and staff training. • The City will continue to support the County of Riverside to administer the Section 8 program through annual review of the PHA Plan and issuance of the certification of consistency and to assure sufficient numbers of vouchers for lower income residents in the City and the region. In 2015-16, there were 109 Section 8 vouchers utilized in the City of Temecula. Community outreach and consultations suggest that demand for vouchers is quite high, and as a result, demand exceeds the supply of Section 8 units within the City. Temecula will continue to work with the County of Riverside to educate property owners on the Section 8 program. 59 Fair Housing Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement Responsible Goal Contributing Factors Issues Program Participant(s) • Adopt an ADA Transition Plan to evaluate public facilities to ensure equal access for persons with disabilities. The assessment will include 38 city parks, three trail systems, four tennis/basketball courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities, four fire stations, 110 signalized intersections, 95 bus stops and 310 miles of roadways with ADA ramps. (Adopt Plan by December 31, 2018) (CF 3A) • Include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan to use CDBG funds to 3. Provide 3A: Inaccessible upgrade the City's infrastructure and public facilities greater access sidewalks, pedestrian to provide accessibility for those with disabilities. to public crossings, or other Disparities in An average of one accessibility project will be facilities and infrastructure Access to constructed each year with CDBG funds, with an City of Temecula improvements for persons A. 3B: Inaccessible Opportunity average allocation of $100,000, based on level with government facilities CDBG funding during the planning cycle. (Con Plan disabilities or services adopted by May 15, 2017. Allocation adopted annually by June 30.) (CF 3B) • In the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, allocate $150,000 for the construction of a new sidewalk on Ynez Road that serves several bus lines and County of Riverside social services, subject to level CDBG funding throughout the entire planning period. (Plan adopted by May 15, 2017; Construction completed by December 31, 2018) (CF3A and 313) • Construct accessibility upgrades at Pala Park located in Census Tract 432.50, including 4 additional disabled parking spaces, truncated domes, and a new playground with approximately 7 play structures designed to be all inclusive and provide access to those with special needs. (Construction completed by January 2019). (CF 3A) Complete the construction of the new playground at Sam Hicks Park located in Census Tract 512.00, utilizing a total of $350,000 in CDBG funding for an ADA accessible play structure, and two ADA compliant ramps. (Construction completed by December 31, 2017). (CF 3A) Discussion: To promote meaningful access to opportunity for disabled residents in the community, the City of Temecula is committed to providing greater access to public facilities and improvements as well as government facilities for persons with disabilities. According to Table 1, the largest disabled population are those who are ambulatory (3.83%), followed by those with cognitive difficulty (3.54%), independent living difficulty (2.90%) and those with hearing loss (2.67%). To make it possible for residents to fully avail themselves of all public facilities, services, and infrastructure in the City as a means of promoting access to all opportunities afforded in the community, the City has recently identified improvements that can be made to public improvements and facilities, such as the replacement of sidewalks. Old Town and the adjacent area have over 500 affordable units. Old Town is in a CDBG Eligible Census Tract, 432.15. There are several sections of sidewalk needed for safe access to public facilities, parks, and a grocery store. The City funded two sections of the construction of new sidewalks in Old Town in the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan cycle. The Ynez Road sidewalk improvements will install missing sections of sidewalk to connect residents using the bus to access mainstream services offered at the Riverside County Offices located at 41000 County Center Drive. Residents, including those with disabilities, use this route to access services such as the mental health clinic, substance abuse program, WIC program and county courts. To help the City ensure that all such facilities posing barriers to residents are addressed, the City will complete and adoption of an ADA Transition Plan. The ADA Plan is expected to be adopted by December 31, 2018 and identify accessibility issues at public facilities including The assessment will include 38 City parks, three trail systems, four tennis/basketball courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities, four fire stations, 110 signalized intersections, 95 bus stops, and 310 miles of roadways with ADA ramps. Approximately 587 locations will be analyzed. Both City Hall and the Old Town Police Substation were constructed in 2010 and are ADA compliant. Once the ADA Transition Plan is updated, those accessibility needs shall be prioritized for funding. Each deficiency will be evaluated based on the level of inaccessibility, funding availability, number of persons affected, and priorities established. The City typically budgets one accessibility infrastructure project with CDBG funds per year. Other projects may be undertaken as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program. 61 The City will include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan to use CDBG funds to upgrade the City's infrastructure and public facilities to provide accessibility for those with disabilities. An average of one accessibility project will be constructed each year with CDBG funds, with an average allocation of $100,000, based on level CDBG funding during the planning cycle. In the City's proposed 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, $150,000 will be allocated for the construction of a new sidewalk on Ynez Road that serves several bus lines and County of Riverside social services, subject to level CDBG funding throughout the entire planning period. This segment will complete a critical connection between regional bus lines and a regional job center (Promenade Mall) and County services. In a developer -driven project, upgrades to Pala Park will be constructed to improve accessibility, including 4 additional disabled parking spaces, truncated domes, and a new playground with approximately 7 play structures designed to be all inclusive, that are designed to provide access to those with special needs. During this AFH cycle, the City will also complete the construction of the new playground at Sam Hicks Park, utilizing a total of $350,000 in CDBG funding for an ADA accessible play structure, and two ADA compliant ramps. The park is located in a CDBG eligible Census Tract (432.15) that serves many low income families. As it has done in the past, the City will continue to work with the community to establish priorities and needs for accessibility upgrades at City facilities. 62 Goal Contributing Factors Fair Housing Issues Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement Responsible Program Participant(s) • Annually provide approximately 12% of public service funds from CDBG to a fair housing service provider to provide outreach, education and assistance enforcing fair housing laws — particularly those protecting the rights of disabled residents. (Annually by June 30) (CF 4A) • Increase public awareness of accessibility and fair housing requirements by inviting representatives of the building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries to one annual workshop hosted by the City of Temecula and fair housing providers. Invitations 4. Provide 4A: Lack of resources for will be extended to 25 frequent developers, uent develo 50 q p equal housing fair housing agencies and Disparities in members of the local real estate community from the opportunities organizations (CF 4A) Access to City's Temecula Trekkers program, and all 13 City of Temecula for protected A. APrivate Opportunity affordable housing complexes in the City. (Annually classes. discrimination disc by June 30). (CF 4A and 4B) • Increase support for fair housing training and education by adding the most current fair housing information on the City's website. (Annually by June 30) (CF 4A and 413) • The City will distribute and replenish the supply of fair housing materials, including literature concerning reasonable accommodation / modification rights and responsibilities at five City facilities including the Temecula Community Center, City Hall, the Mary Phillips Senior Center, Ronald H. Roberts Library, and the Community Recreation Center. (Monthly, by the 30' day of each month) (CF 4A and 413) 63 The City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless Alliance, will host three different panels of representatives from organizations such as the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County and the Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25 local homelessness and affordable housing advocates on fair housing issues and affordable housing issues, particularly those affecting residents with disabilities. (June 2022) (CF 4A and 4B) Discussion: The fourth goal is to provide equal housing opportunities for disabled residents. At the local, state and national level, discrimination on the basis of disability is the leading basis for fair housing discrimination cases. According to consultation with the City's fair housing service provider, the lack of knowledge on fair housing issues amongst property owners and landlords continues to be the primary reason for discrimination complaints against persons with disabilities in Temecula and the region. This denies persons with disabilities the right to avail themselves of housing opportunities in the City or the right to remain housed in place when, for example, a landlord refuses a disability -related modification. To address this denial of access to housing opportunities that affects Temecula residents with disabilities each year, the City will ensure the provision of a robust fair housing program each fiscal year that promotes outreach and education via multiple modes of communication. This effort will include annual appropriations of funds to a nonprofit fair housing service provider with a specific scope of work to address the housing rights of residents with disabilities. Further, the City will supplement the limited financial and staffing resources of the nonprofit fair housing service provider by convening representatives of promote awareness by convening an annual workshop to include the building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries for the purpose of providing fair housing education. Invitations will be extended to 25 frequent developers, 50 members of the local real estate community that graduated from the City's Temecula Trekkers program, and all 13 affordable housing complexes in the City. The property managers of the 13 affordable complexes are some of the most likely housing providers to need information about their obligation to comply with fair housing laws. Further, education will be supplemented through the availability of printed materials at five public facilities and on the City's website. The City's third party fair housing provider, the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, conducts an annual conference on fair housing issues and invites representatives of the government, building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries. Over 150 people attend the annual Fair Housing Conference. During this Planning period, City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless Alliance, will host three different panels of representatives from organizations such as the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County and Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25 local homelessness and M affordable housing advocates on fair housing issues and affordable housing issues. Conducting workshops for those in the housing industry will educate the appropriate stakeholders on fair housing regulations and accessibility requirements, and then reduce instances of fair housing violations. Training this Regional Alliance will not only help overcome the contributing factor in Temecula, but in surrounding cities as well. y. APPENDIX A HUD -Provided Maps Map Series Title Map 1 Race and Ethnicity Trends(2010)................................................................1 Map 2 Race and Ethnicity Trends (1990)............................................................... 3 Map 3 National Origin(2010)................................................................................. 5 Map 4 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) with R/ECAPs..................................... 7 Map 5 Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity......................................... 9 Map 6 Housing Choice Vouchers and Race/Ethnicity..........................................11 Map 7 Housing Burden and Race/Ethnicity.......................................................... 13 Map 8 Housing Burden and National Origin......................................................... 15 Map 9 Demographics and School Proficiency School Proficiency and Race/Ethnicity......................................... 17 School Proficiency and National Origin ....................................... 19 School Proficiency and Family Status .......................................... 21 Map 10 Demographics and Job Proximity Job Proximity and Race/Ethnicity................................................. 23 Job Proximity and National Origin ............................................... 25 Job Proximity and Family Status .................................................. 27 Map 11 Demographics and Labor Market Labor Market and Race/Ethnicity................................................. 29 Labor Market and National Origin ................................................ 31 Labor Market and Family Status ................................................... 33 Map 12 Demographics and Transit Trips Transit Trips and Race/Ethnicity................................................... 35 Transit Trips and National Origin ................................................. 37 Transit Trips and Family Status .................................................... 39 Map 13 Demographics and Low Transportation Cost Low Transportation Cost and Race/Ethnicity ............................... 41 Low Transportation Cost and National Origin .............................. 42 Low Transportation Cost and Family Status ................................. 44 Map 14 Demographics and Poverty Poverty and Race/Ethnicity........................................................... 46 Poverty and National Origin......................................................... 48 Poverty and Family Status............................................................ 50 Map 15 Demographics and Environmental Health Environmental Health and Race/Ethnicity.................................... 52 Environmental Health and National Origin ................................... 54 Environmental Health and Family Status ...................................... 56 Map 16 Disability by Type Hearing, Vision and Cognitive Disability ..................................... 58 Ambulatory, Self -Care and Independent Living Disability........... 60 Map 17 Disability by Age Group............................................................................ 62 HUD -Provided Maps As described in the narrative, the City of Temecula is located in the corner of the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is the largest MSA in the continental United States. It is so large that the Assessment of Fair Housing could not include the entire region on the maps without losing all relevant data. The region is larger than ten of the smallest U.S. states. Most of the population is located in the southwest corner and while Temecula appears to be near these population centers because of the scale of the map, it is actually over 40 miles from the City of Riverside and 70 miles from the Cities of San Bernardino and Ontario, the largest cities in the region, and 75 miles away from the retirement desert towns and farming areas to the east. Mountain ranges separate Temecula from population centers to the west in Orange County, as well as the eastern portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. As required by HUD, the City has included a series of maps and tables that analyze demographic trends, integration and segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, housing needs, disability access, publicly supported housing, and fair housing needs. The following series of maps is organized such that the first map shows the relationship between the City and the region, and subsequent maps are organized so that a City data topical map will be presented first, followed by the regional map. The maps are numbered to correspond with HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) AFFH data system. The map numbers correspond to the topic. Map 1 — Race/Ethnicity Trends (2010) AFFHT Maps . �. % 7 .N Temecula jCDBG} Name: Map 1 - RacelEthnicity Description: Current racelethnicity dot density mal for Jurisdiction and Region with RIECARs Jurisdiction: Temecula (CDBG) Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Legend TOC But Value:1 dot= 75 Demographics 2919 1 Dot = 75 �X••r; White, Non -Hispanic WO Black. Non -Hispanic .ti Native American, Non -Hispanic 8 ' AsianlRacific Islander, Non -Hispanic Hispanic .4 Other. Non -Hispanic TRACT RiE❑CAP Map 1 demonstrates geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010. Each dot represents 75 persons. This map demonstrates that racial and ethnic groups are spread evenly throughout the City of Temecula. There is no significant segregation within the City. Appendix A 1 Map 1 - Race/Ethnicity (Race/Ethnicity) Current raceleihnicity dcl density map for Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction - - • y4 CBSA • + 1 �i�,1, « j ___� • ♦ �V • •• GRANTEES •• •• Demographics 2010 _•._� 1 Dot=75 White, Non -Hispanic • . •� •� �'� Black, Non -Hispanic - •;�� ••. Native American, Non -Hispanic 4F AsiariPacific Islander, Non -Hispanic • �. %.y '+, s� a s w. •� •. _, :•t y' ���' ••1 Dvy� Hispanic •. ? � .Y'• _�_� •:� ti y' � �• Other, Non -Hispanic TRACT RIECAP +�' ;�sS�- yr' pa, .. • ••' . '•J 4=• .�"r�.` f, •`mil •.r 7A� •'y' •71 qo •: +•+ Esri HERE DeL SGS, NPS i United States Census Bureau e The regional map is provided to add context and point out the large size of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) accounted for in regional data comparisons supplied by HUD. To better evaluate the data, the scale of the map has been reduced in the remaining regional maps. However, much of the detail is lost due to the scale. As indicated in the narrative, because of its location and distance from the population centers further north, the characteristics of the City data is not always comparable to the region as a whole. Note that the City of Temecula is shown in dark red at the southwest corner of the region. Appendix A 2 Map 2 — Race/Ethnicity Trends (1990) 77 User Guide Temecula iCDRG} Name: Map 2- Race±Ethnicity Trends Variation: Race;Ethnicity Trends, 109C Description: Past race ethnicity dot density map S Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs Jurisdiction: Temecula (CDBG Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario. CA Legend TOG Dot Value:1 dot= 75 Demographics 7990 1 Dot = 75 White, Non -Hispanic Black. Non -Hispanic Native American. Non -Hispanic AsianFacifc Islander. Non -Hispanic i� Hispanic t TRACT WECAP Map 2 demonstrates geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 1990. In comparing the maps from 1990 and 2010, there are no significant concentrations of segregation that have developed, despite tremendous growth that has occurred during the period. Appendix A Map 2 - Race/Ethnicity Trends (Race/Ethnicity Trends, 1990) Past racelethn" dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction �•-.I •ti , a { GRANTEES .• ,� ar-•':.`5.. .�.='�M•. :• Bemog ra Ph ics 1990 •I *y y ♦ S 7 - r; �;' •r =ivy„' •':' � 1 Dot=75 rr... _Mp.at;_r.,•i' • ��:�; ,._ • • . •-�r'�' White, Non -Hispanic 4},,~ «: '�`;!• , t , •`�s�: - a'�' Black, Non -Hispanic •.•" :yam_ . _ !. • ♦�� . 4 ��`� � • � •'� � Native American, Non -Hispanic • ♦ r '' -�ti . • ' A �''7 ~ tY�♦•�� �'}� Asian/Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic - � f, rr• ` • 1 ., tea•' t:r' ..1��1 � - �• . � A •� 'i •''^♦ ;.`_ ,.iT` �.y�• �� :T;t i. •. .. C•a .s. �` Hispanic c d• .Y t7cS r „� •:, . ' �: • ' .,� -!_ . TRACT Y'. e•a :i•}t `.. ••� .... _! RIECAP . t !: _r y+.. •fit^� • Y Esri. HERE. HeLorme NGA, USGS, NPS•I United States Census Bureau Map 2 demonstrates the racial composition in the region in 1990 and it shows the tremendous growth of Hispanics in the population centers of the north. The City has also shown a less dramatic growth rate than the region. Appendix A 4 Map 3 — National Origin (2010) 1 User Guitle r --%L9�RJ�:! Temecula (CDBG} Name: Map 3-National Origin Description: Current national origin (5 most populousl dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs Jurisdiction: Temecula (CDBG) Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario. CA Legend TOG Dot Vatue:7 dot 75 Natii Origin (Top 5 in Descending Order) t Dot= 75 People McKico Philippines h�? Korea EPT El Salvador a �9 India TRACT RIECAP Map 3 demonstrates population by national origin in Temecula, based on ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). There are no significant concentrations of persons based on national origin. Instead they are spread evenly throughout the City. Appendix A Map 3 - National Origin (National Origin) Current national ergin (5 most populous) dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with WECAPs Riverside -San Bernardi Tic -Ontaria, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CRSA GRANTEES N National Drigin{TopS in Descending Drdert 1 Dot=75 People Mexico • G. fiL�-1e Philippines YD:_! EI Salvador s India TRACT RIECAP — . 1• ' S, NPS I United States Census Bureau Map 3 demonstrates population by national origin throughout the region, based on ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). There are significant concentrations of persons of Mexican origin in the urban areas to the north. Appendix A 6 Map 4 — Limited English Proficiency (LEP) with Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) Temecula (CD6G) R aM A LEP • L�• erl rn4° me. ap - Description: LEP persons r5 most commonly user languages; for Jurisdiction and Region with R±ECAPs Jurisdiction: Temecula rCDBG1 Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario. CA Legend TOC Dot Value:1 dot= 75 Limited English Proficiency (Top 5 in Descending Order) 1 Dot = 75 People Spanish Tagalog Korean Chinese x�L1 Thai TRACT RECAP Map 4 demonstrates where persons with limited English proficiency live, based on ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). There are no significant concentrations of persons with limited English proficiency within the City. They are spread evenly throughout the community. Appendix A 7 Map 4 - LEP (Limited English Proficiency) LEP persons (5 mast common used languages) for Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisldlction f �'r<1 •. - - \ - 1 CBSA GRANTEES Limited English Proficiency ;Top 5 in Descending Order} 1 Dot - 75 People 5 Spanish Tagalog Korean Chinese V Thai t. TRACT RIECAP LI 21 Map 4 demonstrates where those with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) lived throughout the region in 2010. They were concentrated in the population centers to the north. The City has some limited English proficiency residents, but they are not concentrated in one section of the City. Appendix A 8 Map 5 — Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity AFFHT .p. • • • , •d • •• .• w. • • • ' Map Query 1 User Guide Temecula (CDBG} Name: Map 5-Publicly Supported Housing and Race.lEthnicity Description: Public Housing. Project -Based Section 8. Other Multifamily. and LIHTC locations mapped with racelethnicity dot density map with MECAPs. distinguishing categories of publicly supported housing by color Legend TOG Dot Value:I dot= 75 Public Housing 0 other Multifamily 0 Project -Based Section 8 v LIHTC 0 Demographics 2010 1 Dot= 75 White. Non -Hispanic Black. Non -Hispanic ' Native American, Non -Hispanic Map 5 demonstrates where subsidized housing is located throughout the City, based on the 2010 Census. Subsidized housing is primarily located near major employment centers and transportation systems. Appendix A 9 Map 5 - Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity (Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity) Public Housing, Project -based Section 8, Other Multifamily, and LIHTC locations mapped with racefethnm4 dot tensity map with RfECAPs, distinguishing categories of puhlicly supported housing by color Riverside -San Bernardinc-Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction lQ. , Mill 'ep� •' ••�. .tip• .. •; .tit �' 4: �.' :., •�` + • • . f . v •�� -wF.i• Yam•, .• •'M. CBSA • GRANTEES Ll Public Housing Other Multifamily 0 Project -Based Section 8 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Demographics 2010 1 Dot = 75 ✓d White, Non -Hispanic • rr 41� Black, Non -Hispanic r' Native American, Non -Hispanic F. r� AsianlPacifiic Islander, Non -Hispanic Hispanic 1,'11 Other, Non -Hispanic TRACT RIECAP Ei,dHERF DeLrme. N . Map 5 shows the locations of publicly supportive housing throughout the region. The City has some publicly supported housing units, mostly located in the western central portion of the City. The City also has a number of developments assisted by redevelopment funds. These can be found in Appendix J. Appendix A 10 Map 6 — Housing Choice Vouchers and Race/Ethnicity ' •Z% .• r • .. ; 1• .S• iUser Guide Temecula (CDBG) Name: Map 6- Housing Choice Vouchers and Race.+Ethnicity Description: Housing Choice Voucher map with race+ethnicity dot density map and R?ECAPs Jurisdiction: Temecula (CDBG) Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario. CA Legend TOC Dot Value: 1 dat= 75 Demographics 2010 1 Dot =75 s" =� White. Non -Hispanic �wr Black. Non -Hispanic 100 Native American, Non -Hispanic {,• .AsianlPacificlslander Non -Hispanic ��rr � P,,' A Hispanic : Other Non -Hispanic TRACT RIPCAP Map 6 demonstrates that there are no racially and ethnically concentrated areas with Housing Choice Vouchers in the City. There are no RE/CAPS in the City. Appendix A 11 Map 6 - Housing Choice Vouchers and Race/Ethnicity (Housing Choice Vouchers and Race/Ethnicity) Housing Choice Voucher map with race/ethnicity dot density map and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction COSA •• f ,q GRANTEES } •' L ■ �, , Demographics 2010 k•,■���White, Non -Hispanic )• •R+��_ , • • i • ,f •• I• • Black, Non -Hispanic ■ }. •- :r,•., C1 �Lr Native American, Non -Hispanic 5 --f .'- =^ �•y .•[ F�• i « �Lk' AsianlPaciSc Islander, Non -Hispanic • a ; ; 1 - ;.} wen �•-SP Hispanic .,+ Li Other, Non -Hispanic s.• ; 4: �•.4'•'. i r •* •.s". • •LJ. _ , f �\ TRACT RIECAP + - - �' r e«� ♦ Percent Voucher Units Y. �{. • • r., s •�°°°llRy.. i. • ___....i • • , • , •• •�+1. . hill6.046-11.7046 y - 1 ,.r• • ry 1' ,,y;. ', ' ,[ 1 - i` ti • • •! P hill 11.71% - 20.38% I ■ P' , ii' 20.3996-38.2846 •tea . i . r J•' fii :w' s• .. ,� i•,. hill38.29%-100% �� .' r1~ + �s� tiz•r •j _•.� f ,• , •e � w.� Nf , .1 t�—Fsri HERE, DeLo irwe NCy6,J1SG5, NPS I United Slates Census Bureau ( i Map 6 shows that there are few concentrations of housing choice vouchers in the region, mostly in the northern part of the region. Temecula has some housing choice vouchers located in the western central portions of the City. Appendix A 12 Map 7 - Housing Burden and Race/Ethnicity (Housing Burden and Race/Ethnicity) Households experiencing one or more housing hardens in JurGdVinn and Regmn with RIECAPs and racelethnlcity dot dens€ty Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES Demographics 2010 1 Dot=75 White: Non -Hispanic Black, Non -Hispanic hNative American, Non -Hispanic f~71� PsianlPaciSc Islander, Non -Hispanic }� Hispanic Other. Non -Hispanic RIECAP Percent Households with Burden 0%-26.07% ® 26.08%-35.86% `35.87%-46.38% ' 46.39%-59.74% ' 5975%-100% Map 7 shows geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010. The shading indicates where households are experiencing one or more housing burdens. The darker the shading, the greater the prevalence of homes experiencing cost burdens. Cost burden means that rent plus utility costs exceed 30% of the resident's monthly income. The area with the greatest burden is located in the Temecula Elementary School neighborhood where there is a high concentration of market -rate apartments. This would indicate the need for additional affordable rental housing. The older established single-family neighborhoods in the City have the least cost burden. Appendix A 13 Map 7 - Housing Burden and Race/Ethnicity (Housing Burden and Race/Ethnicity) Households experiencing one or more housing burdens in Jurisdiction and Region wdh RIECAPs and racefethnicay dot density Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction :r- r CBSA GRANTEES Demographics 2010 1 Cot-75 White. Non -Hispanic Black, Non -Hispanic ars Native American, Non -Hispanic AsianlPacific Islander, Non -Hispanic Hispanic a, Other, Non -Hispanic RIECAP Percent Households with Burden 0%-26.07% . 26.08%-3586% ' 35.87% - 46.38% . 46.39%- 59.74% . 59.75%-100% Fsri HFRF F7a4 orma NC'A I15CS NPS I Ilnitarl Stalac C,ancac RM-L_. Map 7 shows areas with housing burden, something that Temecula shares with most of the region and all of Southern California. The darker the shading, the greater the percentage of households experiencing housing cost burdens. Appendix A 14 Map 8 - Housing Burden and National Origin (Housing Burden and National Origin) Households experiencing one or more housing burdens in Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs and national origin dot density Temecula; CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES National Drigin {fop 5 in Descending Order) 1 Dot =75 People XMexico 's Philippines �^ Korea rro YkEl Salvador t India RIECAP Percent Households with Burden 0%-25.07% hk 26.08%-35.86% ' 35.87%-46.38% ' 46.39%-5974% . 59.75%-100% Map 8 shows geographic patterns of national origin concentrations in 2010. The shading indicates where households are experiencing one or more housing burdens. The darker shading represents a greater prevalence of housing units with cost burdens. Cost burden means that rent plus utility costs exceed 30% of the resident's monthly income. While the greatest concentrations of households with housing costs burdens are located in two areas of the City, there is not a concentration in those areas of persons based on national origin. Appendix A 15 Map 8 - Housing Burden and National Origin (Housing Burden and National Origin) Households experiencing one or more housing burdens in Jurisdiction and Region with PJECAPs and national origin dot density Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA GRANTEES National Origin ITop 5 in Descending Orderl 1 Dopttt-75 People �Zq Mexico VAI Philippines Korea �,; EI Salvador 7t i t India RYECAP Ll Percent Households with Burden - 0%-26.07% ' 26.08%-35.86% ' 35.87%-46.38% . 46.39%- 59.74% . 59.75%-100% Map 8 shows housing cost burden by national origin. The City does not have any concentrations of immigrants; they are spread throughout the City. The regions to the north and east do have concentrations and many immigrants are experiencing higher than average cost burdens in the region. The housing burdens are felt equally by all racial and ethnic groups in Temecula. Appendix A 16 Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and Race/Ethnicity) School Proficiency Index foF Jurlsdiction and Region with racelethnlcily, national origin, family status, and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES Demographics 2010 1 Doi ;A White, Non -Hispanic rs Black, Non -Hispanic Native American. Non -Hispanic AsianlPaciic Islander, Non -Hispanic q. Hispanic N' i. Other, Non -Hispanic RIECAP Schaal Praliick rl InAex 0-10 10.1-20 ' 20.1-30 30.1-40 ' 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1-50 ' 60.1-70 ' 70.1-30 ' 80.1-90 ' 90.1-100 There are three versions for Map 9 for school proficiency. This first map shows geographic patterns school proficiency with an overlay of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010. The shading indicates the performance of 4' graders on State exams in 2012. The darker the shadowing, the higher the performance. The area with the lowest school proficiency is in an area with a large number of apartments. The area with the lowest school proficiency in the northwest is sparsely populated and is comprised of mostly industrial uses. There is no significant concentration of racial/ethnic groups in the low performing tracts. Appendix A 17 Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and Race/Ethnicity) School Prcftciency Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status, and PJECAPS Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Judsidiction , CBSA 's GRANTEES y1�t• • . , .f +•, 1: r Demographics 2910 :d 1 Dot=75 `` �,•� r•�� T��}`, ter_. �� IR White, Non -Hispanic • . •' ` !. -s-� �� Black, Non -Hispanic ti..�• , V• .� _ Native American. Non -Hispanic °:''y'`.� s • . -fir �_N Asian/Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic .'1, • '•`t TT• r Hispanic "ra , Y �•ti' 1,;,'-• •�• !r� Other, Non -Hispanic RIECAP Sc hool Profic ie ncy Index 0-10 10.1-20 �:• 1.. - 4i � 20.9-30 C � ,h�•.;�1,g: � iNY_ ' ��• ' 50.1-60 60.1-70 �_• - ' 70.1 -80 . r; ' 80.1-90 Esri. HERE. DeLonne. NGA. USGS. NPS I United States Census Bureau esn 11h90.1 -100 This version of Map 9 is difficult to analyze the detail because of the breadth of the region; however, the following map with national origin provides more detailed data in comparing school proficiency in Temecula. Appendix A 18 Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and National Origin) SchooV Proficiency Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status, and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES National Origin [Top 5 in Descending Order) 1 Dot =75 People Mexico 13 Philippines Korea El Salvador 9India RlECAP School Proficiency Index 0-10 10.1-20 11111 20.1-30 ` 30.1 - 40 ` 40.1 - 50 ` 50.1 - 60 . 60.1-70 ' 70.1-80 ■ 80.1-90 ' 90.1-100 This version of Map 9 shows geographic patterns school proficiency with an overlay of national origin concentrations in Temecula in 2010. The shading indicates the performance of 4' graders on State exams in 2012. The darker colors indicate higher performance on exams. There is no significant concentration of a particular group in the lower performing schools. Appendix A 19 Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and National Origin) School Proficiency Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status, and RlECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Terrec+_ula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA GRANTEES National Origin ;Top 5 in Des cer ding Drde r} 1 Dot-75 People ',}!ram•' Mexico Philippines Korea El Salvador India RIECAP School Proficiency Index V 0-10 ' 10.1-20 . 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1-40 ' 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1 - 60 ' 60.1-70 ' 70.1-30 ■ 80.1 - 90 . 90.1 - 100 This version of Map 9 for National Origin data demonstrates that school proficiency is much higher in the City than in most of the region. As indicated in the narrative, all racial and ethnic groups benefit from the good schools in the City. Appendix A 20 Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and Family Status) School Proficiency index for Jurisdiction and Region with raceiethnicity. national origin, family status, and RIECAPS Temecula; CA (063712) Jurisdiction GRANTEES % of Households that are Families with Children • 0%-20% * 20.1%-40% 40.1%-60% 60.1%-80% 80.1%-100% R IECAP School Proficiency Index 0-10 ® 10.1 -20 ' 20.1 - 30 . 30.1 - 40 ■ 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1 - 60 ' 60.1 -70 ' 70.1 - 80 ' 80.1 - 90 ' 90.1 -100 This version of Map 9 displays where households with children are located within the City. The shading indicates the performance of 4' graders on State exams in 2012. The darker shading represents higher performance. While there are families living in the low proficiency areas, there is not a high concentration of families living there. The City's scores on standardized tests are substantially better than the region as a whole and almost all schools perform better than the national average. Appendix A 21 Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and Family Status) School Proficiency Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status, and RfECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidictlon CBSA GRANTEES % of Househ old that are Families with Children • 0%-20% 20.1%-40% • 40.1%-50% 60.1%-80% 80.1%-100% RIECAP School Proficiency Index h 0-10 ' 10.1-20 . 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1-40 ' 40.1 - 50 . 50.1 - 60 ' 60.1-70 ' 70.1-80 ' 80.1-90 . 90.1 -100 Because of the scale of Map 9, regional details are difficult to analyze without referring to the previous map. Coupled with other maps and tables in the Assessment of Fair Housing, families in Temecula have access to higher proficiency schools than much of the region. Appendix A 22 Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and Race/Ethnicity) Jabs Pro KIn iiy IndeK for Jurisdiction and Region wi€h racelethnicity, nai origin, fawly staiius and RIECAPS %mecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiclicn GRANTEES Remographms 2010 1 Dot=75 White. Non -Hispanic Elack. Non -Hispanic Native American, Non -Hispanic AsianlPacifc Islander, Non -Hispanic Hispanic �, Other, Non -Hispanic RIE`CAP C�) Johs Pr-imrty Index 0-10 10.1-20 ® 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1 - 40 ' 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1-60 ' 601-70 ' 70.1 - 90 ' so -00 ' 90.1 - 100 There are two versions for Map 10 for job proximity. The map above demonstrates a geographic overlay of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010, coupled with an index for the distance residents have between home and work. In this case, the darker shading represents better access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. There are no patterns of racial/ethnic concentrations with respect to job proximity in Temecula. The disadvantaged areas have the greatest proximity to jobs. The rest of the community has variable patterns in access, with the corridors along 1-15, west of I-15, and commercial arteries along Temecula Parkway having the greatest proximity to jobs. The lower density residential areas have the least proximity to jobs, which may indicate a higher concentration of commuters. Appendix A 23 Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and Race/Ethnicity) Jobs Proximity Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and PJECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidictlon - _ • COSA - d^. -:: GRANTEES ^ ,,. ' • �y,'`.• ° ,`r'��' ' ; : • : •..� Demographics 2010 n- •� 1 Dot=75 White, Non -Hispanic - i,. 81ack, Non -Hispanic ,���.^ = • _ , -s.', * (•m Native American, Non -Hispanic •.•^ ?,' }_ ' �, - ����. r AsianiPacitc Islander, Mon -Hispanic t17. - ...' ++,r• .�' �% Hispanic •.e -C - _ i •��,_. � "!s J - S4 . 1 Other, Non -Hispanic RJECAP k i • ,y� •TT� ,��r , ' Jobs Proximity Index 0.1 - _ '3a ^ r. a• .20.1-30 .30.1-40 •: J-s .40.1-50 50.1-60 ' . 70.1 -80 ' 80.1 -90 4 ' -• _ Esri, HERE, DeLorme, NGA, 11SGS, NPS I United States Census Bureau 90.1-100 The scale of the map above displays the enormous land area of the Riverside -San Bernardino MSA, while also demonstrating an overlay of racial and ethnic groups over a measurement of job proximity. There is wide variation in this factor throughout the region. The darker shading represents access to closer job opportunities. Generally the City's diverse neighborhood scores are representative of the region. More detail can be found in the following map. Appendix A 24 Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and National Origin) Jobs Proximity index Tor Jurisdiction and Region with race.�ethnicity, national origin. family status antl RECAPS Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES National Origin (Top 5 in Descending Ordery 1 Dot= 75 People gMexico Philippines UN.- Korea El Salvador India R)ECAP Jobs Proximity Index 0-10 10.1-20 ` 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1-d0 ' d0.1-50 ' 50.1-60 ' 60.1-70 ' 70.1-80 ' 80.1-90 . 9o.1-100 This version of Map 10 shows geographic patterns based on the top 5 national origin concentrations in Temecula in 2010 and provides an index for physical distances between home and work. In this case, the darker shading represents better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. There are no concentrations based on national origin in Temecula. Access is equal for all groups. Appendix A 25 Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and National Origin) Jobs Proximity Index for Jurisdiction and Region with race.+ethnicity, national origin, famiry status and RfECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, GA Region; Temecula, GA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA N GRANTEES National origin ;Top 5 in Descending order) 1 Dot =75 People R� Mexico Philippines Korea El Salvador r India RECAP Jobs Proximity Index 0-10 ' 101-20 ' 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1 -40 ' 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1 - 60 ' 60.1 -70 ' 70.1 -80 ' so - 90 ' 90.1 -100 This regional version of Map 10 shows that much greater job proximity within the population centers to the north where there are extensive industrial complexes, and in the desert communities in the east, where many residents are retired or working in agriculture. Appendix A 26 Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and Family Status) Jobs Proximity Index for Jurisdiction and Region with race%ethnicity, national origin. family status and RVECAPs Temecula, CA (063712 j Jurisidiction GRANTEES % of Households that are Earn flies with Children • 0%-20% 20.1%-40% . 40.1%-60% . 60.1%-80% . 30.1%-100% RIECAP Jobs Proximity Index 0-10 10.1-20 20.1 - 30 Ih 30.1-40 ' 40.1-50 ' 50.1-60 ' 60.1-70 ' 70.1-80 ' 80.1-90 ' 90.1-100 This version of Map 10 displays the geographic patterns based an overlay of families with children in 2010 with an indicator of the physical distances between home and work for households with children. In the case the darker shading represents better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. Families are scattered throughout the City and not necessarily concentrated in areas with close proximity to jobs. Appendix A 27 Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and Family Status) Jobs Proximity Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisldiction CBSA GRANTEES % of Households that are Families with Children • 0%-20% 20.1%-40% • 40.1%-60% . 601%-80% *80.1%-100% RECAP Jobs Proximity Index 0-10 10.1 -20 ' 20.1-30 ' 30.1 -40 ' 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1-60 . 60.1 -70 ' 70.1 -80 ' 80.1-90 ' 90.1-100 This version of Map 10 shows the relationship of families with job proximity in the region. Because of the scale of the map, patterns are difficult to identify, however Temecula does have a high concentration of households with children. Appendix A 28 Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and Race/Ethnicity) Labor Engagement Index with racelethn[city, national origin, 1arri status and RIECAPs Temecula; CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES De mopraphics 2010 1 Cot=75 White, Non -Hispanic L6 Black, Non -Hispanic Native American, Non -Hispanic �i. r.. S AsiaWlFacitic Islander, Non -Hispanic Hispanic Other, Non -Hispanic r. a RIECAP Ll Labor Market Index o--10- 10.1-20 20.1-30 ' 30.1-40 ' 40A -50 ' 50.1-60 ` 60.1 -70 ' 70.1-30 ' 80.1-90 ` 90.1 -100 There are three versions for Map 11 for labor market. The map above shows geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010 and provides an index on unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor's degree, by neighborhood. The darker shading represents greater labor engagement. Higher income areas have the greatest job readiness in the City. The lowest labor market index is in the southern portion of the City near the Pechanga Resort and Casino. However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula including Cal State San Marcos at Temecula, University of Redlands, Concordia University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would likely show an improvement in job readiness of the labor market. There is no significant concentration of racial/ethnic groups in the City, based on labor market readiness. Appendix A 29 Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and Race/Ethnicity) Labor Engagement Index with racefethril national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction . .. •. `� .. CBSA •'t t - - !, 7 GRANTEES Demographics 2010 •.{�^ _''�-.'S� . 1f, . :_- r •f 1 Dot =75 �-• ,a '.. •__'y4'.�k . - r. , t White, Non -Hispanic Black, Non -Hispanic • �� "�� E 1 - 3 - `f y Native American, Non -Hispanic T S { + p2r. Er �'+� AsianlPacific Islander, Non -Hispanic Hispanic Other Y.11+Fi"�' �• •'A - • Other, Non -Hispanic Fill Labor Market Index 0-10 10.1-20 74 . ' 20.1-30 401-50 501-60 hill hill 0.1 • S. ' 70.1-80 •. i •• ;r r Map 11 shows that much of the region is lacking in labor engagement. Although some classes are available locally, the lack of community college in Temecula in 2010 is probably part of the reason for this deficiency. However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula including Cal State San Marcos at Temecula, University of Redlands, Concordia University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would likely show an improvement in job readiness of the labor market. Other areas have notably higher ratings such in the vicinity of UC Riverside, Cal State San Bernardino and Redlands College in the north and in Orange County to the west. Appendix A 30 Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and National Origin) Labor Engagement Index with racefethnicity, national origin_ family status and RfECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidicticn GRANTEES Nation l Origin ffop 5 in Descending Order) 1 ❑ot=75 People VMexico W, Philippines Korea El Salvador India RfECAP Labor Market Index 0-10 IJ 101-20 hk 20.1-30 30.1 -40 ' 40.1-50 ' 50.1 - 60 ` 50.1 -70 ' 70.1 -80 ' 30.1-90 ' 90.1-100 This version shows geographic patterns based on national origin in 2010 and measures unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor's degree, by neighborhood. The darker the shading represents greater labor market engagement. All groups have relatively equal labor engagement opportunities. Appendix A 31 Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and National Origin) Labor Engagement Index with racelethnicily, national origin, family status and RlECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CRSA - GRANTEES r r r• ' National Origin ;Top 5 in Descending Order} 1 Dot =75 People _ ;, -- Mexico ti .r•� _- Philippines Korea , ` ' r Salratlor in • fps ;: • -+. , — Labor Market Index �i► 0-70 •• _ ' 10.1-20 • - ' 20.1-30 ' 40.1-50 .• ' 50.1 - 60 !.60.1-70 - ' 70.1-80 •- - - -- ' 80.1 - 90 -IL 901-100 Vow Esri: HERE, DeLorme, NGA, 115G5, NIPS I United States Census Bureau This version of Map 11 shows the low labor force readiness throughout the region in 2010. The Temecula area has better scores than the region, but lags behind Orange County to the west. It is important to consider the number of local college campuses that have added Temecula locations in the past several years. It is important to note that a mountain range separates Orange County from Temecula. Appendix A 32 Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and Family Status) Labor Engagement Index wtth race/ethnicity, national origin, family status and PJECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction 0 GRANTEES % of HDn3ehold5 that are Families with ChUmn • 0%-20% 20.1%-40% 40.1%-60% 60 1%-sons 801%-100% RIECAP Labor Market Index 0-10 10.1 -20 ' 20.1-30 ` 30.1 -40 ■ 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1-50 ` 50.1 -70 ` 70.1-80 ■ 0o.1-90 ' 9o.1-100 This version shows geographic patterns based households with families in 2010 and provides and index regarding unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor's degree, by neighborhood. The darker the shading represents greater labor market engagement. Families are spread throughout the City, although there is a concentration of families in areas with greater labor market engagement. The area with the lowest labor market index had the least concentration of families. Appendix A 33 Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and Family Status) Labor Engagement Index with racelethniclty, national origin, family status and RIECAPS Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidlctlon • CE SA • • GRANTEES .� •• • �� %of Households that are Families with Children • • • • � • 20.1%-40% ,`..,; ��5'• • 40.1%-60% • • • • • • • � • . • • 0 80.1%-100% • • •• • • RfECAP • • • • • • Labor Marketlndex • • • • O 1 • �.�• • • •• p^ 0-10 • • • • • • 1 10.1-20 ' 20.1-40 .M.• • • • % • ' 40.1 - 50 • • ' 50.1-60 • 3 • • • ' 601-70 • • • ' 70.1-80 • • • • - ' 80.1-90 • • • ' a0.1-100 Esrf HERE, DeLorme.. NGA, USGS, NIPS i United States Cerrsus Bureau This version of Map 11 shows familial status in relationship with the labor market in the region. The map clearly demonstrates the familial centric area of the Temecula Valley. More detailed data for Temecula can be found in the previous versions of Map 11. Appendix A 34 Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and Race/Ethnicity) Transit Trips Index for Jurisdiction and Regan with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiclicn GRANTEES Demographics 2010 Dot = 75 .� White, Non -Hispanic A,P Black, Non -Hispanic 'IL & Native American, Non -Hispanic AsiamPacific Islander. Non -Hispanic ,SHispanic Other, Non -Hispanic . RIELAP Transit Trips Index 0-10 10.1-20 20.1-30 30.1-40 . 40.1 - 50 . 50.1 -60 ' S0.1-70 ■ 70.1-80 . 80.1 -90 ` 90.1 -100 There are three versions to Map 12, which provides and index on the number of transit trips a neighborhood uses public transportation, with an overlay of the top five race and ethnicity groups in the City. The darker the shading, the greater the transportation access at the neighborhood level. There is one area in the north that has a low use of public transportation. This is Census Tract 432.17, which includes the Meadowview neighborhood. It is not an eligible CDBG area, because its median income is too high. (See map of CDBG-eligible areas in Appendix G.) It is also an area, as shown in Map 11, with a higher than average market engagement. This would indicate that there is not a great of a need for public transportation in that particular area. Racial/ethnicity is not a factor since they are spread evenly throughout the City. Appendix A 35 Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and Race/Ethnicity) Transit Trips Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RfECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction • ]. •'r. ... • .n ��nwrra�il.f. • •i �• 'nf...� CBSA GRANTEES Demographics 2010 1r�.Do�tt = 75 White, Non -Hispanic Black, Non -Hispanic Native American, Non -Hispanic AsianFacifc Islander, Non -Hispanic iHispanic Other, Non -Hispanic RIECAP ❑ Transit Trips Index L -10 ' 10.1 -20 ' 20.1-30 ' 30 1 -40 ' 40.1-50 ' 50.1-60 ' 60.1 -70 ' 70.1 -80 ' 80 1 -90 901-ion Map 12 shows that access to public transportation is a challenge to the scattered population centers in this large region. Compare this map with the following version of the same map. Appendix A 36 Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and National Origin) Transit Trips Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity. national origin. family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES National Origin {fag S in Descendirrg Order} 1 l People 0;, Mexico Philippines Korea El selvatlor India RfECAP Transit Trips Index 0-10 L_1 10.1 -20 20 1 - 30 . 30.1 -40 ' 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1 - 60 ' 60.1 -70 ' 70.1 - 30 ' 90.1 - 90 . 90.1 -100 This version of Map 12 provides an index on the number of transit trips in a particular neighborhood, with an overlay of residents by national origin. The darker shading represents a greater public transportation usage at the neighborhood level. There is one area known as the Meadowview neighborhood in the northern portion of the City with a low transportation index; however, there are few immigrants in that particular census tract. There are no concentrations of groups that have significantly lower access to public transportation than other groups. Appendix A 37 Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and National Origin) Transit Trips Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidictior CBSA GRANTEES National Origin {Top 5 in Descending Order} 1 Dot=75 People Mexico Philippines Korea ..�° El Salvador �' India ri.. RIECAP Transit Trips Index 0-10 ' 10.1 -20 ' 20 1 -30 ' 30.1 -40 ' 40.1-50 ' 50.1-60 ' 60.1 -70 ' 70 1 -80 ' 80.1-90 ' 90.1-100 This regional version of Map 12 demonstrates the challenges of providing public transportation. Temecula's access to public transportation is above average in the region; however, it is still a local challenge that can be improved upon. Appendix A 38 Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and Family Status) Transit Trips Index for Jurisd Ect€on and Region wdh racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPS Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES % of Households that are Families with Chiidren • 0%-20% amw® 20.1%-40% • 40.1%-60% �I w • 60.1%-80% ® ® ® RIECAP . ® Transit Trips index 0-10 ® � 1o1-z0 • !• ' 20.1-30 - ' 30.1-40 ® hill 40.1-50 ' 50.1-50 • ® ® ' 60.1 -70 • ® ® ' 70.1-90 ® ' 80.1-90 `90.1-100 ChlyofPivemkie, County of Riverside, SanGIS, Esri, HERE, DeLarme, NGA, fiS GS This version of Map 12, demonstrates how often families with children in a particular census tract use public transportation. The darker shading indicates greater usage at the neighborhood level. In the lightly shaded census tract in the northern portion of the City, there are fewer families that reside in that area. Appendix A 39 CESA GRANTEES %❑of Households that are Families with Children • 0%-20% 20.1%-40% . 40.1%-60% 60.1%-90% �80.1%-100% RJECAP TransitTrips Index u 0-10 ' 10.1-20 ' 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1-40 ' 40.1 - 50 • ' 50.1-60 • . . • S V .. . ' 60.1-70 . • • • •• 4W ' 70.1-30 O • • ' 80.1-90 ' 90.1-100 • O • Esri, HERE, UeLorme, NGATUSGS, NPS I United States Census Bureau This version of Map 12 provided by HUD shows regional that there are high concentrations of families with children in the regional population centers. Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and Family Status) Transit Trips Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racefethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction + • � •ram �� 0.0 SL • •• Sob Appendix A 40 Map 13 - Demographics and Low Transportation Cost (Low Transportation Cost and Race/Ethnicity) Low Transportation Cost Index with €acelethi city, natlonai origin, family status and RfECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction . ••' GRANTEES • _ Demographics 2010 1 Dot -75 • _ - =tJJ:� White, Non -Hispanic - IeF Black, Non -Hispanic • Native American. Non -Hispanic • . e ' Asial-Facific Islander, Non -Hispanic • _ ., .. ' Hispanic s1 1FR Other, Non -Hispanic • R;ECAP Low Traits portation Cost Index ., 0-10 • ., bake. 10.1-20 r - ' 20.1 -30 2• _ �r . 30.1 -40 • J •r .. .40.1-50 • • . • .. ■ 50.1 - 60 t _ . .80.] -90 • ram' ' 90.1-100 • ! City of Riverside. County of Riverside, SanGIS. Esri, HERE. DeLorme• I USGS l U There are three versions to Map 13, which provides an index on the cost of transportation by census tract. The darker shading represents lower cost of transportation at the neighborhood level. The lower income census tracts have lower transportation costs due to usage of public transportation. All races and ethnicities are equally affected by the cost of transportation. Appendix A 41 Map 13 - Demographics and Low Transportation Cost (Low Transportation Cost and National Origin) Low Transportation Cost with race ethnicity, national origin_ family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisdiction 1 0 erside. County of Riverside. Sari Esri. HERE. DeLorme. NGA, USGS W"M GRANTEES National Origin (Top 5 in Descending Order) 1 Dot = 75 People Mexico �? s Philippines Cif= Korea W61EI Salvador V India RECAP Low Transportation Cost Index 0-10 10.1 -20 20.1 - 30 301-40 ' 40.1-50 ' 501-60 ' 50.1-70 ' 70 1 -80 ' 80.1-90 ' 90.1 - 100 This version of Map 13 measures cost of transportation by neighborhood by national origin. The darker shading represents lower cost of transportation at the neighborhood level. The lower income census tracts have lower transportation costs due to usage of public transportation. Racial and ethnic groups are spread evenly throughout the City, but the map above shows that most have lower than average costs for transportation. Appendix A 42 Map 13 - Demographics and Low Transportation Cost (Low Transportation Cost and National Origin) Low Transportation Cost with raceleth in icily, national org in, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction ping iL • �,. . may, _ s CB SA GRANTEES National Origin (Top 5 in Descending Order) 1 Dot =75 People Mexico �Wsr Philippines s7 Korea LmaEl Salvador y, tog India RIECA P Law Transportation Cast Index u 0-10 . 10.1 -20 . 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1 -40 ' 40.1 - 50 . 50.1 - 60 . 60.1 -70 ' 70.1 -80 ' 80.1 - 90 . 90.1 -100 Esri, HF;iF-BeLo e, NGA, USGS, NPS i United States CPS=••, Rua , lam] � ■ This version of Map 13 shows more clearly that transportation costs are lower along freeway arteries in the northern portion of the region and in Temecula. However, it is still a major challenge to provide low cost transportation in the entire region. Appendix A 43 Map 13 - Demographics and Low Transportation Cost (Low Transportation Cost and Family Status) Low Transportation Cost Index with racefethmmly, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES s � p • %of Households that are Fami€ieswith Children • 0%-20% 20-1 % - 40% ® • 40-1%-60% .60-1%-80% ® ® .80-1%-100% RIECAP Low Transportation Cost Index 0-10 10.1-20 • 20.1-30 • ' 30.1-40 OWL ` 40.1 - 50 - . 50.1 - 60 . ' 60.1-70 EW --- - .70.1-80 ® ® 4 ' 80.1-90 ` 90.1 -100 i of Riverside, County of Riverside. SanGIS, Esn, HERE. UeLorme. NGA. USGS This version of Map 13 provides an index for the cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood by families with children. The darker shading represents lower cost of transportation at the neighborhood level. Families are spread throughout the City, but areas with the highest cost for transportation tend to have fewer families. Appendix A 44 Map 13 - Demographics and Low Transportation Cost (Low Transportation Cost and Family Status) Low Transportation Cost Index with racelethnicity, national origin, famiry status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, GA Region; Temecula, GA (063712) Jurisidiction • • • • - • 3..- -,a • • CBSA • • • • .._. • • . J • • • GRANTEES •• •• • • %of Households that are Families with Children n� •.•• • • • • • - • 40.1%-60% • • • • • • • • • • . 60.1%-80% • • • .80.1%-100% • • RIECAP • • • - N • • •• • • Low Transportation Cost Index • •• 0-10 10.1-20 • •p• • • • • ' 20.1-30 ' 40.1 - 50 • ' 60.1 -70 • • ' 70.1 -80 • • r • • 80.1-90 90.1-100 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, NGA, USGS. NI' I United States Census Bureau This version of Map 13 demonstrates the households with families and low transportation cost for the entire region. The families with children tend to be clustered around the regional population centers. While Temecula fares better than many other communities in the region for transportation costs, public transportation is a challenge for the entire region. Appendix A 45 Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and Race/Ethnicity) Low Poverty Index with racelethniclty, nationaf origin, family status and PJECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES Demographics 2010 1 Dot =75 , White, Non -Hispanic ice! Black, Non -Hispanic .51 Native American, Non -Hispanic }� �a Asia ViPacihc Islander, Non -Hispanic 4 ^y�* Hispanic ' w+; Other Non -Hispanic RIECAP Low Poverty Index 0-10 10.1 - 20 V 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1-40 . 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1 - 60 ' 60.1 - 70 ' 70.1 - 30 . 80.1 - 90 ' 90.1 - 100 There are three versions of Map 14, which provides an index regarding exposure to poverty by census tract, with an overlay of race and ethnicity. The darker shading represents less exposure to poverty. The factor is based on the number of persons in poverty in a census block group in 2010 based on an ACS data provided by HUD (2006- 2010). The north central part of the City has the greatest exposure to poverty. Many commercial shopping centers are located in this census tract, along with a mix of affordable housing units, and market -rate apartments. This census tract also contains Temecula Elementary, the City's only Title I School. When compared to data in Table 12 in the Assessment, Temecula fares better than the national average for exposure to poverty with all race and ethnicities. Appendix A 46 Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and Race/Ethnicity) Low Poverty Index with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, GA Region; Temecula, GA (063712) Jurisidiction CRSA t I -y y GRANTEES . •}_-, . - f Demographics 2010 +' •r1r•:• ti 1 :' ~• 1 Dot-75 w• !�'rc _ -Z. White, Non -Hispanic G - Black, Non -Hispanic '� � ` � • • � Native American, Non -Hispanic _ F ,�+ ^ , •.i �••' _:•,• , 0 2. '„ ,�+, AsianlPaciSc Islander, Non -Hispanic '_ f�' � F .���;Y; • � _ '���.'� Hispanic i •-x Ci �i, i +'" •- - -»-I Other, Non -Hispanic Y i • r �Q y�r RIECAP c46%., '�, •� • r-a"" •s'. - Low Poverty Index 0-10 -4 ten!'. ,. ';i �•'�•" i - .10.1-20 20.1 - 30 30.1-40 hill40.1-50 r3 . 50.1 - 60 ' 60.1 -70 ' 70 1 -80 -- c ' 80.1 -90^ Y Fcn HFRF Dal nrma NFA 114fzR NPR I f initad Rtatac f:ann is Riuraau —�7 n r The regional Map 14 provides a low poverty index with an overlay of race and ethnicity. The exposure to poverty varies widely throughout the region, as to be expected with a large area. Appendix A 47 Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and National Origin) Low Poverty Index with racelethnictty, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES National Origin{Top 5 in Be sc on ding Order] 1� �Lot =75 People YTe Mexico Philippines M. Korea El Salvador R India RIECAP Low Poverty Index 0-10 10.1 -20 ■ 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1 -40 ` 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1 - 60 ' 60.1 - 70 . 70.1 - 80 ' 80.1 - 90 . 90.1 -100 This version of Map 14 measures exposure to poverty by census tract by national origin. The darker shading represents less exposure to poverty. The factor is based on the number of persons in poverty in a census block group in 2010 based on an ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). While persons from other nations live in the area with the highest exposure to poverty, populations based on national origin are spread evenly throughout the City. This census tract also contains Temecula Elementary, the City's only Title I School. When compared to data in Table 12 in the Assessment, Temecula fares better than the national average for exposure to poverty with all race and ethnicities. Appendix A 48 Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and National Origin) Low Poverty Index with racelethniclty, national origin, family status and PJECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA GRANTEES 11) National Origin (Top 5 in Descending Cii 1 Dot=75 People S �s` Mexico Philippines Ili: Korea EI Salvador India R)ECAP 11) Low Poverty Index 0-10 10.1 -20 ' 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1 -40 ' 40.1 - 50 ■ 50.1 - 60 ' 50.1 -70 ' 70.1 -80 ' 80.1 - 90 ' 90.1 -100 This version of Map 14 demonstrates that the region has large variations in exposure to poverty, as seen in the checkboard pattern. It is greater in the northern portions of the region and the agricultural areas to the east than in Temecula. Appendix A 49 Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and Family Status) Low Poverty Index with racefethnicity. national origin, family status and PIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES % of Nouseh Dids that a m Families with C h ildre n • 0%-20% . 40.1%-60% . 50.1%-80% 80.1%-100% RIECAP N Low Poverty Index 0-10 i0.1-20 20.1 - 30 30.1-40 ` 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1-60 ' 60.1-70 ' 70.1-80 ' 80.1-90 ■ 90.1-100 This version of Map 14 provides an index on the exposure to poverty by for families with children, broken down by census tract. The darker the shading represents less exposure to poverty at the neighborhood level. The factor is based on the number of persons in poverty in a census block group in 2010 based on an ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). There is not a concentration of families in the census tracts with the greatest exposure to poverty in the City. Appendix A 50 Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and Family Status) Low Poverty Index with race/ethnicity, national origin, famiry status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, GA (063712) Jurisidiction Ci GRANTEES % of Households that are Families with Children • 0%-20% 20.1%-40% • 40.1%-60% . 60.1%-80% *80.1%-100% RIECAP Low Poverty Index u 0-10 ' 10.1 -20 ' 20.1-30 ' 30.1 -40 ' 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1-60 ' 60.1 -70 ' 70.1 -80 ' 90.1-90 ' 90.1-100 WE —0i M United States Census Bureau I Es d, HERE CeLoime. NGA, USGS, Ni ']I� The regional version of Map 14 demonstrations high variation rates in exposure to poverty for families with children throughout the region. As demonstrated by the previous map, there is less variation in exposure to poverty in Temecula than the region as a whole. Appendix A 51 Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and Race/Ethnicity) Environmentat Health Index with racelethr ity, national ergin, family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidicticn GRANTEES Demographics 2019 1 Dot-75 White, Non -Hispanic yBlack, Non -Hispanic Native American, Non -Hispanic a 1'l "AsianlPacific Islander. Non -Hispanic Hispanic Other, Non -Hispanic f VIA RIECAP Ll Environmental Health Index 0-10 Li 10.1 -20 ® 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1 -40 ' 40.1 - 50 ` 50.1 - 60 ' 60.1 -70 ` 70.1 - 90 . 80.1 -90 ' 90.1-100 There are three versions of Map 15, which provides an index on environmental health, based on EPA estimates of air quality, carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological toxins by census tract, with an overlay of race and ethnicity. The darker shading represents less exposure to air quality issues at the neighborhood level. The areas with the greatest exposure to environmental health concerns are located along the freeway. Temecula's exposure to environmental health issues is lower than the region's average. Appendix A 52 Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and Race/Ethnicity) Environmental Health Index with racelethnicdy, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA GRANTEES Demographics 2010 1 Dot=75 - White, Non -Hispanic ri Black, Non -Hispanic VNative American, Non -Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic Hispanic �.1 Other, Non -Hispanic RIECAP Environmental Health Index u 0-10 ' 10.1-20 ' 20.1-30 ' 30.1-40 ' 401-50 IN 501-60 ' 60.1-70 ' 70.1-80 ' 80.1-90 Regional Map 15 demonstrates that Temecula has better environmental health than other population centers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, however does not fare as well as the less populous and less dense areas of the region. Appendix A 53 Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and National Origin) Environmental Health Index with race.'ethnicity- national origin. family status and PfECAPs Temecula; CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES National Origin (Top 5 in Descending Order) 1 Cot =75 People a Mexico irC�S:F� P,IC�I� Philippines �prcr Korea Yrs4 El Salvador tir� India RECAP Environmental Health Index 0-10 10.1 -20 20.1-30 ' 30.1-40 ' 40.1-50 ' 50.1-50 ' 60.1-70 ' 70.1-30 ' 80.1-90 ' 90.1-100 This version of Map 15 provides an index on environmental health, based on EPA estimates of air quality, carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological toxins by census tract, with an overlay of households by the top five national origins. The darker shading represents less exposure to air quality and toxicity issues at the neighborhood level. The areas with the highest exposure are closest to the freeway. Appendix A 54 Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and National Origin) Environmental Health Index with racelethmcity, national origin, family status and WECAPS Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA GRANTEES National Origin ITop 5 in Descending On 1 Dot=75 Poop �? Mexico 9: Philippines (� Korea El Salvador India RIECAP Environmental Health Index U 0-10 ' 10.1 -20 ' 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1 -40 . 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1 - 60 ' 60.1 -70 . 70.1 -80 ' 80.1 - 90 ' 90.1-100 Regional Map 15, with an overlay of top five national origins, demonstrates that Temecula has better environmental health than other population centers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, however does not fare as well as the less populous and less dense areas of the region. Appendix A 55 Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and Family Status) Environmental Health Index with racelethrnc4, national origin, fawlly status and €2 ECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction GRANTEES % of House holds that are Families with Childre r • 0%-20% 20.1%-40% . 40.1%-60% 60.1%-SODA 80.1%-100% RIECAP Environmental Health Irdem 0-10 ' 10.1-20 ' 20.1-30 ' 30.1-40 ' 40.1-50 ' 50.1-60 i 50.1-70 ` 70.1 - 80 ' 80.1-90 ' 90.1-100 This version of Map 15 provides an index on environmental health, based on EPA estimates of air quality, carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological toxins by census tract, with an overlay of households with families. The darker shading represents less exposure to air quality and toxicity issues at the neighborhood level. The areas with the highest exposure are closest to the freeway. Appendix A 56 Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and Family Status) Environmental Health Index with racelethnicRy, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino-ontaria, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisdiction W-qV*-*.4 r CBSA GRANTEES % of Households that are Families with Children • 0%-20% 20.1%-40% + 40.1%-60% . 60.1%-80% - 80.1%-100% RIECAP Environmental Health Index L -10 ' 10.1 -20 ' 20.1 - 30 ' 30.1 -40 ' 40.1 - 50 ' 50.1 - 60 ' 60.1 -70 ' 70.1 -80 ' 80.1 - 90 ' 90.1 -100 This regional version of Regional Map 15, with an overlay of households with children, demonstrates that Temecula has better environmental health than other population centers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, however does not fare as well as the less populous and less dense areas of the region. Appendix A 57 Map 16 — Disability by Type — Hearing, Vision and Cognitive Disabili Temecula (CDBG} Name: Map 16-Disability by Type Variation: Hearing. Vision and Cognitive Disability Description: Dot density map ofthe population of persons with disabilities by persons with vision. hearing. cognitive. ambulatory. self -care. and independent living difficulties with RECAPS for Jurisdiction and Legend TOG Dot Value: 1 dot= 75 Disab[Ilty, 1 Dot = 75 �. Hearing Disability !� Vision Disibility W Cognitive Disability RECAP There are two versions of Map 16. This version depicts a dot density distribution by disability type (hearing, vision, cognition). Persons with disabilities are evenly distributed throughout the City. Data was supplied by HUD based on ACS data (2008-2012). Appendix A 58 Map 16 - Disability by Type [Hearing, Vision and Cognitive Disability] Dot density map of the population of persons with disabilities by persons with vision, hearing, cognitive, ambulatory, self -care, and independent living difficulties with RIECAPs for Jurisdiction and Region Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction r • + .. r MA - k-i y '' b1: • . • rt i �` .i}. r. ''�. •tip tir , l .tvJs ' NIPS I United States Census Bureau CBSA GRANTEES DisabilHy 1 Dot=75 i Hearing Disability i } vision Disability Cognitive Disability RIECAP Map 16 shows the locations where persons with hearing, vision and cognitive disabilities live throughout the region. The map demonstrates that they are concentrated in the northern urban areas of Riverside County, Hemet, and in the desert communities. Appendix A 59 Map 16 — Disability by Type — Ambulatory, Self -Care and Independent Living Disability Temecula ICDBG) Name: Map 16 - Disability by Type Variation: Ambulatory, Self -Care and Independent Living Disability Description: Dot density map ofthe population of persons with disabilities by persons with vision, hearing, cognitive, ambulatory. selFcare, and independent living difficulties with RIECAPs for Ju risd i cti on and Legend TOC Dot Vall1 dot= 75 Disability 1 Dot =75 Ambulatory Disability Self -Care Disability Via! Independent Living Disability RIECAP This version of Map 16 depicts a dot density distribution by disability type (ambulatory, self -care, independent living). Persons with disabilities are evenly distributed throughout the City. Data was supplied by HUD based on ACS data (2008-2012). Appendix A 60 Map 16 - Disability by Type (Ambulatory, Self -Care and Independent Living Disability) Dot density map of the population of persons with disabilities by persons with vision, hearing, cognitive, ambulatory, se care, and independent living cUlfiiculties with RIECAPs Tor Juristliction and Region Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction • •1� CBSA �, +•- l.�,.• GRANTEES IC � ssi' + •�� '� 1' �, } - Disability Y. � �- � •'•�• ,�•_ . ��}' �,• •' Y • ~!�F:•••f .5 Ambulatory Disability sL.S�. S ! Y' �• • • _-. �_ Self -Care Disability s ti'_' S • �i:' � • :ya: " : a " j , Independent Living Disability ''�. RIECAP f �� • l�)'S�� L�r - � � �a �,+• - its, r '. •��is� • • 1. •'+ • y +•ice• � rS • •• '��•'�1�Y •• • 5,4 • S i-, HERE, DeLorme, WGA JJS�S�IPS I Dnited States Census Bu Map 16 shows where persons with ambulatory, self -care and independent living disabilities are located throughout the region. While the City has some residents with disabilities, the greatest concentrations are in the north, closer to County services. Appendix A 61 Map 17 — Disability by Age Group Temecula )CDBG) Name: Map 17-Disability by Age Group Description: All persons with disabilities by age range [5-17](18-64)[65+ivoith RiECAPs Jurisdiction: Temecula rCDBG:,. Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Legend TOC Dot Value: 1 dot= 75 ❑isability 1 Dot = 75 Disabled Ages 5-17 4 Disabled Ages 18-64 Disabled Over 64 RiECAP Map 17 shows the location of people with disabilities by age. Persons with disabilities are evenly distributed throughout the City. Data was supplied by HUD based on ACS data (2008-2012). Appendix A 62 Map 17 - Disability by Age Group (Disability by Age Group) All persons with disabilities by age range (5-17)(18-64)(65+) with RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction • , Ce SA a� . i• f •w •qr�. • . • • . • GRANTEES sk l. •iraa .i i7i::'+•i��., �'y�•�f}�x ...^ ••'. Disability .4y x7 •. •1Ja'y�T+.4'r 1 r _y �• • • • • ' _ • 1 Dot-75 • , • r : _S~' r Pq� Disabled Ages 5-17 j •�% x e •.Sb ':•W-. f • r •} •1 �' }k •, • ilk •*r _mil_• :� •i _ 7•, - �• ��ys• a 1•iLqq}I Disabled Ages 18-64 r�ye r I Disabled Over 64 - r.K.• •r. • r''. err •• ~ •• � _ • - i''}'�=`ems .'. • ••t - . _ ` ' r ;� S � Stil t• Alt • Esd. HERE. DeLorme. NGA. USGS. NIPS I United states Census Bun:au Map 17 shows the ages of those with disabilities from a regional perspective. As common for other persons with disabilities, these persons have located near where County services can be easily accessed. Appendix A 63 APPENDIX B HUD -Provided Tables APPENDIX B HUD -Provided Tables Table Series Title Table 1 Demographics(2010)...................................................................................1 Table 2 Demographic Trends (1990-2010)..............................................................2 Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990-2010).........................................3 Table 4 R/ECAPs Demographics..............................................................................4 Table 5 Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category ............................ 5 Table 6 Publicly Supported Housing Residents by Race/Ethnicity ........................... 6 Table 7 R/ECAP and Non -RECAP Demographics by Publicly Supported Housing ProgramCategory ........................................................................................ 7 Table 8 Demographics of Publicly Supported Housing Development by Program Category....................................................................................................... 8 Table 9 Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs ......... 9 Table 10 Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden .............10 Table 11 Publicly Supported Housing by Program Category: Units by Number of Bedrooms and Number of Children...........................................................11 Table 12 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity..................................................12 Table 13 Disability by Type......................................................................................13 Table 14 Disability by Age Group............................................................................ 14 Table 15 Disability by Publicly Supported Housing Program Category ................... 15 Table 1 provides a comparison in the demographic data for the City with the region including total population, the number and percentage of persons by race/ethnicity, national origin (10 most populous), Limited English Proficiency populations (LEP) (10 most populous), disability by type, sex, age range (under 18, 18-64, 65+), and households with children. The City is diverse in its racial/ethnic composition, national origin, LEP, and persons with disabilities. However, the region as a whole is even more diverse than the City. The region is the largest region in the United States and is home to many immigrant households. Demographic data is based on sample questions from the 2010 Census and may not reflect official data released by the Census Bureau. Tabl a 1- Demograph i cs (Temecula. CAC136CalJurisdiction jRioeraide-{an 9ernardinc-Cntaria. CA CGSAf Region Itane jEltnICFty # % # % White, Non -Hispanic 47,973 57.00 1,546,666 36.61 91ack, Non -Hispanic 3,265 3.2Z 301,523 7.14 Hispanic 20,991 24.94 1,996,402 47.25 Psi anorPacificlslander,Non-Hispa nit 9,172 9.71 261,593 6.19 NativL AmL-rican, Non -Hispanic 527 0.63 19,454 0.46 Other, Non -Hispanic 143 0.17 7,737 0.19 National Origin Country Country 41countryoforigin Mexico 4,702 4.EZ Mexico 553,493 13.10 #2countryoforigin Philippines 3,25-4 3.24 Philippines 62,019 1.47 #3countryoforigin Korea 659 0.65 ElSalvador 30,455 0.72 #4countryoforigin El Salvador 526 0.52 Guatemala 19,549 0.46 45countryoforigin India 467 0.46 Vietnam 19,525 0.46 #6countryoforigin Canada 361 0.36 Korea 13,565 0.44 #7countryoforigin Tri n id ad &Tobago 355 0.35 India 15,522 0.37 #Scountryoforigin Chinaexcl.Hong KGrigg &Taiwa 327 0.33 Canada 14,763 0.35 #9countryoforigin Vietnam 309 0.31 Ch i n a excl. Hong Kong Taiw 14,055 0.33 414countryoforigin England 259 0.26 Taiwan 9,245 0.22 Limited Englishi Proficiancy{LEPM Language Language Language #1 LEP Language Spanish 4,209 4.44 Spanish 533,544 12.63 #2 LEP Language Tagalog 1,304 1.33 Chinese 20,495 0.49 #3 LEP Language Korean 422 0.45 Tagalog 16,986 0.40 #4 LEP La ngu age Chinese 317 0.33 Vietnamese 12,570 0.30 NS LEP La ngu age Thai 163 0.17 Korean 11,2Z3 0.23 #6 LEP La ngu age Hindi 115 0.12 Arabic 6,335 0.16 #7 LEP Language Other Pacific Island Language 107 0.11 OtherPacific lslan 5,360 0.13 #9LEP Language Persian 102 0.11 Oth2rIndiclanguag 3,125 0.07 #9 LEP La ngu age OtherIndicLanguage 100 0.11 Cambodian 3,117 0.07 #10 LEP Language Vietnamese 97 0.10 Thai 2,576 0.06 Disability Type Hearing difficulty 2,501 2.67 126,641 3.24 Vision difficulty 1,057 1.13 W,400 2.26 Cognitivedifficulty 3,312 3.54 170,114 4.36 Ambulatorydiffculty 3,579 3.33 241,262 6.18 Self-caredifficulty 1,973 2.00 102,941 2.63 1ndependentIivingdiffculty 2,710 2.90 170,490 4.37 Sex Male 41,260 49.03 2,101,033 49.73 Female 42,393 50.97 2,123,76& 50.27 Age Under 13 25,351 30.12 1,214,696 23.75 18-64 52,110 61.92 2,570,221 60.2A 65+ 6,697 7.96 439,934 10.41 Family Type miIieswith chiIdren 12,274 56.35 500,062 50.99 -Fa Note 1: Al %represent ash a re ofth e tota I population within thejurindiction or region, except familytype, which is out oftataI families. Note 2: 10 most popu Ious places of birth and languages atthejurisdiction Ievel may not bethesame asth a 10 most popu Ious at the Region Ieve1, and a rethusIabeledseparate ly. Appendix B Table 2 shows demographic trends from 1990 through 2010. Tabular demographic trend data for the City and region, including the number and percentage of persons by race/ethnicity, total national origin (foreign born), total LEP, sex, age range (under 18, 18-64, 65+), and households with children. The City has experienced tremendous growth in the last twenty years. While all racial and ethnic groups except Native Americans have increased numerically, Hispanics and Asians have far exceeded other racial and ethnic groups proportionately. Whites are continuing to increase, but at a slower rate. This is true for the region as a whole. This is also reflected in the percentage of persons from other nations. However, those with limited English proficiency have not increased as dramatically. The number families with children, in proportion to the general population, (and correspondingly those under the age of 18) have decreased in the last ten years for both the City and region. fable 2 - Demographic Trends (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA CBSA) Region Race/Ethnicity 1990 # % 2000 # % 2010 # % 1990 # % 2000 # % 2010 # % White, Non -Hispanic Black, Non -Hispanic Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic Native American, Non -Hispanic 19,580 309 3,545 586 300 80.23 1.27 14.53 2.40 1.23 46,367 69.26 2,784 4.16 12,197 18.22 4,310 6.44 956 1.43 47,973 57.00 3,265 3.88 20,991 24.94 8,172 9.71 527 0.63 1,615,830 62.41 168,731 6.52 685,672 26.48 93,331 3.60 18,007 0.70 1,540,776 47.33 263,322 8.09 1,228,683 37.75 164,035 5.04 36,061 1.11 1,546,666 301,523 1,996,402 261,593 19,454 36.61 7.14 47.25 6.19 0.46 National Origin Foreign -born 2,388 9.83 7,839 11.71 15,573 15.50 360,666 13.93 612,354 18.81 920,860 21.80 LEP Limited English Proficiency 1,560 6.42 3,903 5.83 7,613 7.57 252,012 9.73 462,538 14.21 640,802 15.17 Sex Male Female 12,299 12,001 50.61 49.39 33,228 49.63 33,727 50.37 41,260 49.03 42,898 50.97 1,294,274 50.00 1,294,518 50.00 1,618,466 49.73 1,636,316 50.27 2,101,083 2,123,768 49.73 50.27 Age Under 18 18-64 65+ 7,614 14,935 1,751 31.33 61.46 7.21 23,494 35.09 38,770 57.90 4,690 7.00 25,351 30.12 52,110 61.92 6,697 7.96 771,845 29.81 1,539,215 59.46 277,732 10.73 1,044,686 32.10 1,869,817 57.45 340,280 10.45 1,214,696 2,570,221 439,934 28.75 60.84 10.41 Family Type Families with children 3,592 54.09 7,042 62.40 12,274 56.35 331,552 50.68 266,840 54.97 500,062 50.99 Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region for that year, except family type, which is out of total families. Note 2: Data Sources: Decennial Census: ACS Appendix B 2 Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity — Tabular race/ethnicity dissimilarity index for the City and the region. Dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate high integration (low segregation), values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation. Despite its tremendous growth rate, the City continues to have low dissimilarity trends meaning that there is high integration for all populations. On the other hand, the region is experiencing moderate segregation of population groups. Table 3 - Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction CA CBSA) Region Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 Non-White/White 2.17 11.78 18.93 32.92 38.90 41.29 Black/White 6.22 15.02 23.51 43.74 45.48 47.66 Hispanic/White 1.04 14.35 19.40 35.57 42.40 43.96 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 1 5.26 11.18 26.051 33.17 37.31 43.07 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info I Appendix B Table 4 provides tabular data for the percentage of racial/ethnic groups, families with children, and national origin groups (10 most populous) for the City and region who reside in R/ECAPs (racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty). Note: The City does not have an RECAPS. As seen in many of the maps in this Assessment of Fair Housing, the region contains several RECAP areas, with the closest located approximately thirty miles away in Hemet. Table 4 - RECAP Demographics (Riverside -San Bernardi no -Onto rio, fro CBSA) (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction Region R/ECAP Race/Ethnicity # % # % Total Population in R/ECAPs 0 - 216,883 - White, Non -Hispanic 0 31,772 14.65 Black, Non -Hispanic 0 21,220 9.78 Hispanic 0 150,371 69.33 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic 0 8,676 4.00 Native American, Non -Hispanic 0 938 0.43 Other, Non -Hispanic a 390 0.18 R/ECAP Family Type Total Families in R/ECAPs 6 42,614 - Families with children a 26,863 63.04 RECAP National Origin Country Country Total Population in R/ECAPs 0 - 216,883 - #1 country of origin Null 0 0.00 Mexico 50,507 23.29 #2 country of origin Null 0 a.aa El Salvador 2,563 1.18 #3 country of origin Null 0 0.00 Guatemala 1,424 0.66 #4 country of origin Null 0 0.00 Philippines 775 0.36 #5 country of origin Null 0 0.06 China excl. Hong Kong & Taiw 750 0.35 #6 country of origin Null 0 0.00 Vietnam 619 0.29 #7 country of origin Null_ 0 0.00 F.71duras 556r 0.26 #8 country of origin Null 6 0.06 urea 384F 0.18 #9 country of origin Null a 0.00 Canada 239 0.11 #10 country of origin Null 0 0.00 Taiwan 239 0.11 Note 1: 10 most populous groups at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately. Note 2: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS Note 3i Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info). Appendix B 4 Table 5 provides tabular data for total units by four categories of publicly supported housing in the Jurisdiction (Public Housing, Project -Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program) for the City. The chart below does not include affordable housing projects funding with former redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing of redevelopment assisted units. Table 5 - Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category (Temecula, CA CDSG) Jurisdiction Housing Units # % Total housing units 28,971 - Public Housing Project -based Section 8 55 0.19 Other Multifamily HCV Program 97 0.33 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; APSH Note 2. Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchan eg info). Appendix B Table 6 provides tabular race/ethnicity data for four categories of publicly supported housing (Public Housing, Project - Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, Tenant -Based Section 8 Vouchers (HCV)) in the City, compared to the population as a whole, and to persons earning 30% annual median income (AMI), in the City. Except for Asians, all racial/ethnic groups have similar participation rates in publicly supported housing. Hispanics and Blacks have a greater proportion of participation than Whites for project -based vouchers and Blacks have a greater proportion than the other groups for tenant - based vouchers. However, the programs do not show any patterns of segregation. The chart below does not include units assisted with City redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing of those units. Table 6 - Publicly Supported Housing Residents by Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity (Temecula, CA CDBG) Asian or Pacific Jurisdiction White Black Hispanic Islander Housing Type # % # % # % # Public Housing Project -Based Section 8 20 37.04 11 20.37 22 40.74 0 0.00 Other Multifamily HCV Program 45 56.96 13 16.46 21 26.58 0 0.00 0-30% of AMI 1,119 53.54 120 5.74 544 26.03 145 6.94 0-50% of AMI 2,134 46.90 280 6.15 1,219 26.79 299 6.57 0-80% of AMI 4,564 51.72 409 4.63 2,504 28.37 649 7.35 (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction 47,973 57.00 3,265 3.88 20,991 24.94 8,172 9.71 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; APSH; CHAS Note 2: #s presented are numbers of households not individuals. Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details {www.hudexchange.infoL Appendix B 6 Table 7 provides tabular data on publicly supported housing units and R/ECAPs for the City. It is important to note that the City does not have any RECAPS (racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty). The chart below shows that HCV units mostly include elderly and households with disabilities, some which are families with children present. The chart below does not include units assisted with City redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing of those units. Table 7 - RECAP and Nan -RECAP Demographics by Publicly Supported Housing Program Category (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction Total # units % with a % Asian or % Families (occupied) % Elderly disability* % White % Black % Hispanic Pacific Islander with children Public Housing R/ECAP tracts Non R/ECAP tracts Project -based Section S mrml m7m R/ECAP tracts Non R/ECAP tracts 51 12.73 3.64 37.04 20.37 40.74 0.00 65.45 Other HUD Multifamily R/ECAP tracts Non R/ECAP tracts HCV Program R/ECAP tracts Non R/ECAP tracts 85 58.24 39.56 56.96 16.46 26.58 0.00 14.29 Note 1: Disability information is often reported for heads of household or spouse/co-head only. Here, the data reflect information on all members of the household. Note 2: Data Sources: APSH Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.infoj. Appendix B 7 Table 8 provides development level demographics by Public Housing, Project -Based Section 8, and Other Multifamily' for the City. This corresponds to the information presented in Table 6 for Project- Based Section 8 units. It should be noted that these totals do not reflect the units assisted with City redevelopment funds. Refer to Appendix J lists for redevelopment units. Table 8 - Demographics of Publicly Supported Housing Developments, by Program Category Project -Based Section 8 Project -Based (Temecula, CA Project -Based Households with CDBG) Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity (%) Children (%) Developments Rancho California White 38 55 Black 20 Hispanic 40 Asian 0 Note 1: For LIHTC properties, this information will be supplied by local knowledge. Note 2: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding error. Note 3: Data Sources: APSH Note 4: Refer to the Data Documentation for details {www.hudexchange.info Appendix B 8 Table 9 provides tabular data of total households in the City and region households experiencing one or more housing burdens by race/ethnicity and family size. For this table, the City's percentages mirror the region and the nation on average, for nearly all categories for households experiencing disproportionate housing needs. Whites have the lowest percentage of problems at 47% with Hispanics having the highest for the major groups at 62%. The Native American percentage may be high, because of Pechanga tribal land that is adjacent to City limits. The same conclusion holds true for those households with severe housing problems. They again reflect the region as a whole. Table 9 - Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs ir (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA CBSA) Region Households experiencing any of 4 housing problems' # with problems # households % with problems # with problems # households % with problems Race/Ethnicity White, Non -Hispanic 9,490 20,034 47.37 256,080 620,415 41.28 Black, Non -Hispanic 715 1,299 55.04 56,895 95,260 59.73 Hispanic 3,790 6,099 62.24 277,970 457,795 60.72 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispani 1,330 2,449 54.31 37,730 73,754 51.16 Native American, Non -Hispanic 360 445 80.90 3,154 6,294 50.11 Other, Non -Hispanic 235 575 40.87 11,725 22,795 51.44 Totgl 15,910 30,880 SL52 643,570 1,276,315 50.42 Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 9,755 19,795 49.28 319,120 712,850 44.77 Family households, 5+ people 2,680 4,790 55.95 163,795 245,315 66.77 Non -family households 3,485 6,290 55.41 160,655 318,160 5a.50 Households experiencing any of 4 # with severe. %with severe # with severe % with severe Severe Housing Problems" problems # households problems problems # households problems Race/Ethnicity White, Non -Hispanic 4,160 20,034 20.76 126,230 620,415 20.35 Black, Non -Hispanic 375 1,299 28.87 32,105 95,260 33.70 Hispanic 2,165 6,089 35.56 176,935 457,795 38.65 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispani 620 2,449 25.32 21,145 73,754 28.67 Native American, Non -Hispanic 150 445 33.71 1,680 6,294 26.69 Other, Non -Hispanic 10D 575 17.39 6,650 22,795 29.17 Total 7,555 30,880 24.47 364,730 1,276,315 28.58 Note 1: The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%. The four severe housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 50%. Note 2: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except household type and size, which is out of total households. Note 3: Data Sources: CHAS Note 4: Refer to the Data Documentation for details {+,v "v.hudexchange.infoj. Appendix B 9 Table 10 provides tabular data of the total number of households in the City and region experiencing severe housing burdens by race/ethnicity. The City's percentages reflect the region but the difference is not statistically significant among races/ethnicities and household types and sizes. Table 10 - Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden* (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA CBSA) Region # with severe cost % with severe # with severe cost % with severe Race/Ethnicity burden # households cost burden burden # households cost burden White, Non -Hispanic 3,960 20,034 19.77 112,395 620,415 19.12 Black, Non -Hispanic 305 1,299 23.48 28,660 95,260 30.09 Hispanic 1,615 6,089 26.52 116,490 457,795 25.45 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic 515 2,449 21.03 17,020 73,754 23.08 Native American, Non -Hispanic 125 445 28.09 1,300 6,294 20.65 Other, Non -Hispanic 85 575 14.78 5,425 22,795 23.80 Total 6,605 30,880 21.39 281,290 1,216,315 22.04 Household Type and Size Family households, <5 people 4,005 19,795 20.23 145,390 712,850 20.40 Family households, 5+ people 715 4,790 14.93 51,350 245,315 20.93 Non family households 1,885 6,290 29.97 84,550 318,160 26.57 Note 1: Severe housing cost burden is defined as greater than 50% of income. Note 2: All Y. represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except household type and size, which is out of total households. Note 3: The It households is the denominator for the %with problems, and may differ from the # households for the table on severe housing problems. Note 4: Data Sources: CHAS Note 5: Refer to the Data Documentation for details {www.hudexchange.infoj. Appendix B 10 Table 11 provides tabular data on the number of bedrooms for units of 4 categories of publicly supported housing (Public Housing, Project -Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, HCV) for the City. The chart below does not include units assisted with City redevelopment funds. The smaller units for HCV reflect that most of the units house seniors and persons with disabilities. See Appendix J for a listing of redevelopment assisted units. Table 11 - Publicly Supported Housing by Program Category: Units by Number of Bedrooms and Number of Children (Temecula, CA COBG) Jurisdiction Households in 0. Households in 2 Households in 1 Bedroom Bedroom 3+ Bedroom Households Units Units Units with Children Housing Type # % # % # % # Public Housing Project -Based Section 8 0 0.00 23 41.82 31 56.36 36 65.45 Other Multifamily HCV Program 1 53 58.24 25 27.47 5 5.49 13 14.29 Note 1: Data Sources: APSH Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info� Appendix B 11 Table 12 provides tabular data of opportunity indices for school proficiency, jobs proximity, labor -market engagement, transit trips, low transportation costs, low poverty, and environmental health for the City and region by race/ethnicity and among households below the Federal poverty line. In the following table, the higher scores reflect better standards for the City residents compared to the nation. In all of these indices, there is no significant difference among races and ethnicities in the City. In comparison to the national average (50%), the poverty and school proficiency indices are substantially higher, meaning the City has less poverty and better performing schools. This is especially true when compared to the region, which has scores substantially lower than the City. The labor market index is average compared to the nation, but much higher than the region. The transit and transportation indices are below the average, partly due to California's dependency on the automobile. Temecula's indices reflect the regional indices. Auto -dependency is also reflected with the average scores in the Jobs Proximity Index. There is little difference between the region and the City in its transit and jobs proximity scores. The same is true with the environmental health index, which is slightly below the national average and slightly above the regional average. Table 12- Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity School Low Low Poverty Proficiency Labor Market Transit Transportation Jobs Environmental (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction Index Index Index Index Cost Index Proximity Index Health Index Total Population White, Non -Hispanic 71.23 82.20 49.79 37.43 19.98 43.84 40.42 Black, Non -Hispanic 67.12 80.36 47.83 39.46 23.98 43.39 39.99 Hispanic 65.42 79.0D 47.44 39.41 25.05 44.36 40.10 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispani 67.93 81.58 48.20 39.94 22.70 43.37 40.01 Native American, Mon -Hispanic 68.80 80.86 46.38 38.79 18.10 44.07 40.04 Population below federal poverty line White, Non -Hispanic 65.41 79.54 48.79 39.95 24.93 49.41 39.77 Black, Non -Hispanic 54.98 80.53 51.31 41.84 29.89 56.55 38.58 Hispanic 58.03 78.90 49.50 43.87 28.51 45.26 39.43 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic 46.21 73.28 44.15 43.00 35.10 57.42 38.06 Native American, Mon -Hispanic 67.95 86.26 46.72 39.52 15.77 39.32 40.93 School Low (Riverside,San Bernardino -Ontario, Low Poverty Proficiency Labor Market Transit Transportation Jobs Environmental CA CBSA) Region Index Index Index Index Cost Index Proximity Index Health Index Total Population White, Non -Hispanic 52.61 53.19 34.50 37.96 25.75 49.40 38.01 Black, Non -Hispanic 42.80 44.09 27.18 42.55 31.82 48.67 29.31 Hispanic 37.51 40.97 24.20 43.12 32.68 47.41 29.22 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic 60.42 58.09 43.02 41.92 29.18 48.60 26.57 Native American, Non -Hispanic 41.19 45.70 25.06 36.84 26.34 49.72 41.33 Population below federal poverty line White, Non -Hispanic 38.39 44.64 25.55 38.74 29.20 50.12 40.58 Black, Non -Hispanic 27.15 35.02 17.39 43.48 34.78 49.72 30.90 Hispanic 23.78 34.72 16.42 44.76 36.54 49.77 30.32 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic42.30 44.87 30.51 45.00 37.05 51.79 24.89 Native American, Mon -Hispanic 30.24 39.35 20.61 39.17 32.05 52.12 38.58 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details {tiwvtiv.hudexchange.infol. Appendix B 12 Table 13 provides tabular data of persons with vision, hearing, cognitive, ambulatory, self -care, and independent living disabilities for the City and region. Persons may have more than one disability represented in the following table. The percentages for the City are less in all categories compared to the region. This could reflect that more services are available in the County Seats of both counties compared to the Temecula Valley. This sentiment has been echoed in community meetings and consultations. Table 13 - Disability by Type (Temecula, CA CDBG) (Riverside -San Bernardino - Jurisdiction Ontario, CA CBSA) Region Disability Type # % # % Hearing difficulty 2,501 2.67 126,641 3.24 Vision difficulty 1,057 1.13 88,400 2.26 Cognitive difficulty 3,312 3.54 170,114 4.36 Ambulatory difficulty 3,579 3.83 241,262 6.18 Self -care difficulty 1,873 2.00 102,841 2.63 Independent living difficulty 2,710 2.90 170,490 4.37 Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region. Note 2: Data Sources: ACS Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.infol Appendix B 13 Table 14 provides data of persons with disabilities by age range (5-17, 18-64, and 65+) for the City and region. The table reflects the greatest numbers of those with disabilities are adults between ages 18 and 64 followed by the elderly. To draw a conclusion of need, this data is skewed due to the age span of categories. Proportionately, the City has fewer persons with disabilities, except for children. This sentiment was also echoed in the community meetings. Table 14 - Disability by Age Group (Temecula, CA CDBG) (Riverside -San Bernardino - Jurisdiction Ontario, CA CBSA) Region Age of People with Disabilities # % # % age 5-17 with Disabilities 1,097 1.17 37,092 0.95 age 18-64 with Disabilities 4,114 4.40 241,640 6.19 age 65+with Disabilities 2,823 3.02 174,002 4.46 Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region. Note 2: Data Sources: ACS Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info Appendix B 14 Table 15 provides tabular data on disability and publicly supported housing for the City and region. The chart below does not include units assisted with City redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing of affordable housing projects funded by redevelopment. Table 15 - Disability by Publicly Supported Housing Program Category People with a (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction Disability* # �o Public Housing Project -Based Section 8 2 3.64 Other Multifamily HCV Program 36 39.56 (Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA CBSA) Region Public Housing 189 11.67 Project -Based Section 8 630 10.36 Other Multifamily 98 4.80 HCV Program 4,478 27.11 Note 1: The definition of "disability" used by the Census Bureau may not be comparable to reporting requirements under HUD programs. Note 2: Data Sources: ACS Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange. info). Appendix B 15 APPENDIX C City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing Resident Surveys APPENDIX D City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing Stakeholder Survey Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country iGracias por participar en esta encuesta! El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula esta preparando el Plan Consolidado 2017-2021 y una Evaluacion de Vivienda Justa tal y como to requiere el Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de los Estados Unidos (HUD, por sus siglas en ingles). Esta Encuesta de Residentes proporcionara aportaciones por parte de los residentes de la comunidad con respecto a la vivienda justa, vivienda asequible, desarrollo comunitario, desarrollo economico y otras necesidades de los residentes de la ciudad. El Plan Consolidado le permite al Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula utilizar los fondos de Subsidios Globales para el Desarrollo Comunitario (CDBG) para mejorar la calidad de vida de sus residentes. Esta encuesta debe tomar alrededor de 5-7 minutos para completarla. Sus respuestas seran confidenciales y unicamente utilizadas junto con todas las respuestas. El resultado de la encuesta sera incorporado al reporte del Plan Consolidad y Evaluacion de Vivienda Justa del Ayuntamiento. Las respuestas a las preguntas de esta encuesta son un componente esencial para el proceso de planificacion de Temecula. Si necesita asistencia o tiene preguntas con respecto a la encuesta, por favor comuniquese con Dean Huseby, Consultante de CDBG, al correo electronico: dhuseby@mdg-Idm.com * 1. �Actualmente usted vive en la Ciudad de Temecula? O Si 0 No Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country pl; A JAM dM 0 40 .1 Satisfaccion de la Vivienda * 2. En general, �que tan satisfecho o insatisfecho esta usted con su casa o apartamento? Seleccione uno, en la escala del 1 al 4, donde 1 indica "Extremadamente Insatisfecho" y 4 indica "Extremadamente Satisfecho"? Extremadamente Extremadamente No aplica, no vivo Insatisfecho Insatisfecho Satisfecho Satisfecho en Temecula O O Si selecciono extremadamente insatisfecho o insatisfecho, enumere hasta 3 razones por las cuales usted no esta satisfecho con su casa o apartamento: 2 3. Si usted pudiera cambiar algo acerca de su situacion actual de vivienda. �cua seria? L Yo no cambiaria nada acerca de mi situacion actual de vivienda. n Yo actualmente rento, pero me gustaria comprar/ser dueno de mi casa. U Yo viviria en una parte diferente de Temecula. Yo soy dueno de una casa, y me gustaria venderla. [-I Me gustaria vivir en otra comunidad diferente en vez de Temecula. Otro (por favor especifique) I 3 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country do 0 a Insatisfaccion de la Vivienda 4. Si esta insatisfecho, enumere por to menos 3 razones por las cuales usted esta insatisfecho con su casa o apartamento: 1. 2. 3. 0 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country Satisfaccion de la Vivienda * 5. �Actualmente usted renta o es propietario? U Rento O Propietario n Otro (por favor especifique) 5 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country AM dM 0 Preguntas a Arrendatarios * 8. �Que tal facil o dificil fue para usted encontrar una unidad de arrendamiento que estuviera a su alcance financiero en Temecula, en la escala del 1 al 4, donde 1 indica "Extremadamente Dificil" y 9 "Extremadamente Facil"? Extremadamente Dificil Dificil Facil Extremadamente Facil O O O 7 9. Si usted quiere comprar una casa en Temecula, �por que no to ha hecho? (Seleccione todos los que apliquen). O No tengo suficiente dinero para el enganche. O No puedo sostener un prestamo hipotecario. O No puedo sostener el costo de mantenimiento asociado con la propiedad de vivienda. O Tengo mal credito. O No puedo encontrar la casa que quiero comprar. O Planteo mudarme a otra ciudad. O No aplica; no deseo comprar una casa. O Otro (por favor especifique) F Alk j IT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country 10% Necesidades de Vivienda y Desarrollo Comunitario Considere las necesidades en Temecula. Seleccione tres necesidades principales dentro de cada categoria de actividades admisibles. * 10. Instalaciones Comunitaria (puede seleccionar hasta 3) F--I Centros para Personas de la ❑ Parques e Instalaciones de Estaciones de Bomberos y 3ra. Edad Recreacion Equipo LJ Centros para Jovenes L Instalaciones para el Cuidado Bibliotecas ❑ Guarderias Infantiles de la Salud ❑ No hay necesidad bajo esta ❑ Centros Comunitarios categoria * 11. Infraestructura (puede seleccionar hasta 3) LJ Mejoras de Drenaje Mejoras de Agua/Alcantarillados I I Mejoras de Calles/Callejones ❑ Alumbrado Publico ❑ Mejoras de Banquetas Mejoras segun la Ley de Americanos Discapacitados (ADA) (banquetas, rampas, espacios accesibles de estacionamiento, etc.) No hay necesidad bajo esta categoria 9 12. Necesidades Especiales (puede seleccionar hasta tres) ❑ Centros/Servicios para ❑ Servicios para Abuso de ❑ Centros para Ninos Discapacitados Drogas Desamparados/Abusados y .qarvirinc I I Mejoras de Accesibilidad u Servicios para Violencia Domestica ❑ Albergues para Personas sin Hogar/Servicios Centros para Tratamiento de HV/AIDS & Servicios * 13. Servicios Comunitarios (puede seleccionar hasta tres) Actividades para Personas de la 3ra. Edad L Actividades para Jovenes n Servicios de Guarderias Infantiles Servicios de Transportacion LJ Programas Contra el Crimen ❑ Servicios para la Salud Servicios para la Autosuficiencia de la Familia No hay necesidad bajo esta categoria Servicios para la Salud Mental ❑ Servicios de Asesoria Legal ❑ No hay necesidad bajo esta categoria * 14. Servicios para Vecindarios (puede seleccionar hasta tres) [J Plantacion de Arboles n Limpieza de Basura y Escombros L, Limpieza de Grafito Imposicion de Codigos de Orden Publico ❑ Instalaciones para Estacionamientos [ Limpieza de Lotes Baldios y Edificios Abandonados * 15. Negocios y Empleos (puede seleccionar hasta tres) Asistencia para el Inicio de un Negocio L Prestamos para Empresas Pequenas n Creacion/Retencion de Empleos Capacitacion de Empleos ❑ Mejoras de Fachadas ❑ Asesoramiento Empresarial No hay necesidad bajo esta categoria Rehabilitacion Comercial/Industrial No hay necesidad bajo esta categoria 10 * 16. Vivienda (puede seleccionar hasta tres) ❑ Mejoras de Accesibilidad ❑ Viviendas para Discapacitados (rampas, levantamientos de ❑Viviendas para Personas de la sillas de ruedas, barras de sostenimiento, barandales, 3ra. Edad timbres de puertas visuales y Viviendas para Familias alarmas de humo/mon6xido de Grandes (mas de 5 personas) carbon) F—I Mejoras/Rehabilitacion de Viviendas Ocupadas por sus Propietarios Mejoras/Rehabilitacion de Viviendas de Arrendamiento n Asistencia para Comprar Casa I Vivienda de Arrendamiento Asequible Servicios para Vivienda Justa Eliminaci6n y Prueba de Pintura con Base de Plomo Mejoras de Eficiencia Energ6tica Vivienda Primordialmente para J6venes Acogidos Temporalmente Vivienda para la Unificaci6n de Familias No hay necesidad bajo esta categoria 11 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country AM dM 0 40 Eleccion de Vivienda Justa La vivienda justa es una condicion en la cual los individuos de niveles de ingresos similares en el mismo mercado de vivienda tienen variedades de eleccion disponibles para ellos in depend ientemente de raza, color, ascendencia, origen de nacionalidad, religion, sexo, discapacidad, estado civil, estado familiar, o cualquier otro factor arbitrario. Como parte del proceso de planificacion, el Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula debe analizar los factores asociados con la eleccion de vivienda y discriminacion. Por favor responda a las siguientes preguntas: * 17. �,Cree usted que exista discriminacion de vivienda en su vecindario? Si O No * 18. �Alguna vez usted ha experimentado discriminacion para obtener o mantener vivienda? O Si O No 12 Adk The Heart of Southern California Wine Country Discriminacion de Vivienda Si usted siente que pudo haber sido discriminado, comuniquese con la oficina del Concejo de Vivienda Justa del Municipio de Riverside al (951) 371-6518. Los servicios proporcionados por el Concejo de Vivienda Justa del Municipio de Riverside son gratuitos y estan disponibles para todos los residents. * 19. �Quien cree que to ha discriminado? 0 Propietario/Administrador de la Propiedad 0 Agente de Bienes Raices 0 Prestamista Hipotecario 0 Asegurador Hipotecario 0 Otro (por favor especifique) 13 * 20. �En que se basa a que usted pudo haber sido discriminado? O Raza O Color O Origen de Nacionalidad O Genero O Edad O Religion O Estado Familiar (padre soltero/madre soltera, divorciado(a)) O Discapacidad C) Otro (por favor especifique) 21. �Si usted cree que ha experimentado discriminacion?, Flo denuncio? O Si O No 14 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country Discriminacion de Vivienda 22. �Por que usted decidio no denunciar la discriminacion de vivienda? No se a donde puedo denunciarlo 0 Demasiados problemas 0 Miedo a represalias 0 No creo que vaya a crear alguna diferencia 0 Otro (por favor especifique) 15 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country Empleo 23. �Actualmente esta empleado el individuo quien tipicamente sirve como la fuente principal de ingresos de su hogar? O Si, tiene empleo O No, desempleado y actualmente buscando empleo O No, desempleado y no esta buscando empleo 0 Jubilado 16 Alk j IT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country 10% Informacion Demografica 24. Onicamente para el proposito de clasificacion, �cual categoria describe el total del ingreso anual de su hogar? 0 Menos de $10,000 0 $10,000 a $25,000 0 $25,001 a $35,000 (_ $35,001 a $50,000 0 $50,001 a $75,000 0 $75,001 a $100,000 25. �Cual es su origen etnico? 0 Hispano 0 No Soy Hispano C $100,001 a $125,000 C Ws de $125,000 17 26. �Cual es su raza? (marque todos los que apliquen) 0 Indio Americano/Nativo Alaskeno 0 Asiatico 0 Negro/Afroamericano 0 Isleno del Pacrfico 0 Blanco 0 Multi -Racial 0 Otro (por favor especifique) F 27. jiene ninos menores de 18 anos viviendo en su casa? 0 Si 0 No 28. Incluyendose usted, �cuantas personas viven en su hogar? 0 1 persona U 4 personas 7 personas 0 2 personas 0 5 personas 8 o mas personas C) 3 personas 0 6 personas IN Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country AM dM 0 40 Necesidades Especiales 29. �AlgOn miembro de su hogar tiene alguna discapacidad mental o fisica? O Si, discapacidad mental O Si, discapacidad fisica O Si, ambas discapacidades fisica y mental O No 19 Adk The Heart of Southern California Wine Country AM do 30. �Actualmente su casa satisface las necesidades del miembro(s) discapacitado(s) de su hogar? O si O No (por favor describa que es to que necesita para proporcionar las necesidades al/los miembro(s) discapacitado(os) de su hogar en la siguiente seccion para comentarios. Otro (por favor especifique) 20 Adk The Heart of Southern California Wine Country Amldm AM do '46P 0 Area de Residencia * 31. Por favor indique el codigo postal o el area de Temecula en la cual usted vive: 21 Adk The Heart of Southern California Wine Country do de Temecula Gracias iLe agradecemos su participacion en esta encuesta/ Si usted tiene alguna pregunta acerca de esta encuesta, la evaluacion de vivienda justa o del Plan Consolidad, por favor comuniquese con Dean Huseby al correo electronico: dhuseby@mdg-ldm.com 22 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country Thank you for taking part in this survey! The City of Temecula is preparing the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan and an Assessment of Fair Housing as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This Resident Survey will be provide input from the community regarding fair housing, affordable housing, community development, economic development and other needs of its residents. The Consolidated Plan allows Temecula to utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to enhance the quality of life of its residents. This survey should take about 5-7 minutes to complete. Your responses will be confidential and only used together with all of the responses. The survey result will be incorporated in the City's Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing report. Your responses to these questions are an essential component of Temecula's planning process. Should you need assistance or have questions regarding the survey, please contact Dean Huseby, CDBG Consultant at dhuseby(&mdg-Idm.com. * 1. Do you currently live in the City of Temecula? O Yes 0 No IT s The Heart of Southern California Wine Country City of Temecula Fair Housing • Consolidated Plan Survey Housing Satisfaction * 2. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your home or apartment, on a scale from 1-4, where 1 indicates "Extremely Dissatisfied" and 4 indicates "Extremely Satisfied"? N/A - I do not live in 1. Extremely Dissatisfied 2. Dissatisfied 3. Satisfied 4. Extremely Satisfied Temecula ►f extremely dissatisfied or dissatisfied, list up to 3 reasons you are not satisfied with your home or apartment: 2 * 3. If you could change one thing about your current living situation, what would it be? ❑ I wouldn't change anything about my current living situation. ❑ I currently rent, but would like to buy/own my home. ❑ I would live in a different part of Temecula. ❑ 1 own a home, and would like to sell. ❑ I would like to live in a different community other than Temecula. ❑ Other (please specify) F 3 Ak s The Heart of Southern California Wine Country M Housing Dissatisfaction 4. If dissatisfied, list up to 3 reasons you are dissatisfied with your home or apartment: 0 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country M Housing Satisfaction * 5. Do you currently rent or own your home? 0 Rent 0 Own 0 Other (please specify) 5 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country some All MAL City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Surveydo e Homeowner Questions * 6. Do you currently owe more money on your home than it is worth? U Yes 0 No O 1 don't know * 7. How concerned are you about your home going into foreclosure on a scale from "1" to "4," where 1 indicates "Not at all concerned" and 4 indicates "Extremely Concerned?" 1. Not at all Concerned 2. Somewhat Concerned 3. Concerned 4. Extremely Concerned O O J Ak s The Heart of Southern California Wine Country r City of Temecula Fair Housing • Consolidated Plan Survey Renter Questions * 8. How difficult or easy was it for you to find a rental unit you could afford in Temecula on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates "Extremely Difficult" and 9 indicates "Extremely Easy"? 1. Extremely Difficult 2. Difficult 3. Easy 4. Extremely Easy * 9. If you want to buy a home in Temecula, why haven't you? (Select all that apply.) 0 1 do not have enough money for a down payment. 0 1 cannot afford a mortgage. 0 1 cannot afford the maintenance costs associated with homeownership. 0 1 have poor credit. 0 1 cannot find a home I want to buy. 0 1 plan to move to another city. 0 Not applicable; I do not want to buy a home. 0 Other (please specify) F 7 Alk j IT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country Housing and Community Development Needs Consider the needs in Temecula. Select the top three needs within each category of eligible activities. Do not choose more than three per category. * 10. Community Facilities (Choose up to three) ❑ Senior Centers [J Park & Recreational Facilities ❑ Fire Stations & Equipment ❑ Youth Centers ❑ Health Care Facilities ❑ Libraries ❑ Child Care Centers ❑ Community Centers ❑ No need in this category * 11. Infrastructure (Choose up to three) ❑ Drainage Improvement ❑ Street Lighting [ No need in this category [� Water/Sewer Improvement ❑ Sidewalk Improvements L Street/Alley Improvement [ ADA Improvements (sidewalk ramps, accessible parking spaces, etc.) .01 * 12. Special Needs (Choose up to three) Centers/Services for Disabled Substance Abuse Services Accessibility Improvements Homeless Shelters/Services Domestic Violence Services HIV/AIDS Centers & Services * 13. Community Services (Choose up to three) Senior Activities Transportation Services Youth Activities Anti -Crime Programs Child Care Services Health Services * 14. Neighborhood Services (Choose up to three) Tree Planting Code Enforcement Trash & Debris Removal Parking Facilities Graffiti Removal Cleanup of Abandoned Lots and Buildings * 15. Businesses and Jobs (Choose up to three) Start-up Business Assistance Employment Training Small Business Loans Facade Improvements Job Creation/Retention Business Mentoring Neglected/Abused Children Center and Services Family Self -Sufficiency Services No need in this category Mental Health Services Legal Services No need in this category No need in this category Commercial/Industrial Rehabilitation No need in this category Z * 16. Housing (Choose up to three) ❑ Accessibility Improvements (ramps, wheelchair lifts, grab bars, handrails, visual door bells and smoke/carbon monoxide alarms) ❑ Owner -Occupied Housing Improvements / Rehabilitation ❑ Rental Housing Improvements / Rehabilitation ❑ Homeownership Purchase Assistance ❑ Affordable Rental Housing ❑ Housing for Disabled ❑ Senior Housing Housing for Large Families (5+ people) Fair Housing Services Lead -Based Paint Testing and Abatement Energy Efficiency Improvements Housing for Former Foster Youth Housing for Family Unification No need in this category 10 Adk The Heart of Southern California Wine Country A 0 4F some City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Surve AIM Fair Housing Choice Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, or any other arbitrary factor. As part of the planning process, the City of Temecula must analyze the factors associated with housing choice and discrimination. Please respond to the following questions: * 17. Do you believe housing discrimination exists in your neighborhood? U Yes U No * 18. Have you ever experienced discrimination in obtaining or maintaining housing? U Yes U No 11 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country 4w Housing Discrimination If you feel you may have been discriminated against, please contact the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County at (951) 371-6518. The services provided by the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County are free of charge and are available to all residents. * 19. Who do you believe discriminated against you? O Landlord/Property Manager O Real Estate Agent O Mortgage Lender O Mortgage Insurer O Other (please specify) L 12 * 20. On what basis do you believe you were discriminated against? 0 Race 0 Color 0 National Origin 0 Gender 0 Age 0 Religion 0 Familial Status (ex. single -parent) 0 Disability 0 Other (please specify) E 21. If you believe you have experienced housing discrimination, did you report it? 0 Yes 0 No 13 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country M Housing Discrimination 22. Why did you decide not to report the housing discrimination? 0 Don't know where to report 0 Too much trouble 0 Afraid of retailiation 0 Don't believe it makes any difference 0 Other (please specify) C 14 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country 0 4F some City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey AIM Employment 23. Is the individual who typically serves as the primary source of income for your household currently employed? 0 Yes, employed 0 No, unemployed and currently seeking employment 0 No, unemployed and not seeking employment Retired 15 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country Z11 Demographic Information N 24. Just for classification purposes, which category best describes your total annual household income? 0 Less than $10,000 0 $10,000 to $25,000 0 $25,001 to $35,000 25. What is your ethnicity? (J Hispanic 0 Non -Hispanic (, $35,001 to $50,000 0 $50,001 to $75,000 0 $75,001 to $100,000 C $100,001 to $125,000 C More than $125,000 16 26. What is your race? (Mark all that apply) 0 American Indian or Alaska Native 0 Asian 0 Black / African American 0 Pacific Islander 0 White 0 Multi -Racial 0 Other (please specify) F 27. Are there children living in your home that are younger than 18 years of age? 0 Yes 0 No 28. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? 0 1 people 0 4 people 7 people 0 2 people 0 5 people 8 or more people C, 3 people 0 6 people 17 Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country M Special Needs 29. Do any members of your household have a mental or physical disability? 0 Yes, mental disability 0 Yes, physical disability 0 Yes, both mental and physical disability 0 No In Adk ADT The Heart of Southern California Wine Country ;Qpr! do some City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan SurveA Special Needs 30. Does your current home meet the needs of the disabled members of your household? O Yes O No (Please describe what is needed to meet the needs of the disabled household member(s) in the comment box below) Other (please specify) 19 NX Adk The Heart of Southern California Wine Country Thank You M Thank you for participating in this survey! If you have any questions about the survey, the Assessment of Fair Housing or the Consolidated Plan, please contact Dean Huseby at dhuseby@mdg-ldm.com. 21 APPENDIX E City of Temecula Stakeholder Consultation List Stakeholder Consultation List Agency Type Acacia Park Apartments Affordable Housing Affirmed Housing Affordable Housing AMCAL Multi -Housing Affordable Housing Assistance League of Temecula Valley Youth Atria Senior Living Senior Autism Society Inland Empire Health Better Days ARF Seniors Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County Youth Services Bridge Housing Affordable Housing Building Industry Association Housing California Apartment Association Inland Empire Rental Property California State University San Marcos, Temecula Education Cameron Historical Building Affordable Housing Canine Support Teams Persons with Disabilities Catholic Charities Social Services Circle of Care Ministries Food Bank City of Murrieta Adjacent City City of Temecula Various departments Coachella Valley Housing Coalition Affordable Housing Community Access Center Disabled Community Mission of Hope Homeless provider Comprehensive Autism Center Health Services County of Riverside Department of Social Services Social Services County of Riverside Economic Development Agency Local Government County of Riverside Health Department Health Services Appendix E Stakeholder Consultation List Agency Type Riverside University Health System — Behavioral Health, Homeless Housing Opportunities, Partnerships & Education Program Mental Health Court Appointed Special Advocate of Riverside County Youth Services Creekside Senior Apartments Senior Housing Desert AIDS AIDS Service Provider Economic Development of Southwest California Economic Development Fair Housing Counsel of Riverside County, Inc. Fair Housing Foothill AIDS AIDS Fountain Glen at Temecula Senior Housing Front Street Plaza Affordable Housing Go Banana Special Needs GRID Alternatives Affordable Housing Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley Affordable Housing Heritage Mobile Home Estates Affordable Housing Hitzke Consulting Affordable Housing Hospice of the Valleys Healthcare Housing Authority of the County of Riverside Public Housing Authority Hugs Foster Family Agency Developmental disabilities Iglesia Bautista del Valle de Temecula Faith Based Inland Regional Center Developmental disabilities Jamboree Housing Affordable Housing Jesus Love Church Faith based John Stewart Company Affordable Housing Ken Follis Realtor, developer League of Women Voters Non profit Legacy Ridge Developmental disabilities Love of Christ Fellowship Church Faith based Madera Vista Apartments Affordable Housing Appendix E Stakeholder Consultation List Agency Type Margarita Summit Apartments Affordable Housing Michelle's Place Healthcare Mission Village Apartments Affordable Housing Morning Ridge Apartments Affordable Housing Mt San Jacinto College Education NAACP Protected Class Nu -Way International Christian Ministries Faith based Oak Tree Apartments Affordable Housing Our Nicholas Foundation Autism Palomar Heritage Affordable Housing Pechanga Casino and Resort Employer Path of Life Ministries Homeless provider Portola Terrace Apartments Affordable Housing Project Touch Homeless provider Rancho California Apartments Affordable housing Rancho Community Church Faith based Rancho Creek Apartments Affordable Housing Rancho en Espanol Faith based Rancho West Apartments Affordable Housing Renee Jennex Small Family Health care Riverbank Village Apartments Affordable Housing Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center Domestic Violence Riverside City and County Continuum of Care Homeless provider Riverside County Office on Aging Senior Services Riverside County Veterans Services Veterans Riverside County Sheriff's Department Crime protection Riverside Transit Agency Transportation Rochelle Sherman Small Family Affordable Housing Appendix E Stakeholder Consultation List Agency Type SAFE Alternatives for Everyone Domestic Violence Safety Research Associates, Inc. Special Needs and Senior Housing Senior Care Referral Specialists Senior Services Senior Citizens Service Center Food Bank Food Bank Single Mothers in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF) Youth Services Solari Enterprises Affordable Property Management Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors Housing St. Catherine's Catholic Church Faith based State Council on Developmental Disabilities Developmental Disabilities TEAM Evangelical Assistance Ministries Food Bank Temecula City Planning Commission City Commission Temecula City Community Services Commission City Commission Temecula City Public Safety Commission City Commission Temecula Convention and Visitors Bureau Business Community Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission Homeless Services Provider Temecula Reflection Townhouses Affordable Housing Temecula Homeless Coalition Homeless provider Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Business Community Temecula Valley Historical Society Non Profit Organization Temecula Valley Hospital Health Services Temecula Valley Therapy Disabled Temecula Valley Unified School District Education Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association Employer The Center for Life Change Drug Treatment U.S. Vets Initiative Veterans VA Loma Linda Healthcare Veterans Vintage View Apartments Affordable housing Voice of Children Youth Services Appendix E Stakeholder Consultation List Agency Type Warehouse at Creekside Apartments Affordable Housing Wells Fargo Business Community Western Riverside Council of Governments Regional Government Note: For some agencies, there are multiple stakeholders, but the agency is only listed once. Appendix E ■ :>\- k� §* AL �� ■ � � ME�1. �� g f a MIN ¥ Agin � ■��� _■�'� . APPENDIX G City of Temecula Map of Eligible CDBG Areas MuMf. Nm SPd"91 Rd 505.D0 432.44 C 4 2 432.47 M 505.00 0 432.44 A ro0 496.00 N,..�T� L.a 432.18 432.18 2 496.00 0 3 ' 432.17 as ' pN a 432.16 432.67 2 801.E 41 32.11 `s 4kRtl 432.1 432.67 a�� 1 2 ope 512.00 432.16 432.66 432.6 432.62 2 2 � 32.20 432.20 43211 .62 i .Iq w 2 432.64 432.46 R.nenoc�ae�v 432 22 3 32.6 2 432.64 2 512.00 �,��° g 432.65 1 � �+,� 432.65 h• 432.22 �i 2 3 e 432.57 C.PnR°� -1 432.56 2 �� 2 3 32.5 432. 2 T go ` 32.57 4 .54 A3 4 432.48 1 1 1 432.54 432.50 „�+J p 432.52 432.54 1 41 2 -/432.52 432.54 R�' 2 City of Temecula NORTH om osmu. CDBG - LOW AND MODERATE INCOME AREA MAP 2010 CENSUS AREAS (As Of JUIy 1. 2014) LEGEND. • • CITY BOUNDARY LOW AND MODERATE INCOME BLOCK GROUPS CENSUSTRACK BLOCK GROUP APPENDIX H Public Transportation Maps Proximity to Major Employers scale. �� AFA IlJ/i6r: Hr„r ol 5ov�lr ~l TRANSIT LINES AND EMPLOYERS Murtigte Hot Spd nga Rd F d � Ns�utae I b to" 0 x 50 �� c � y .......... M$ se i m �o TRANSPORTATION -RIVERSIDE TRANSIT Temecula-Murrieta-W ildomar County Center W Pechanga ResonfTemecula Valley Hospllal 0 Promenade Mall-Harveston m Hemet -Winchester -Temecula Murrieta-Temecula-Oceanside Transit Center Temecula-Murrieta-Sun City -Perris Moreno Vallay-Riverside Downtown Terminal Temecula-Murriela-Lake Elsinore Corona Transit Center fDD San Jacinto-Hemet-Temecula-Escondidc EMPLOYERS 1 Temecula Valley Unified School district 2 Abbott Laboratories 3 Pmfessional Hospital Supply 4 Inlemational Rectifier 5 Ccstco Wholesale Corporation 6 Macy's 7 EMD Millipore 8 Norm Reeves Auto Group 9 Milgard Manufacturing 10 Southwest Traders Appendix H 1 Public Transportation Maps Proximity to Public Facilities rs P scale: o� the Hear of Sou!he rn CeGf wine ��un, rr TRANSIT LINES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Murtl u., w..r c.... __- ... ykPky I pa � iO PUBLIC FACILITIES t Bahia Vsla Park 2 Butterfield Stage Park J 3 Calle Aragon Park e_ 1 4 Community Recreation Center J 5 Crowne Hill Park 6 Hanreston Community Park 7 Hal Stan Lake Park ...J a John Magee Park 9 Kent Huntergardl Park 10 Loma Linda Park 11 Long Canyon Creek Park 12 Margarita Community Pal 13 Meadows Park 14 Nakayama Park 15 Nicolas Road Park 16 Old Town Parking Garage 17 Pahlo Apls Park 18 Pala Community Park 19 Pall del Sal Park 20 Paseo Gallante Park 21 Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park 22 P b R'Id P It TRANSPORTATION-RIVERSIDE TRANSIT au a ge ar 23 Redhawk Community Park Tementi cula-Mueta-Wiidomar 24 Riverton Park 25 Ronald Reagan Sports Park 0 County Center to Pechanga 26 Rotary Park ResorifTemecula Valley Hospital 27 Sam Hicks Monument Park Promenade Mall-Harveslon 29 Serena Hills Park 29 Stephen Linen Jr. Park Q Hemet -Winchester -Temecula 30 Sunset Park 31 Temecula Creek Trail Park Murrieta-Temecula-Oceanside Transit Center 32 Temecula Duck Pond 33 Temeku Hills Park Q Temecula-Murrieta-Sun City -Perris 34 Temecula Skate Pars Moreno Valley -Riverside Downtown Terminal 35 City Hall Temecula-Murrieta-Lake Elsinore 36 Vail Ranch Park 37 Veteran's Park Corona Transit Center 38 Voorburg Park fi San Jacinto-Hemel-Temecula-Escondidc 39 Winchester Creak Park Appendix H 2 Public Transportation Maps Proximity to Publicly Assisted Housing MIMMI Hot SPH ng5 Rd TRANSPORTATION -RIVERSIDE TRANSIT -. Temecula-Murrieta-Wildomar County Center to Pechanga ResorifTemecula Valley Hospital w Promenade Mall-Harveslon IQ Hemet -Winchester -Temecula ��- � Murrieta-Temecula-Oceanside Transit Center Temecula-Marrieta-Sun City -Perris Moreno Valley -Riverside Downtown Terminal the Haen of soutll v✓ins ^�uncrr (V Temecula-Murrieta-Lake Elsinore Corona Transit Center TRANSIT LINES AND HOUSING PROJECTS fiD San Jacinto-Hemet-Temecula-Escondidc - HOUSING PROJECTS RDAFUNDED 1 Rancho Wesl 2 Mission Village 3 Rancho Creek 4 Riverbank 5 Camaron Historical Building (Dalton 11) 6 Palomar Building (Dalton III( 7 Temecula Reflections 8 Warehouse at Creekside 9 Madera Vista 10 Podola Terrace 11 Front Street Plaza NON-ROA FUNDED 12 Oak Tree Apartments 13 Rancho Calirornia Apartments 14 Creekside Apartments Appendix H APPENDIX I List of Public Service Agencies Served by the CDBG Program and General Fund 2015-2016 Public Service Program Amount Source Funded All From the Heart - Wheels For Warriors $ 5,000 General Fund Assistance League of Temecula Valley (ALTV) - Building and $ 5,000 General Fund Grounds Improvements and Maintenance Assistance League of Temecula Valley (ALTV) — Operation $ 7,892 CDBG Funds School Bell Program Birth Choice of Temecula — Pregnancy resource materials/services $ 5,000 General Fund — Update material Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County — Before and After $ 7,892 CDBG Funds School Care for Kids Program California VFW Motorcycle Club Empire — Food boxes for $ 1,500 General Fund veterans /families in Temecula —Food boxes and emergency funds Community Mission of Hope — Inclement Weather Shelter $ 7,892 CDBG Funds Program Fair Housing Council of Riverside County — Fair Housing $ 10,000 CDBG Funds Program GRID Alternatives — Solar Affordable Housing Program $ 12,000 CDBG Funds God's Fan Club dba Project T.O.U.C.H. — Shared and Homeless $ 500 General Fund Prevention Program — basic necessities for homeless Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley - A Brush with Kindness - offset home improvement costs to seniors, disabled and low- $ 1,500 General Fund income homeowners Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley — Critical Home Maintenance $ 26,223 CDBG Funds and Repair Program Hospice of the Valleys - Senior Assistance Program -end of life $ 5,000 General Fund services Just Add One — Job Training Program $ 7,892 CDBG Funds Michelle's Place Breast Cancer Resource Center - Breast Health $ 5,000 General Fund Assistance Our Nicholas Foundation - Peace of Mind (safety kits for autistic $ 5,000 General Fund families) Thessalonika Family Services dba Rancho Damacitas — Independent Living Program for 14-18 year olds on Rancho $ 1,000 General Fund Damacitas Campus Appendix I Rose Again Foundation — The Kids of Summer $ 2,000 General Fund Rotary Club of Temecula Foundation - Holiday Food Baskets $ 5,000 General Fund SAFE Alternatives for Everyone — SAFE Domestic Violence $ 7,892 CDBG Funds Services Senior Citizens Service Center of the Temecula Rancho Area, Inc. $ 5,000 General Fund - Food Distribution Senior Citizens Service Center — Emergency Food Assistance $ 7,892 CDBG Funds Program Single Mothers United in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF) — $ 7,892 CDBG Funds SMURF Assistance Program Special Olympics Temecula Valley — Training Programs $ 2,500 General Fund T.E.A.M. Evangelical Assistance Ministries — Food Distribution $ 5,000 General Fund T.E.A.M. Evangelical Assistance Ministries — Temecula $ 7,892 CDBG Funds Community Food Pantry VNW Circle of Care — Emergency Food/Temporary Shelter $ 7,892 CDBG Funds Assistance to Needy People Waves Project Inc. — Waves Project $ 5,000 General Fund Total $ 178,251 Appendix I APPENDIX J List of RDA Funded Affordable Housing Projects INCOME LEVEL UNITS RDA -FUNDED Ext. Very Total DEVELOPMENTS Address Property Owner Low low Low Mod. Assisted Units Rancho West 42200 Main Coachella Valley 2 43 105 0 150 Street Housing Coalition Mission Village 2849St. jol Affirmed Housing 0 16 60 0 76 Rancho Creek 28464 Felix Ken Follis 0 8 22 0 30 Valdez Riverbank (Senior) 28500 Pujol Corporation for 0 13 53 0 66 St. Better Housing Cameron Historical 41925 Fifth Cameron 0 0 0 24 24 Building (Dalton II) St. Properties Palomar Building (Dalton 41955 Fifth Palomar Heritage 0 0 12 10 22 111) St. Building Temecula Reflections 31111 Black Jamboree Housing 0 11 0 0 11 (Temecula Lane) Maple Dr. Warehouse at Creekside 42081 3rd St. Warehouse at 0 0 20 12 32 Creekside Madera Vista 44155 (Summerhouse) Margarita BRIDGE Housing 38 70 0 2 110 Road Portola Terrace 28673 Pujol AMCAL 0 5 39 0 44 Street 28693 Old Front Street Plaza Front Street Plaza Town Front partners 0 0 8 15 23 Street Cottages of Old Town Varies Owner Occupied 0 0 0 17 17 Habitat for Humanity Varies Owner Occupied 0 5 2 0 7 Total 40 171 321 80 612 Note: Projects funded prior to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency. Appendix J APPENDIX K Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data Home Loan Applications by Type of Financing Type of Loan Number of Loans Share of Loans Number approved Approval Rate Home Purchase Conventional 1,702 50.0% 1,301 76.4% FHA - Insured 692 20.3% 542 78.3% VA - Guaranteed 1,005 29.5% 795 79.1% FSA/RHS Guarantee 5 0.1% 4 80.0% Total 3,404 100.0% 2,642 77.6% Refinancing Conventional 3,013 67.4% 1,827 60.6% FHA - Insured 296 6.6% 180 60.8% VA - Guaranteed 1,161 26.0% 754 64.9% FSA/RHS Guarantee 3 0.1% 0 0.0% Total 4,473 100.0% 2,761 61.7% Source: 2014 HMDA data Appendix K Home Loan Approval Rates by Race / Ethnicity Type of Loan by Race / Ethnicity Loan Applications Loans Approved Percent Approved Home Purchase Hispanic 413 319 77.2% White 1,807 1,398 77.4% Asian 199 137 68.8% African American 126 94 74.6% All others 45 34 75.6% Decline or N/A 814 660 81.1% Total 3,404 2,642 77.6% Home Refinance Hispanic 564 320 56.7% White 2,970 1,600 53.9% Asian 294 174 59.2% African American 181 100 55.2% All others 112 49 43.8% Decline or N/A 704 518 73.5% Total 4,649 2,761 59.4% Source: 2014 HMDA data Appendix K APPENDIX L Fair Housing Council Data FHIP Testing Results 2010-2015 Testing Testing Type of Referred to Type of Resolution Basis Issue Results Method Date Testing Whom Resolution rge 'Cl; Race Visit Terms and 5/15/2615 Lending Support HUD Forward HUD National Origin Visit Terms and 5/8/2015 Lending Support Pending Re -test Pending National Origin Visit Terms and 5/8/2615 Lending Inconclusive Pending Re -test Pending Race Visit Terms and 3/5/2615 Lending Inconclusive Pending Re -test Pending Mental Phone Terms and 2/25/2015 Rental Support Pending Re -test Pending Mental Phone Terms and 2/25/2615 Rental Inconclusive Pending Re -test Pending National Origin Visit Terms and 6/3/2614 Lending Does not support Not Closed Pending Conditions allegations Referred Race Visit Terms and 4/29/2614 Lending Inconclusive Not Closed Pending Conditions Referred National Origin Visit Discriminatory 2/25/2614 Rental Does not support Not Closed Pending Advertisement allegations Referred Mental Visit Discriminatory 1/21/2614 Rental Support Pending Pending Pending Disability Advertisement allegations Mental Visit Discriminatory 7/31/2613 Rental Support Pending Re -test HUD Disability Advertisement allegations Race Visit Terms and 2/22/2613 Rental Support Pending Re -test Pending National Origin Visit Terms and 2�11f 2613 Rental Does not support Not Closed Fair Conditions allegations Referred Housing National Origin Visit Refuse Reasonable 2/11/2013 Rental Does not support Not Closed Fair Accommodation allegations Referred Housing National Origin Visit Terms and 2/11/2013 Rental Does not support Not Closed Fair Conditions allegations Referred Housing Appendix L 1 Appendix M Survey Results Stakeholders Survey Responses 1. Do you believe that housing discrimination exists in Temecula? Response: 78% did not know or did not believe that it existed. Comments: • I have no experience in this, but I do believe that it is difficult for landlords to provide at - risk families the same consideration as more stable and less risky families. • In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • Disabled individuals with legitimate Service Dogs have difficulty with HOAs and landlords. • Only against low to moderate income people - and it's not so much discrimination but just a lack of available workforce housing to accommodate them. I deal with hundreds or Realtors on a daily basis and I do not believe there is any other form of discrimination going on here. • People with disabilities do not have access to live in this community because of lack of group homes. They have to go to riverside or San Bernardino • I don't know if there is discrimination but I do see there is limited accessibility for those with disabilities or limited incomes. • But I do think we have a homeless problem that is not being addressed as well as it could be. • Possibly... some residents in HOAs do not want group home, residential facilities, housing programs in their communities. • I personally have not witnessed housing discrimination nor been given examples. • In a sense yes, due to the lack of affordable housing 2. Are you aware of discrimination in obtaining or maintaining housing? Response: 83% did not know or did not believe that there was discrimination. Comments: Towards low-income families In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • CST has written letters on several occasions to landlords and HOAs in support of clients that were harassed or denied housing based on "No Pet Policies". Service Dogs are NOT pets and ADA law protecting Service Dogs supersede these rules. Appendix M • Again, we are seeing an increase in the number of homeless families seeking assistance because rents are climbing faster than their income so they can no longer maintain their existing household. Similarly, while not discriminatory in the usual sense of the word, lower income folks simply cannot obtain a home as a result of increased prices and artificially low conforming loan limits imposed by FHA, Fannie & Freddie. It's not discrimination, they're simply being priced out of the housing market. • Study should be ongoing for this issue. There are pockets of aging housing stock that is now or will soon be in need of considerable rehab. Home insurance costs and/or rehab construction costs are rising and may be out of the financial reach for younger home buyers or elderly home owners. 3. If you believe that there is housing discrimination, who do you believe is discriminating? Response: 33% thought that it would be or is landlords/property managers, 11% real estate agents; 11 % mortgage lenders; 4% mortgage insurers and 18% others. Fifty-six percent did not know. Comments: • City in general, Temecula is not affordable for low-income families • In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • Other: neighbors will complain to Landlord/Management about violation of the "No Pet Policy". Ignorance and abuse of ADA laws are the basic problem. • Nobody, to my knowledge, is discriminating in Temecula - it's strictly an economic reality. Some simply can't afford to purchase or even rent a home in our market. That's in a market where the median price last month was $460,000. It's even worse in coastal areas and San Francisco, with a median price of $1.6 million. I truly do not believe there is any form of racial or other discrimination present in our market other than economic factors. • Other: Home Owners Associations • It's a multi -tiered cycle which may encompass industry practices and financial institutions. However, my personal feeling is local housing discrimination is mostly a nimby issue. 4. On what basis, is discrimination occurring? Response: 29% thought that discrimination was occurring against the disabled. Between 10-15% thought that discrimination was occurring based on race, color, national origin and familial status. 3% thought that it might be based on religion. 54% did not know. Comments: • Other: Lack of Income (although not covered under fair housing law) Appendix M 2 • In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • Other: Income. No other. If you can't afford a house, you can't buy one. • Opening up group homes, residential facilities or housing programs within communities is generally undesirable to the general population regardless of race, age, gender, religion, etc... Some people have misconceptions of the negatives of having affordable housing programs in their community • Extremely limited housing options for low or no income residents • Discrimination can be for any perceived bias, the most often cited is a lowering of property value. 5. What factors have or might become contributing factors for housing discrimination in the future in the City? Response: Community opposition 40.6% Displacement of residents due to economic pressures 53.1% Lack of community revitalization strategies 25.0% Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods 15.6% Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities 28 1 % Lack of regional cooperation 12.5% Land use and zoning laws 18.8% Lending discrimination 12.5% Location and type of affordable housing 65.6% Occupancy codes and restrictions 15.60Y( Private discrimination 37.5% Comments: • Most of City of Temecula's affordable housing is located in the Old Town area. • In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • Ignorance of ADA law and abuse/fraud are the primary reasons our clients face housing (and other) problems. • NIMBY opposition to multi -family and mixed -use housing; residents displaced due to housing crisis and have not recovered; end of community redevelopment funds which had provided land and assistance for Habitat and other low-income opportunities in the past; land use and zoning laws combined with regulatory hurdles and compliance fees slowing private development. • Universal design must be kept in mind for senior housing. By not offering this type of housing, it does show discrimination against the senior population. Appendix M • People are concerned about having low income developments near their home. Engaging with reputable developers could enhance neighborhoods and lessen community concerns. 6. How frequently do you believe discrimination is occurring? Resbonse: Rampant within the housing industry 5.4% Often in some aspects of the housing market 13.5% Occasionally 10.8% Never 8.1 % Don't know 64.9% Comments: • In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • Again in our local market I do not believe we are experiencing discrimination in the standard sense of lenders red -lining, agents steering or other tactics. It's simply an issue of availability and affordability. • Housing industry has not kept up with the changes families are facing. Generations of families are now living in substandard housing. Careful thought needs to go into creating housing for seniors, singles, families, and generations of families needing to live together. • No knowledge of direct discrimination but indirectly through a lack of low and no income housing opportunities • The outcome of this survey and the resulting report should shed more precise information on this question. Appendix M 4 Resident Survey Results 1. When asked what are the three greatest housing needs, this was the response: Answer Options Accessibility Improvements (ramps, wheelchair lifts, grab bars, handrails, visual door bells and smoke/carbon monoxide alarms) Owner -Occupied Housing Improvements / Rehabilitation Rental Housing Improvements / Rehabilitation Homeownership Purchase Assistance Affordable Rental Housing Housing for Disabled Senior Housing Housing for Large Families (5+ people) Fair Housing Services Lead -Based Paint Testing and Abatement Energy Efficiency Improvements Housing for Former Foster Youth Housing for Family Unification No need in this category Response Percent 15.2% 30.3% 3.0% 36.4% 21.2% 9.1% 27.3% 12.1% 12.1% 3.0% 21.2% 6.1% 3.0% 15.2% 2. When asked what are the three greatest community service needs, this was the response: Answer Options Response Percent Senior Activities 18.2% Youth Activities 27.3% Child Care Services 9.1% Transportation Services 30.3% Anti -Crime Programs 33.3% Health Services 18.2% Mental Health Services 24.2% Legal Services 3.0% No need in this category 24.2% Appendix M 5 3. When asked what are the three greatest special needs, this was the response: Response Answer Options Percent Centers/Services for Disabled 21.2% Accessibility Improvements 6.1% Domestic Violence Services 9.1% Substance Abuse Services 21.2% Homeless Shelters/Services 45.5% HIV/AIDS Centers & Services 9.1% Neglected/Abused Children Center and Services 12.1% Family Self -Sufficiency Services 21.2% No need in this category 30.3% 4. When asked whether discrimination exists in their neighborhood, this was the response? • 82% no • 18% yes 5. Have you ever experienced discrimination in obtaining or maintaining your housing? • 87% no • 13% yes 6. Who do you believe discriminated against you and why? Half (50%) said that they had been discriminated against by landlords/property managers and the rest by realtors and lenders. Note: They cited discrimination because of race, national origin, gender, religion and disability. Almost all did not report it because they did not know where to go or that it was too much trouble. Appendix M 6 Appendix N Eagle Soar Program s i r i°L 4 -1 f -1 M :1 ig _ -cc Appendix O Public Hearing Notices PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of THE don �! TCALI FORN IAN Aa GGAfNA A newspaper of general circulation, published DAILY in the City of Temecula, California, 92590, County of Riverside, Three Lake Judicial District, and which newspaper has been adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, under the date of February 26, 1991, Case Number 209105; that the notice, cf which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof, on the Following dates, to wit: May 27T", 2016 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the Foregoing is true and correct. Dated at TEMECULA, California, this 27'm of May, 2016 Cathy Viars (Legal Advertising The CailforWan rVl f�horl oFMle Sir degv Lux4vn-iYrbFme Proof of Publication of Noslid GT Publli Haaeln6 a[Yd R,nn+.1 Fo, con.l.i„nity F.riEdF.ATlaa1 THE [FTT OF TEMECLPLR 4 7000 main Steal, T9mp,7lrl, CA 92590 In t[[9NJ.[e'•illi ale rcJn21 myltr.nm. [!x Gry � Srmeale wehes 10 iM1lGfal FeslaeMs rna aT mrr,nlep pa Ne> d Ihr Idrvwny [wa w4k[ nea�iM1gr; 11 a-- PPLY[[P ImL�%the dlan{IlianPrlAKpuan Pbn (vrnwMn9[4 purl[ In the tlM IGPrem and I.plemmla lm Pr Xlr f115'i SnlMunty li ,mkn rl 91Pd4-ML{#Mk6rtnararmand era Ihr UXern 4xm[1ralhn PI[n. PI krGehrt pPNk-0M-e M50.,In,dau Ip—nrM sMWh.Anga--.LlPl Ihr{liy_ A rums[ HEARING h—b— -h d,l,d h F t" INTYCOUNCL io aana:d,r Yh.r m�lprl Fl da4011Aad bW — RFrp11cr1N: Coe [tmttun Ln[alion: €i15•rJr 148pof■L' "L'e pu GP[ iV+Imrnban me blrn {,.aR Pani[p nI of Phry ed P'il Ci Mra P.Lli+pll:wi phM1 aIa +#Glee pAk NlrratYi -011 sn! tll4Cbpmem of a ha n W Gna aNrlP. eat hrlhr {XY. Emrly—alnaR! Elnrlpt lmn,M11" EIITIr[,meral PlAq Mt WEPAI W i a CTR' MSka1(rF MCok-1. _i-n imdw sfn dw LWnwnl or yla,s and w mg- end ras lip[ (rcm theta r"E Errmimr• 4AI Parlily All JOE04I&'� C[QY GIIEdira[ ianka]M0I r}li) br Mf Moaoa ulPob"Nl Pro"( reeking PMskrl rd-Q wN WntM.ed..MPr NEPAP (EQa as Ile f•riom,rc:Il�diod,ne dew". "pr A My i�eml.41MA earn s m dlr Clry {arwtll hebrr Px aPatlllP v '^oF appmr and hr Yeild Inappon A u =L'ion La b iPPlp.il M ILt CilialM1 Pimtlp5ll]n Piaat Iho su Nh�dn}Pvsomm ayM slbmn urtle,tormm IbIfu€IlySand beFme the hesl+q W rt411hXG)M1FnI d<ntilk hnrpng i[Itlimtnl. [nr lamW - wW LR a[41CIi tlprrr mr Tins x5Nil mpmhSlnd rill lndude[I In AM nrWcr msglirrp an0 wnwn.S�M1 Nid lhme PIM815 iPa gmara rN}IR] pM1 kAereH n aPORSSIp fdk h[,el.g. An, yallllGn etas Ira W.Y rcAew al a detnlpn aF me CnY �+Pu'I[I sliNl he Flkd w�l.n Iht Pno rriu PRd ky. MI <Pnlinaoa hp. srtlinrs 109A6:1aa ld4[k M [M {allhaae {rde of inn Ntttdii,.9F mX-h anlan or p—dm— F11gJMIGM ra.HY Pt.I� 4 NR'hs ar sr[ki qp xl .tid.. or xoid arty dadSan M me [sly c.ura 4,IrAl tc Imhrd m ,h Me I-m mard at 01erMflno I, AM*SIR [P.nppl Brno, Hw W Ipola C*Fnrriu,nlrnierr% mrpull[ h-L%q dtatdkd In Ihls nodte. fir [. ¢ Parb[palm Plm ,rO be+lt I d il} Tile fits 0r T#+M1Mit PINiC L-iruy a[ )06M ;�sbs rl—Q 1—ilz, CA: M Ttm Pa U- Lerner_ Lan—mr, %Wvp 0 OeWNnrnt at +r(GX Mak SItiiY. TNatorl[, CA: ila p1 M rh9 Grys Vf 13— a1 ,crew. [ YtyoPoasrwaa b A Tip. ryaha.rq—I—far-.fdId. WSuGM1':..04enmmrimAPuaGdlll {aT[mdam {FnM1rAI)n-lrnnii Smki M,Yla¢YItiiA RMIRI, UL, d ITmMPIa. {Plan PrPd hr•rrlgiil,nl Oeptdlrrtl. Jippp 6VIM1 Slroo[,- Tame[Ja. CR 97y9P, a� b) em111 al Yyns J ofi nor b t 1b sl t9rr[ra[ b, o r9. PLR{, ""tANING3 ch, r—lich—b— Tanw K8110-1. uATE dtt NEAIAINd Jxrrei&SOrb Tl+ne QFHFa FANG ;<Eop PM a es soon Yhrrrnifer of [hre—Aimr W ba haard All iniYirrssn [ba hahrd to &r-bil—Ir COMMUNITY MFFTIF403 r:ni rr-ing Mr IIL(iA!aesnnn nl ar Flu arurdy PIFM1nrlg am;—. PLACE OF MElING5 c-dar— Cantor 4'11000 Main St—L XlrTn9[ A.. CPiift-". MILTONG Pj1T#5rr UES TMaa29, 26Td at 4:06R.m. ASTn■" 0atd:49P.rM- TWy 3r, 20,6at lc�00a.m 141 1j6—n,lmhed 1—Mplettthe RlyoF'emauh Fnr lW uv Tip brJ fP��' od3..IPhn Su'r ar IrIRF+ { Fw,#trt MyMsa.11a ,00fnh7Tam.uJa6 d Spanoh rgJige s-.n M the IWF R 3J,1iiCIF 01: hit P+-+hrrrw �.. ru a qnw wtay:a ew nesrn.cu Las P. II rt Lire ObyC'1,+ rd Chr {hy m tmPN wXh 5etaon Yd7 d [Ire 7khaLdildul� hQ d I SF�>d drd he 1nnl:bmn. Tiles Ara AoI I or 1490 MItl 1nr APn.RmHrfnPe15[lt to W. dr Far fin) M1[I, antl the NdilLxeual fian C4n Ad in ill +sue li b Sn la7u?r mk 4-0,K n dM1 XIfY.ible @ema, Ins Clry wm —1, na—ble eHwls m _r rnadior your re91lru.TIT.Mphe.Jlmbilly-1eMIO aYb#IdIM1l.5li01 m alGins or pertrlpale In n ""'L1} N mlelkq, n[Fadky nuMny old[ nr seM[tl. pk—[mean r .. Lily LI., a[ I— ys hwa psX Iu ., +M[Gny al 051 ir04F{4i. AF Sees 10—d mr P101. i_ _'C"§hl 1G InGphi5A.11y nualm. Futr06F17F10 tir)[1d[ PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CAUFORNIA County of Riverside 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter, I am the principal clerk of the printer of THE CALIFORN'IAN Jilt Edt?vn of ♦ bE Sffn CfeW Unwn-FI7bufxe A newspaper of general circulation, published DAILY in the City of Temecula, California, 92590, County of Riverside, Three Lake ]udidal Gistrict, and which newspaper has been adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, under the date of February 26, 1991, Case Number 209105; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof, an the following dates, to wit: August 27r"r 2016 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and Correct. Dated at TEMECULA, California, this 29T" of August 2016 Cathy Uiars Legal Advertising The Californian An &90, eN Me Se- Diego W uw,-rf &h v Proof of Publication of H9n[q 4F P11x4p[ldEARIxGANG REYIEW OW2-1 1 11TC9F56Fr n4PUFkA a>'�-aVs7I,� UPAlExr OPElklq _'51NG So1T-ie21 {ONSOLl41{TEP TLA[�/PRa[Eg5 A QOylcf IS HEgEfy G11ry1{j .Ix !ay n In• hu by Pep urd tl. tlrXl An.yrmmellp,Fhykrg {tlf lR lnawmNrrR+yerly ll.S Ae P.lu.n�or Nw._d•tl Vltun R4elPn•a..,. {x VVy'mr Iw. u W rt of Ilr Qann duirw Plprru Ihll rill �uMlhrn In 1 IIK n•iur.°un.d lAr3Vrl-[oPl fi.r Y..i gPrarlNleV•w. r,r pukka llm oflM1R xgpr�Fs h°rhYs knn: f36dq µwe ina•x P nJ tr 1he NN aoanlul the pMIA rc.ka ]I•me.. ,sr, 311fi, Pmld bgNs Salvdq,, l,iquu L, t91fiaW ium.Iray� hewn C"y ks NEIa®.!F411r11o1 SIkRhImr mr AaRSfx,..1 hr v.w�netlwIr» c�7 [alav3 kr fptl„Ion hYa.,ipmle We Slll[n6er]T. iO�fi Du lhau p.n. kourwh: by [au.:lCnlmkerz pYPV Wm511re[. Ieme�VAfrI Vl59V Ide lanx Wlg.a SwsN�hlol..l PNknmlNre wrlo- revealwdlr wrrrimlm P.nNSHili.rPPralimnla mmA..nrsn Ac da+.lw'W i rtsHean antl mIw nMrflrG xwcloGRau.lp IM Mx tiPRro X+sr plrr.l.q tloiarinrl lRlllvx`nylics hn�l°P a[d dhl.ae'aPhk 41.M WnkL—d + 1 14 d, eew hwermrr° drpr�lalll l aM a51)GIiYgW N IW wnnla,r dw IP Idr.fP, -15 liwrnnngg nsrn tt91[S wnnike fPtl PS31' d�p'gwn�mxe hPlNlq nePgs. flu alN6a usp.11ee n uq.,l w aVhrwnq•, ref x.'•!„• SnIw1.LcRrl Plte xhkx wlulRs� nlr[d mb�,I nprpwgall 'd tits foi �irnp eamuun.l'Vrl llen[el.tlhf ew�IfLaswOdlGs1971",.l twur3 w:ll dw�wl.. pwxr m�°r.e.n,u e, rw r�W �+qs Aom xw, meoy cnn�glueell ode ud•�w xlnrg *e tlrraupmrnl vqe rueuc wnwleAlr [uursdmetlrahAMnrlHakn In ay.II1.H.fy Pdtll�rMry weu� Il R9MFlpry�brtW-0�g. �aV Mr.rr..cxk esnmunNy C.r.l�rr...re o�lprl'Eawr[ a10VA halo yrcn, i! neap, [w 4ZSS4 RanaM .I, RobEnP 7«nrK.lti<P..gNr uw� iamw�a.Pa,arr�°nuaq✓tnnsx en4iurcn�c.l�i.i".ilnrtl..° ygnll '"`nl.n [wn�xrn mrcn.lnl .k !pA Afx N wl.w� +� r�ratl�ltllOOiP:uirm Accssslaurnrio AfeEgfvax Rwv ��uh%PlTS I.Is rM YIpS1Me el IA! enrlo mmpl u11M1 terlxsl m4 Mlhe RP,3hIilalhP � a<1!>; � rmyd qir am.11un Mlle $.b�INs A,1 [qlq d IhU rnq IfkMA ilrMfivrof k101 T]PA. IAe V�hxaknlnP 1[4 a.p[he A„hrrnu' 4 Sq x(W Iln .�A rapnl; I!lvu rggya! p+u�[ tlnuarpnly Ina MRasWP rurm.r, Ix nNe aNdnntk eAPh p Miu WlMr� M M1rrgqN[�l. Ilw q fCW xe a AXgpllq•Ir1RN •*no.rrAMrAtn N iMeMa umev ol4gareali6iuws<v �hr wA.e.p�195�IrPs1� Pk.trroxgrnh. my Mna »r.nd Oerx wkluPA+1%. ]orfi ur loox PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or Interested in the above- enbtled matter. I am the prindpal derk of the printer of THE CALIFORNIAN .4n Edr� of The San orego unrwrrr bane A newspaper of general circulation, published DAILY In the City of Temecula, California, 92590, County of Riverside, Three Lake Judicial District, and which newspaper has been adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Cou rt of the County of Riverside, State of California, under the date of February 26, 1991, Case Number 209105; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof, on the following dates, to wit: August 27rK, 2016 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated atTEMECULA, California, this 297K of August, 2016 �" Y- , Cathy Viars Legal Advertising The Californian Ain E&= wme sm okgo av -rename Proof of Publication of URA iLYni� NrARuili'eLiio vi�in c Ur>Ao QN oeil y u. W_8- VIVYAKGA JUSiA ].'I— S _• PS-5o DLL PLAN C—LIn 002017q-I poa �ivly ve LR pRLscran�srns reon[n[n ae��k�n•��i oqqw• x • `re Iw ^vu.:,��r'• v:riwMrv.aad p aa.. mel..yI--. At mannnxr��mrnru����n�un.,raan[r, cw,enurw lxw. wr 10i1•�asKI In[!MI n�• uln4n[ra mi, YIeSeI<W ^ IM C.[oAMs tle ryn [arhf W 101r .�apw niK &.r...�k:r.�f.�ee���.".�u.,.ua.[.u.. eaa.. ., ru,e...... u.,...I elenMppree,i�x ip-s.n,<Ee.!CmPRE-1a,�wMwend�.� Nn .FICA la• selNka n49Jd.: rz IuwA. r`M`�—paeeLercHo+u..iwL :N,y,Ia.A c"rrya uwa Ilrwa. dlrle�[oreefYd,M 1ere. •6r.aIL• ILmadRM e<I r�iWrsm I�dd,es �i ^I�n r^Rn lnineu¢n Ie o.n��.•Ad d, e.pinrr ws pu•IMF Nxe�Enrarns �RrHxi.n.wnN�A�r,n[e,voa de rJynircp.y�a wr nmmn.ab,� . _.. y • dR^I., yy++frLAe[er .e�slpa�.•I",ir ruq.n dpr[fkall.. Y>,Nb/ d �Maa whin Nppfrrl.Iaemrc.�a[r Arxe•rnnadospe•r HeW rpalem,sml�kr �e y.o In�e[f NH.,M i�eyJuaIr N.a•ro rerc `h• J• 10 ern e. ra .I b.e.r•, u:"r.�,m;i . a: or= �c:ea+r"�-•+a•Z.,rrr ��Ic... r•.I�a�:.amr, ;w.,I., . Oe awno IPA a,: `.wrm �wlhl ar wn.[ica[nr [w.[roaPiA�am rod.. O[I.Mrrlw ,rnk.Ml,r.Yn axon•-IeelrL[na<a. �Inaaemsdr+� w .KTANopaeL[[v cawe".M. �I,I. iwai n:i erg mt:nriii: moan wrae° �� i� wr«,es IPyn� roaoora,nr w.a,.a•,.,�y.0 sxwr n.relue+r�: menrA. r wwa�r ova [a.arL,�x, w .xr.e rm[.a<aM n Lwre = NN. lnpt<�q[ [m.[nLVK :pp�'xAle pepdhl fe ex'M.I eI n�flnlrnlenlc e+I.n.I� Jn. n iierc. .w ••mr.[erxirrnom ne•�•md.I..>oo p.•.nxra ' m, e�er� e.•a, v. Ihewnirar wm.•I.,.n w euirta refers..,.srn~.. ���. m.�ic rw hl p�xa.. .u„uo. a L,nn rNlr,•rn<., r.wlnr in w>e d. �:o�rLd ar .onR,Ir, wx Iw,«e da IIr,<�rnm sn ,6'N.IQ, 1IOW »�. rrmr<w�, r.ln�n�rvxsOn „mlwal..•�•w=�•��I::.� n�mIo,n roc. RCA,��wII rMM" A LAS JU"hS V DOCumFNioa Wh.rLIN dAn lee wn.a>.«n�pl�^•I.ei�•.r rnasioa:, 5e,n ply,.m,.1a.p.. e,,,o ro ,veo y �c[a do m;•,v..l".:`noi ='—hgMgfoerle bdio Nrrenrirk pva do �vuu,•w w<an vuuee rtq`iR .[.a�adr elp.(r1 leWea [ afp[ea � x�irednl IrIa esalll n I onwm del S.Yp.i.i�wilepel prrWb==1alwnare=esd�I.ji��I�aif9sil�CaMln I` r oar. r.rramn. nn.Iqul rwl.dde.ay.w w,e.nnrxe Appendix P Summary of Public Comments at Public Hearings and Community Meetings Public Hearing Tuesday, June 28, 2016 No comments. Workshop Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 4 p.m. Infrastructure: • Lack of sidewalks makes it difficult for those with disabilities • Some streets are not lit well • Old Town Sidewalks are a problem Community Facilities: • Need more community centers and aquatic centers. Community centers are book solid a year in advance. • There is a lack of meeting space for groups. • Need more space for active adults • There is only one dedicated senior center • Margarita corridor is the neediest section of town for community facilities where there is a concentration of apartments • Eagle Soar Playground great improvement to the Margarita area but over impacted. Serves at -risk youth and the disabled. Transportation: • Lack of transportation for the seniors and the disabled. • Limited Riverside Transportation Agency's bus services • Funding cuts at senior center caused the City to not provide the same level of services. • Mental health issues at the high schools and older young adults not addressed adequately Special Needs: • There are incredible needs of the homeless • Mental health needs are the centerpiece of a lot of problems (homeless, persons with disabilities) • Need more veterans outreach as well as for active military. • There is a lot of veteran support in Temecula • Caregivers need mental health services as well • Services tend to end at age 21 — no mental services, no availability of jobs, limited work programs • Lack of housing solutions for those with special needs. Stress on family as well. • Similar patterns with the caregivers of the elderly. • Support groups for caregivers needed. • Support groups need to be professional and meet regularly • Disabled population is going to increase • Central location needed to get information on special needs and homelessness Affordable Housing: • Shortage of affordable senior housing and affordable assisted living facilities • Those with disabilities are going to be on fixed incomes. Can't live independently. • Housing is the foundation of the community. Business and Jobs: • Need more parking in Old Town • Job training needed Neighborhood Needs: • Some non-HOA residential areas are in desperate need of code enforcement Education: • Believes that schools with higher percentage of lower socio-economic classes have lower resources • Temecula Valley Unified School District struggles with special needs education • Special needs are only partially funded by the federal government. • The City has not done well with post -secondary transition such as meaningful employment and college. Fair Housing: • Those with special needs and have English as a second language are at a greater disadvantage • Sellers are now only talking to buyers with all -cash offers. Not discriminatory but could lead to that. Workshop Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. Infrastructure: • Lack of sidewalks in Old Town (Pujol and First) • Other sidewalks are deteriorating • Considerable challenges where infrastructure is old Community Facilities: • Need places for teenagers to gather • Partner with the schools to open up libraries to public • At -risk youth is a critical issue that the City faces • Need health care centers for kids and those addicted to drugs • Need health care centers for baby boomers Community Services • Need more senior services • Increased mental health need for young people • Partner more with the County for resources • Anti -crime programs • Need to clean up creek beds Affordable Housing: • Lack of homeless shelter • Like to see more non-residential historic preservation • The average age in the community is increasing and maintenance of their homes is a need • Some seniors cannot afford to maintain their homes • CDBG funds can be used to connect volunteer groups • Need for affordable housing is going to continue to increase • Homeowners assistance programs need for repairs • Down payment assistance programs needed. Business and Jobs • Temecula needs business start-up assistance and small business loans • Need to match skills and jobs Workshop Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Infrastructure: • Via Montezuma bridge is need to connect Diaz and Jefferson Community facilities: • Teen Center needed • Mobile library • Childcare needed Community services: • Need more local emergent mental health facilities • Mental health is a problem among high school teens. Services only available in Riverside and San Diego - over an hour away • More neighborhood watch programs • Greater partnering among service organizations • Police and fire need mental health services • Anti -crime programs in lower income areas to reduce the effect of AB 109 and be more proactive than reactive. Special needs: • Accessible improvements is the biggest challenge for residents with special needs • Need more handicapped accessible doors Affordable housing: • Need more homeless shelters in this region • More solutions needed on how to house the homeless • Consider efficiency units, tiny houses • Workforce housing is limited. • More programs and housing needed for single parents Neighborhood Services • Temecula Elementary is a Title 1 School Fair Housing: • FHA limits for Temecula are too low. • Need more housing for disabled adults transitioning out of the school district — no housing available to them. • Families are flocking to Temecula because of their effective special needs services • Currently there are about 1,000 individual with special needs that are between childhood and adulthood. Public Hearing Tuesday, September 29, 2016 No comments. Appendix Q City Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 16-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING, WITH THE ADDITION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT THE ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. A. The City of Temecula has participated directly within the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement jurisdiction for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds since July 1, 2012; B. The City of Temecula has prepared all documents, notices, and forms required by HUD for participation in the CDBG Program by entitlement jurisdictions; C. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-42 on June 14, 2011 initiating the City to obtain entitlement community status from HUD, and authorized the Director of Community Development to prepare and return for City Council approval all documents required for the designation as an Entitlement City, including the Five -Year Consolidated Plan, the Annual Action Plan, the Citizen Participation Plan, and the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing; D. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-78 on November 1, 2011, approving the Citizen Participation Plan that sets forth the City's policies and procedures for citizen participation in the development of its Five -Year Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, Annual Performance Reports, and any substantial amendments deemed necessary for direct administration of federal CDBG funds; E. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 12-30 on April 10, 2012, approving the 2012-16 Five -Year Consolidated Plan, that contains a housing community development needs assessment, a survey of available resources, and a five-year strategy for achieving housing and community development goals, as well as the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing which outlines the City of Temecula's strategy to affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity and remove impediments to fair housing choice; F. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 16-43 on June 28, 2016, approving the updated Citizen Participation Plan that sets forth the City's policies and procedures for citizen participation in the development of its Five -Year Consolidated Resos 16-57 Plan, Assessment of Fair Housing, Annual Action Plans, Annual Performance Reports, and any substantial amendments deemed necessary for direct administration of federal CDBG funds; G. The proposed Assessment of Fair Housing was available for comment between August 27, 2016 and September 27, 2016; H. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines and declares: A. Pursuant to Title 24, Housing and Urban Development, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Subtitle A Office of the Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Part 5 General HUD Program Requirements; Waivers, Section 91.105 Assessment of Fair Housing (24 CFR Part 5, Section 5.154), each entitlement jurisdiction must develop an affirmatively furthering fair housing strategy and submit an Assessment of Fair Housing to HUD; B. On June 28, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing introducing the Assessment of Fair Housing process and to obtain the views of the community on affirmatively furthering fair housing in the jurisdiction's housing and community development programs. C. On September 27, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Assessment of Fair Housing and considered all of the comments made on the proposed Assessment of Fair Housing. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The proposed action on the Annual Action Plan (2016-2017) is exempt from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) pursuant to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and specifically 24 CFR 58.34(a)(1) because the Citizen Participation Plan is a resource identification study and the development of plans and strategies for the prioritization and funding of proposed programs through CDBG and the proposed action involves the feasibility and planning studies to determine prioritization and CDBG funding to begin the development of certain projects. The potential projects discussed in the proposed actions that might involve physical activity will be reviewed under NEPA or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the development of those projects. The proposed action is also exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 and 15378(b)(4). Section 4. The City Council hereby approves the Assessment of Fair Housing and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute and the City Cleric to attest to the execution of these documents. Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Resos 16-57 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 27t" day of September, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTE T: Rani y Clerk [SEAL] Resos 16-57 This page intentionally left blank. 2021-01 Addendum to the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update January 2022 Prepared for: City of Temecula Community Development Department Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92589 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 180 E. Main Street, Suite 108 Tustin, CA 92780 D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1-0 1.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................ 1-0 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................................ 1-0 1.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE..................................................................................................................... 1-2 2 ADDENDUM FINDING............................................................................................................................... 2-1 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT............................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION ANDSETTING................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED PROJECT REVISIONS/ADDITIONS........................................................................ 3-3 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 AESTHETICS............................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES....................................................................................................... 4-4 4.3 AIR QUALITY.............................................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................................. 4-11 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES....................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 4.6 ENERGY.................................................................................................................................................. 4-20 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................................................................................................................. 4-22 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS..................................................................................................................... 4-26 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS........................................................................................................ 4-28 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................................................................................... 4-32 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING.......................................................................................................................... 4-37 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................................ 4-41 4.13 NOISE.....................................................................................................................................................4-42 4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING........................................................................................................................ 4-45 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES....................................................................................................................................... 4-47 4.16 RECREATION............................................................................................................................................ 4-50 4.17 TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................................................................... 4-52 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES..................................................................................................................... 4-57 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.................................................................................................................. 4-59 4.20 WILDFIRE................................................................................................................................................ 4-63 4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE...................................................................................................... 4-66 Tables and Figures TABLE 1: TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN EXPECTED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY......................................................... 3-3 TABLE 2: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE RHNA...................................................................................................................3-5 TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF RHNA CANDIDATE SITES REALISTIC CAPACITY AND RHNA.......................................................... 3-7 FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP......................................................................................................................... 3-11 FIGURE 2: GENERAL PLAN PLANNING AREA.................................................................................................................. 3-12 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Temecula Housing Element was first adopted in 1993 and was updated in 2003 as part of a Comprehensive General Plan Update. Adoption of the Housing Element and a Negative Declaration preceded adoption of the Comprehensive General Plan Update. On April 12, 2005, the City Council adopted the Temecula General Plan, referencing the Housing Element, and certified the Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2003061041). The Housing Element was updated again in 2010 for the 41" cycle. Most recently, in 2013, the City Council adopted the City of Temecula General Plan Housing Element (2014-2021 Housing Element) and Negative Declaration for the 5t" Cycle. Additionally, since adoption of the General Plan Update, the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment, Altair Specific Plan, and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan have been adopted. Environmental review was completed for each of these specific projects; refer to Section 1.4, Incorporation by Reference. The City now proposes the current 2021-2029 Housing Element for the 61" cycle and Public Safety Element Update (referenced herein as "Modified Project" or "Project"). The Modified Project involves minor changes/additions to the Housing Element in compliance with State Housing Element Law Government Code Sections 65580-65590.1 and minor changes/additions to the Public Safety Element to meet the requirements of California Government Code Section 65302(g). Following preliminary review of the proposed Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update, the City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, has determined that the proposed Project is subject to CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000-21177). This Addendum to the FEIR has been prepared by the City to demonstrate that the proposed Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update do not meet the conditions warranting preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, as the potential environmental impacts associated with the Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated, as described further. 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze any potential differences between the impacts identified in the FEIR and those that would be associated with the proposed Project. Pursuant to provisions of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve the Project. As part of its decision -making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the proposed Project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan FEIR. Additional CEQA review beyond this Addendum would only be triggered if the Project created new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in the FEIR used to approve the Temecula General Plan. To use an Addendum as the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project, the City must find that major revisions to the FEIR are not necessary and that none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of additional CEQA documentation has occurred. Introduction 1-0 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, prior to approving further discretionary action and depending upon the situation, the lead agency must generally either: (1) prepare a Subsequent EIR; (2) prepare a Supplemental EIR; (3) prepare a Subsequent Negative Declaration; (4) prepare an Addendum to the EIR or Negative Declaration; or (5) prepare no further documentation (see State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162 - 15164). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states: When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines explains when an Addendum to an EIR is appropriate. Per this section, where some changes or additions are necessary to the previously certified EIR, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR (as described above) have occurred, then the lead agency is directed to prepare an Addendum to the certified EIR (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15164). Further, the Addendum should include a "brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162," and that "explanation must be supported by substantial evidence" (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15164 Introduction 1-1 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR [e]). The Addendum need not be circulated for public review but may simply be attached to the certified EIR (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15164 [c]). 1.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Temecula General Plan The City Council comprehensively adopted the Update to the City of Temecula General Plan on April 12, 2005. The General Plan is a comprehensive legal document that identifies a community vision for the future and establishes a framework to guide future decisions regarding development, resource management, public safety, public services, and the overall quality of the community. The General Plan contains goals, policies, and programs to guide land use and development, and is organized to include the following mandatory "elements" in accordance with California Government Code Section 65302: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Public Safety, and Noise. In addition to the required elements, the Temecula General Plan includes the following optional elements: Growth Management/Public Facilities, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development. The 6t" Cycle Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update are the subject of this Addendum. Temecula General Plan Final EIR The City Council certified the General Plan FEIR on April 12, 2005. The General Plan FEIR provides a program -level analysis of the general environmental impacts resulting from the development of land uses and implementation of policies established within the Temecula General Plan update. The General Plan FEIR's analysis is based on the change between development under existing conditions (at the time of document preparation) and those projected for likely development in accordance with the General Plan by theoretical expected development capacity. Based on General Plan FEIR Table 3-1, the General Plan FEIR assumed and analyzed the environmental impacts resulting from the following': approximately 25,005 additional dwelling units and approximately 36.2 million additional square feet of non-residential land uses. The General Plan FEIR concluded that full implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Section 5.3 Air Quality (Violate any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing air quality violation; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant; and Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations) and Section 5.13, Transportation (Causes an intersection to operate at LOS E or F [peak hour ICU greater than 0.90] and Causes a freeway ramp to operate at LOS F [peak hour V/C greater than 1.00]), which were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR The Harveston General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) - Planning Area 12 (Project) proposed changing the existing General Plan land use designation from Service Commercial (SC) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) and a SPA that would include a residential overlay to the Specific Plan on an 87.54-acre portion of Planning Area 12. The remaining Harveston ' These numbers represent the expected net change by land use category from existing 2002 (baseline) to expected development capacity, as calculated in the Temecula General Plan. Introduction 1-2 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Specific Plan Area was developed. The residential overlay designation would overlay the existing SC designation for the site within the existing Specific Plan. The GPA from SC to SPI would maintain the Specific Plan's consistency with the existing General Plan Land Use Element but would provide flexibility for the Specific Plan, including the proposed residential overlay, to function as the General Plan land use designation. The residential overlay would allow the future development of a maximum of 1,000 residential units. The Harveston Specific Plan Amendment FEIR assumed 1,000 small lot detached single family homes would be developed. The Harveston Specific Plan Amendment FEIR concluded that Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Air Quality Impact 3.1-2: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, which was determined to be significant and unavoidable. Altair Specific Plan Final EIR The Altair Specific Plan is primarily a residential mixed -use development with supporting civic uses and open space. Different housing types are proposed to meet the needs of a range of age groups and household sizes. Altair proposed a type of form -based code using building types clustered in villages as the organizing principle. These building types are assigned to seven neighborhood "villages" which, in turn, are overlaid with one of three proposed residential zones (Residential Zone [SP-R], Mixed-Use/Residential [SP-MR], or Mixed -Use [SP-M]), in combination with an active open space zone (SP-AO). The non-residential uses include an elementary school and a civic use area ("South Parcel") which are covered by the Educational (SP-E) zone and Institutional (SP-I) zone, respectively, and natural open space (SP-NO). Based on the proposed residential zone and associated densities and intensities by village area, Altair Specific Plan would allow for up to 1,750 dwelling units. The Altair Specific Plan FEIR concluded that Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Air Quality Impact AQ-1: Operational activities occurring after the buildout of the project would violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to any existing or projected air quality violation; Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impact GHG-1: The project could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; Noise and Vibration Impact NOI-1: Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area would potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels; Noise and Vibration Impact NOI-2: Construction activities in the project area may expose their respective onsite and/or offsite sensitive land uses to vibration levels that exceed applicable FTA vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance; Traffic and Transportation Impact TRA-7: Development of the Specific Plan would cause the level of service at the existing I-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (Intersection #25) to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours; and Traffic and Transportation Impact TRA-11: Development of the Specific Plan would cause the General Plan Build Out (2035) level of service at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (Intersection #5) to degrade from an unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour, and would cause the average delay to increase by more than the 2.0-second threshold of significance, which were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Introduction 1-3 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final EIR The Uptown Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts - Uptown Center District (UC); Upton Hotel/Tourism District (UHT); Uptown Sports/Transit District (US); Uptown Arts District (UA); Creekside Village District (CV); and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District (MCR-OS) and two overlay zones - Creekside Village Commercial Overlay Zones (CV -CO) and Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone (WH-RO). East district defines the allowable building types, frontage types, land uses, building placement, parking placement, and building heights within the specific plan area. The Uptown Specific Plan would allow for 3,726 dwelling units and 1.9 million square feet of commercial uses for a total of 5.5 million square feet of total development potential on approximately 560 acres. The new development is assumed to replace all existing development (approximately 3.8 million square feet) in the specific plan area. The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan FEIR concluded that Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Air Quality - Violation of Air Quality Standards (Construction and Operation) and Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality; Cultural Resources - Direct Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic) and Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic); and Noise and Vibration (Construction), which were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Temecula Municipal Code The City of Temecula Municipal Code consists of the City's regulatory and penal ordinances, and certain administrative ordinances. The City of Temecula Development Code (Development Code) is codified into Title 17, Zoning. The purpose of the Development Code is to: implement the goals, and policies and programs of the Temecula General Plan, and to manage future growth and change in accordance with that plan; promote health, safety, welfare and general prosperity with the aim of preserving a wholesome, serviceable and attractive community in accordance with the General Plan for the City; attain the physical, social and economic advantages resulting from comprehensive and orderly land use and resource planning; encourage, classify, designate, regulate, restrict and segregate the most compatible and beneficial location and use of buildings, structures and land; limit the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures hereafter designed, erected or altered; regulate and determine the setbacks and other open spaces; regulate and limit the density of population; and facilitate adequate provisions for community facilities, such as transportation, water, sewage, and parks. Introduction 1-4 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 2 ADDENDUM FINDING Pursuant to CEQA and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the FEIR for the General Plan certified by the City Council on April 12, 2005 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003061041), including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Staff has also reviewed the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019070974), Altair Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013061012). In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing Element and Public Safety Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. On October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted the Addendum in connection with the adoption of the draft Housing Element and Public Safety Element. After adoption of the draft Housing Element, the City received comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The draft Housing Element was amended in response to HCD's comments. The 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, as revised in response to HCD's comments, does not create any new program or policy that would permit residential development where it is not otherwise permitted. As such, it was determined that the revisions to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated, and that it is still appropriate for the City to rely on the Addendum. It was further determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR do not need to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Addendum Finding 2-1 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 3.1 BACKGROUND 3.1.1 HOUSING ELEMENTS AND REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION The Housing Element is a State -mandated element of the General Plan. The City of Temecula must update its Housing Element every eight years. Updates to the Housing Element must meet the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65580-65589. The purposes of the Housing Element are to identify the community's housing needs; to state the community's goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs; and to define the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives. State law requires that the City accommodate its "fair share" of regional housing needs, which are assigned by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for all jurisdictions in the SCAG region. SCAG established the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) to assign each city and the unincorporated county in the region its fair share of the regional housing need based on a number of factors established by State law (Government Code Section 65584) and regional housing burdens and needs. The objectives of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) are: • Increase housing supply and the mix of housing types; • Promote infill, equity, and environment; • Ensure jobs housing balance and fit; • Promote regional income equity; and • Affirmatively further fair housing. Beyond the income -based housing needs established by the RHNA, the Housing Element must also address special needs groups; such as seniors, persons with disabilities including developmental disabilities, single female parents, large families, farm workers, and homeless persons. 3.1.2 SAFETY ELEMENTS The Safety Element is a State -mandated element of the General Plan. Updates to the Safety Element will meet the requirements of California Government Code Section 65302(g) (Section 65302) as updated by Senate Bills 1241, 379, 99, and 1035 and will incorporate policies from the Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (pursuant to SB 379). The Public Safety Element addresses potential and existing hazards in the City, which are outlined in the following categories: Seismically Induced Hazards; Slope Instability; Geologic Hazards; Flood Hazards; Fire Hazards; Evacuation Routes; Criminal Activities; Hazardous Materials; Nuclear Hazards; and Climate Adaptation. Updates to the Public Safety Element are largely focused on the topics of Fire Hazards, Evacuation Routes, and Climate Adaption. 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING Nestled in Temecula Valley in southwestern Riverside County, just north of the San Diego County line, sits the City of Temecula, which was incorporated in 1989. Having grown from a modest initial Description of the Proposed Project 3-1 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR incorporated population of 27,099, the City of Temecula is currently home to approximately 112,000 residents in an area of roughly 30 square miles. The City is bounded by the City of Murrieta to the north, unincorporated areas within the County of Riverside to the east, west, and south, and unincorporated areas within the County of San Diego to the south. Regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 15, a north/south freeway that connects the Inland Empire region of Riverside and San Bernardino counties to San Diego County, and State Route 79, a primarily east/west highway (although it runs concurrent with I-15 through the City of Temecula) that links Interstate 10 with Interstate 15, and links Temecula to communities further east in unincorporated Riverside and San Diego counties. The General Plan identifies the most prevalent land uses in Temecula as residential, consisting of approximately 51 percent of the Planning Area; Public/Institutional and Open Space consisting of approximately 37 percent of the Planning Area; Commercial and Office consisting of approximately 6 percent of the Planning Area; and Industrial Park approximately 5% of the Planning Area. The Land Use Element identifies the distribution, location, and intensity of all land use types throughout the City. To fully reflect the range of physical attributes that are important for Temecula's success, the Element also contains goals and policies to guide community form and design, and the provision of community facilities and urban services. The Land Use Element is primarily implemented by the City's Zoning Ordinance, which specifies districts and performance standards for various types of land uses described in the General Plan. Each General Plan land use designation has a corresponding zone or zones that implement and regulate the intent of the land use. The zone districts specify the permitted uses for each category and applicable development standards. The General Plan identifies the expected development capacity associated with the distribution of planned land uses specified in the Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU-3 of the Land Use Element). Table 1, Temecula General Plan Expected Residential Development Capacity, summarizes the expected development capacity for residential uses within Temecula based on reasonable density assumptions for the City and SOI. Description of the Proposed Project 3-2 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Table 1: Temecula General Plan Expected Residential Development Capacity Residential Land Use Designation Density Range Existing Hillside 0 — 0.1 du/ac Expected Acreage Development (Dwelling 1,023 Capacity Units) 102 Rural 0.1 — 0.2 du/ac 2,528 506 Very Low 0.2 — 0.4 du/ac 2,962 1,021 Low 0.5 — 2.9 du/ac 593 889 Low Medium 3.0 — 6.9 du/ac 7,593 34,504 Medium 7.0 — 12.9 du/ac 759 7,591 High 13.0 — 20.0 du/ac 432 7,143 Vineyards/Agriculture 0 — 0.2 du/ac 2,219 222 Mixed Use Overlay Varies 210 1,760 Total 53,7371 Source: City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element, Table LU-3. 1. City of Temecula General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, Table LU-3 lists the total expected development capacity (in dwelling units) at 53,737 units. However, the total based on the sum of the capacity of each land use designation is actually 53,738 units. 3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED PROJECT REVISIONS/ADDITIONS The project analyzed in this Addendum involves the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update. The proposed amendment would not modify the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the General Plan Land Use Element. No changes to the maximum development potential approved for the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and subsequent General Plan Amendments would occur with the proposed amendment. 3.3.1 HOUSING ELEMENT In compliance with State Housing Element Law requirements, the City of Temecula has prepared the 2021-2029 Housing Element (Project) to: • Provide goals, policies, quantified objectives and scheduled programs to preserve, improve and develop housing • Identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community • Identify adequate sites that are zoned and available within the 8-year housing cycle to meet the City's fair share of regional housing needs at all income levels • Affirmatively further fair housing • Be certified (approved) by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as complying with State law • Be internally consistent with other parts of the General Plan Description of the Proposed Project 3-3 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Housing Element Organization The proposed Housing Element Update covers the October 15, 2021 through October 15, 2029 planning period and is comprised of the following components: Part 1: Housing Plan Part 1 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the City's "Housing Plan", which includes the goals, policies, and programs the City will implement to address constraints and needs. The City's overall strategy for addressing its housing needs has been defined according to the six goals: 1. Providing adequate housing sites; 2. Assisting in development of affordable and special needs housing; 3. Removing constraints to housing production; 4. Conserving and improving existing housing stock; 5. Affirmatively furthering fair housing; and 6. Promoting public participation. The Housing Plan includes only minor modifications to the City's current Housing Element Goals and Policies. The Housing Plan includes a number of new programs to address State housing law including future required updates to the Temecula Municipal Code, new programs to support affirmatively furthering fair housing, and tracking and reporting requirements for Housing Sites. Part 2: Background Report Part 2 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the "Background Report" which identifies the nature and extent of Temecula's housing needs, including those of special populations, potential housing resources (land and funds), potential constraints to housing production, and energy conservation opportunities. In addition to identifying housing needs, the Background Report also presents information regarding the setting in which these needs occur. The Background Report comprehensively updates the background context and conditions identified in the City's current Housing Element. Appendix A: Housing Sites Inventory The Housing Element must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the City's regional housing need by income level. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requires that the Housing Sites Inventory be prepared using a State -approved format, included as Appendix A. No land use changes are proposed to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); future residential development is expected to occur in those areas already identified for residential uses including land within approved Specific Plans. All sites identified in the City's Housing Sites Inventory are currently identified for new development consistent with the potential development capacities identified in Appendix A. Appendix B: Glossary The Housing Element includes, as Appendix B, a glossary of key terms and phrases. Appendix C: Public Engagement Summary As part of the Housing Element Update the process, the City hosted numerous opportunities for the community and key stakeholders to provide feedback on existing housing conditions, housing Description of the Proposed Project 3-4 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR priorities, priority areas for new residential growth, and topics related to fair housing. Public engagement was facilitated in both English and Spanish to further engage the Temecula community. Public participation played an important role in the refinement of the City's housing goals and policies and in the development of new housing programs, as included in Part 1: Housing Plan. The public's input also helped to validate and expand upon the contextual information included in Part 2: Background Report. The City's efforts to engage the community in a meaningful and comprehensive way are summarized in Appendix C. Appendix D: 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing In 2017 the City of Temecula prepared an Assessment of Fair Housing. This Assessment provides the foundation and context for the City's Assessment of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, as included in Part 2 of the Housing Element. Capacity to Meet Regional Housing Needs As determined by SCAG, the City of Temecula's fair share allocation (RHNA) is 4,193 new housing units during this planning cycle. This includes: 1,359 units affordable to extremely/very low income households; 801 units affordable to low income households; 778 units affordable to moderate income households; and 1,255 units affordable to above moderate income households. State Income Limits which are used to determine affordability levels are set annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Progress Towards the RHNA RHNA uses June 30, 2021 as the baseline for growth projections for the 2021-2029 planning period. Jurisdictions may count toward the RHNA housing units that have been developed, are under construction, and/or have received their building permits after June 30, 2021. Since this time, 27 housing units have been developed, are under construction, or have received their building permits in Temecula. Jurisdictions may also count projects that are approved/entitled but not yet built or under construction; 132 units, all affordable to lower -income households, have been approved/entitled and are expected to be developed within the planning period. With these units taken into account, has a remaining RHNA of 4,034 units (1,327 extremely low/very low income units, 702 low income units, 757 moderate income units, and 1,249 above -moderate income units. Table 2: Progress Towards the RHNA Extremely Low ModerateStatus ..TOTAL RHNA Allocation Low/Very Low 1,359 801 778 Moderate 1,255 4,193 Constructed, Under 0 0 21 6 27 Construction/Permi is Issued (Since 6/30/2021 Units 32 99 0 0 132 Approved/Entitled Remaining 1,327 702 757 1,249 4,034 Allocation Source: City of Temecula, 2021, Southern California Association of Governments, 2021 Description of the Proposed Project 3-5 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Residential Sites Inventory to Accommodate Remaining RHNA The City has sufficient land appropriately zoned for residential uses throughout the community to accommodate its remaining RHNA (4,034 units) for the 2021-2029 planning period. The City of Temecula's 6th Cycle residential sites fall into four categories: 1) Accessory dwelling units. ADUs are allowed on any lot that is zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use, including lots that are zoned for such use within a SPA. In 2020 the City updated its ADU ordinance to encourage the production of ADUs throughout the community, and in 2020, 18 ADUs were approved. The City continues to promote ADUs as a way to expand the City's housing stock and anticipates production to continue at or above 2020 levels for the duration of the planning period. The City has assumed production of ADUs at a rate of 18 units per year for the 8 year planning period, resulting in an assumed production of 144 ADUs from 2021-2029. 2) Residentially zoned vacant land exclusive of Specific Plan areas. As part of this Housing Element update, the City conducted a parcel -by -parcel analysis of vacant residential sites for land outside of approved specific plans, based on data obtained from the City's geographic information system (GIS). The inventory of vacant residential land between 0.50 acres and 10 acres in size (exclusive of those in specific plan areas) in Temecula totals 643 acres. These vacant properties have the potential to yield 3,430 units, assuming each parcel is developed at 75% of its maximum capacity. All affordability levels are accommodated at vacant residential parcels outside of Specific Plan areas. 3) Vacant Residential Sites within Specific Plans. The City conducted a records search and visual survey using aerial photos and site visits to estimate the remaining residential development capacity by number and type of housing within the approved specific plans. The City has 15 approved Specific Plan; nine have vacant land with residential development capacity remaining. Five of the nine Specific Plans with remaining residential capacity (Old Town, Wolf Creek, Harveston, Uptown, and Altair) allow for development at densities of at least 30 du/ac, which is appropriate to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA. The inventory of vacant residential land greater than 0.50 acres in size within approved Specific Plans in Temecula totals 784 acres. It should be noted that some of these sites are larger than 10 acres. The City has a long history of successfully subdividing large parcels into smaller developments resulting in the production of housing units at all income levels. In Temecula, Specific Plan areas have historically developed to at least 95% of their total entitlement. However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA, the City has assumed that Specific Plan areas will develop at 85% of their capacity. Given that Specific Plans inherently include programs to develop sites effectively and efficiently at the densities and intensities identified within the Plan, and given the City's history of successful Specific Plan development at levels consistent with nearly the maximum allowable development levels, this is a reasonable expectation for the City's remaining vacant land in Specific Plan areas. Based on this methodology, vacant residential sites in Specific Plans have the potential to yield 5,773 units. Description of the Proposed Project 3-6 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Table 3: Comparison of RHNA Candidate Sites Realistic Capacity and RHNA Extremely Low ModerateStatus ..TOTAL Remaining 6th Low 1,327 702 757 ModerateLow/Very 1,249 4,034 Cycle RHNA ADLls 34 50 50 11 144 Vacant Residential 807 660 1,600 363 3,430 Land (exclusive of SPAs Vacant Residential 624 624 2,787 1,724 5,773 Land in Specific Plans Total +137 (surplus) +632 (surplus) +3,680 (surplus) +849 (surplus) +5,313 (surplus) Note: The realistic capacity analysis of vacant land outside of Specific Plan areas assumes that only 75°70 of the maximum capacity would be realized and for vacant land inside of Specific Plan areas assumes that only 85% of the maximum capacity would be realized. If the sites develop closer to their full capacity, which has been realized as part of past projects, the City's surplus of units at all income levels would be significantly higher. Summary of Housing Element Modifications As previously noted, State law requires that the Housing Element be reviewed and updated not less than every eight years, in order to remain relevant and useful, and reflect a community's changing housing needs. The proposed Housing Element Update involves minor changes/additions to the Housing Element and environmental conditions under which it would be implemented. The following summarizes the modifications to the Housing Element, as compared to the 2013-2021 Housing Element: Goals, Policies, and Programs (Part 1: Housing Plan) The City made minor modifications to the Goals and Policies included in the Housing Element to reflect the City's current housing needs and State mandates. The Housing Plan revises existing goals and policies to better reflect state law regarding the provision of special needs housing, removing governmental and nongovernmental constraints, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. Revised goals and policies include: • Goal 2: Assist in Development of Affordable and Special Needs Housing • Goal 3: Remove Constraints to Housing Production • Goal 4: Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock • Goal 5: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing • Policy 1.2: Variety of Housing Options • Policy 5.2: Support for Fair Housing Efforts • Policy 5.5: Prohibition of Discrimination • Policy 5.6: Equitable Spatial Distribution of Affordable Housing The Housing Plan includes new policy direction, consistent with state law, related to maintaining adequate capacity to accommodate the City's RHNA at all income levels for the duration of the planning period, the reuse of sites identified in prior Housing Elements, and reducing impacts associated with nongovernmental constraints. New policies include: Description of the Proposed Project 3-7 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR • Policy 1.9: Maintain Adequate Capacity • Policy 1.10: By -Right Approval for Qualified Sites Identified in Past Inventories • Policy 3.4: Monitor State Regulations • Policy 3.5: Evaluate Non -Governmental Constraints • Policy 5.8: Support Fair Housing Providers • Policy 5.9: Reasonable Accommodation Requests The Housing Plan includes numerous revisions to existing programs to better reflect the community's housing needs. Revised programs include: • Program 1: Land Use Policy and Development Capacity • Program 6: Density Bonus Ordinance • Program 11: Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency • Program 12: Development Fees • Program 22: Equal Housing Opportunity The Housing Plan includes new programs consistent with state law and the goals and policies included in the City's Housing Element. New programs include: • Program 2: Maintain Adequate Sites Throughout the Planning Period • Program 3: Public Property Conversion to Housing Program • Program 4: Replacement of Affordable Units • Program 5: Accessory Dwelling Units • Program 9: Special Needs Housing Construction • Program 16: Zoning Code Amendments — Housing Constraints • Program 24: Economic Displacement Risk Analysis All other Goals, Policies and Programs are reflective of the City's current Housing Element with limited or no modifications to reflect current conditions. Background Information (Part 2: Background Report) The Background Report of the Housing Element has been comprehensively updated to include current information. This section of the Housing Element includes: Introduction, Accomplishments Under 5th Cycle Housing Element, Housing Needs Assessment, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis, Constraints, Housing Resources, Other Requirements, and References. Appendix A: Housings Sites Inventory The City has updated its Housing Sites Inventory to demonstrate capacity to accommodate its 2021-2029 RHNA. The Housing Sites Inventory includes a list of sites appropriate to accommodate the RHNA at the appropriate densities and income levels and includes sites identified in the Current Housing Element and other sites designated for residential development consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Specific Plans. No land use changes are proposed as part of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Appendix B: Glossary The City has updated the Glossary section of its Housing Element and included new terms and references as appropriate. Description of the Proposed Project 3-8 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Appendix C: Public Engagement Summary The public engagement program conducted as part of the Housing Element Update project is summarized in Appendix C. Appendix D: 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing In 2017 the City of Temecula prepared an Assessment of Fair Housing. This Assessment provides the foundation and context for the City's Assessment of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, as included in Part 2 of the Housing Element. 3.3.2 SAFETY ELEMENT In compliance with State Law, the City of Temecula has prepared an update to its Safety Element to further address fire hazards, emergency preparedness, and climate adaptation. Natural and human -caused events have the ability to impact productivity by causing substantial damage to life, property, and economic prosperity. The Safety Element addresses these potential issues with goals, policies, and actions to continue to serve and protect Temecula and its residents. Safety Element Organization The Safety Element includes an Introduction to the Element, the Element's goals and policies, and Implementation Programs. Summary of Safety Element Modifications Within the Introduction section of the Safety Element, new plans and programs were referenced, including the County of Riverside Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP), the City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP). Fire Hazards discussion was comprehensively updated to include current information regarding the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), CalFire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and major wildland fires in Temecula. Figure PS-3, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA (as Recommended by CalFIRE) was also added. The City has also included a new discussion related to emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation and identified new objectives to address this topic. Additional information related to the MJLHMP, LHMP, and the County's CAP are also included by reference. In accordance with SB 99, the City conducted an evaluation of evacuation routes serving residential developments in hazard areas. This analysis is presented in a separate background report available on the City's website and the results of the analysis, which found that while residential developers may comply with City of Temecula access standards, several residential areas warrant further study and coordination with RCFD and CalFIRE to ensure residents with limited emergency routes are well-educated on evacuation procedures during emergencies. No goals, policies or programs from the current Safety Element were eliminated as part of this update. The following modifications or additions were made: Description of the Proposed Project 3-9 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Natural Hazards • Policy 1.8: Future development in SRAs or VHFHSZs • Policy 1.9: Reduce risk of wildfire hazards Emergency Preparedness and Hazard Mitigation • Goal 4 (Modification): Effective response of emergency services • Policy 4.5 (Modification): Location of new essential facilities • Policy 4.7: Coordination with agencies on evacuation routes • Goal 5: Resilient sustainable community • Policy 5.1: Climate resiliency and adaptation • Policy 5.2: Monitor climate change -related effects Implementation • PS-1 Natural Hazards Risk Reduction (Modification) • PS-8 Promote Fire Prevention (Modification) • PS-14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Modification) Description of the Proposed Project 3-10 Figure 1 Regional Location Map Legend • — Temecula City Boundary —• Sphere of Influence Boundary Planning Area Sources: Temecula GIs and Cotton/Bridges/Associates City of Sphere of I cos 5AN 6EImhROiN] couralr I Mda AM1LELES a �i•�•�flr8• •' 1 '` _r [�'[ ppA�u. •W:pSYOf wErtRSGE CY]li�n ' trt T � Sa mO —1— y arov mrrn .jS. CO4FR1' Pechang Entertainm Center c Temecula 1 1 1 1 1 000 10,000 �l%Feet 4 ����� S ali Rd 3 Jean Nicholas Rd County of Riverside Lan C/ Skinner C r tr•x frn a r nr o x r 2021-01 Addendum to the City of Temecula General Plan Final CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report 3-2 Figure 2 General Plan Planning Area CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend Temecula City Boundary —. Sphere of Influence Boundary S City Pin Planning Area { Source: Temecula and Riverside County GIs, 2001 I County oV Riverside lake slm�e, Ir of gpdngs Rd Buh Rd �• N, oas d ........... p Center N 0 5,000 10,000 WE Feet - ---- Miles S 0 1 2 De K.I.Rd 2021-01 Addendum to the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The scope of the City's review of the proposed Project is limited by provisions set forth in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. This review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the proposed Project to the General Plan Project as set forth in the General Plan FEIR. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the General Plan FEIR was certified. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether the changes proposed by the Project would result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact. The section is patterned after the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist and provides a summary of impacts associated with the proposed actions, as described in the General Plan FEIR, and includes an analysis of the potential impacts associated with the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update. This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the General Plan FEIR was certified would require additional environmental review or preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR. Environmental Analysis 4-1 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.1 AESTHETICS Substantial Information Changein Changein Showing ImpactSubstantial No Less Than No AdditionalSignificant Project Circumstance Greater Requiring Significant EIR Major EIR effects Significant Impact/No Impact/Requiring than Less Than Information Thresholds: Revisions Revisions Previous EIR Significant Requiring ImpactMajor .. With an MND Application of Except as proviged in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would theproject: Mitigation from FEIR a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly X accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect X day or nighttime views in the area? General Plan FOR Conclusions • The natural features of the Temecula Planning Area provide a scenic setting for the community. The goals and policies of the Open Space/Conservation Element are intended to conserve open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. The Land Use Element contains Rural Preservation Areas to preserve the rural nature of specific areas, including viticulture within the Planning Area. The Community Design Element preserves the natural and historical aspects of the community's rural character and viewsheds through goals and policies. To preserve public views of significant natural resources, all new public and private development projects will be reviewed to ensure that they will not obstruct public views of scenic resources, such as the hillsides, scenic roads, or significant open space areas. During the review of individual projects, the Community Development Department may require site redesign or place height limits on projects that have the potential to block views. New projects will also be reviewed to ensure that the proposed landscaping and tree planting will not obstruct views of significant natural resources. Implementation of the identified policies through this review process will ensure that impact will be less than significant on a project -by -project basis. Environmental Analysis 4-2 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR • Light levels within the Planning Area will increase as new housing units and commercial, industrial, and institutional projects are developed pursuant to the General Plan. In addition, new development in previously undeveloped or sparsely developed areas, particularly within the sphere of influence, has the potential to create new lighting impacts associated with the introduction of vehicle headlights and nighttime lighting. New structures could create glare effects if they incorporate reflective building materials. Depending upon the location and scope of individual development projects, the impact to surrounding uses could be significant. New development pursuant to the General Plan may increase the amount of light and glare within the Planning Area with a potential to influence light levels affecting the Palomar Observatory. The General Plan includes policies that continue the City's participation in Palomar Observatory's dark sky conservation requirements. Additionally, Mitigation Measure A-1 would ensure that new development projects comply with the City Light Pollution Control Ordinance, reducing potential light and glare impacts to less than significant. Analysis of Modified Project There are no designated State scenic highways within the General Plan Planning Area (Planning Area); therefore, as concluded in the General Plan FEIR, impacts would be less than significant. The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the City. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts to aesthetic resources and implement mitigation measures, as appropriate. Further, the Public Safety Element would not result in any modifications to existing land use designations or modify any General Plan policies or programs specific to visual resources. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies protecting aesthetic and visual resources. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to scenic vista resources and to reduce impacts associated with light and glare as a result of new development. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure A-1 requires new development projects to comply with the City Light Pollution Control Ordinance to reduce potential impacts to aesthetic resources. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new aesthetic impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to aesthetics as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: A-1 The City will ensure that new development projects comply with the City Light Pollution Control Ordinance when building plans are submitted for permits and when projects are field - inspected (General Plan Implementation Program OS-31). Environmental Analysis 4-3 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Substantial ImpactSubstantial Information No Less Than No Changein Changein Showing AdditionalSignificant Project Circumstance Requiring Greater Significant ImpactiNo Impact/Requiring Significant EIR Major EIR Thresholds: Revisions Revisions effects than Less Than Information Previous EIR Significant Requiring ImpactMajor ,.. . With an MND Application of Would theproject: Mitigation from FEIR a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract? c. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest X use? d. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? General Plan FEIR Conclusions • Future development within the Planning Area pursuant to the land use policies of the updated General Plan may result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of State and Local Importance to non-agricultural use. Implementation of the General Plan would potentially result in conversion of four acres of areas currently identified as Vineyard/Agriculture (0.01 percent of the land currently in agricultural use) to non-agricultural use. Mitigation Measure AG-1 would preserve agricultural lands through land use controls and preservation contracts for prime agriculture land, reducing potential impacts to less than significant. • Implementation of the Temecula General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to conflict with agricultural zoning and there are no Williamson Act contracts in the Planning Area. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded no impacts would result. Analysis of Modified Project The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. Potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses. Further, the Environmental Analysis 4-4 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Public Safety Element would not result in any modifications to existing land use designations or modify any General Plan policies or programs specific to agricultural resources. Subsequent to adoption of the General Plan FEIR, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines resulted in the addition of forestry resources as a topical area to be addressed within CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. There are no forest lands located within the General Plan study area. Additionally, the General Plan area is not designated or zoned as forest land. No impacts related to this environmental topic were anticipated as a result of implementation of the General Plan, and no mitigation measures were required. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new agricultural or forestry resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to agriculture and forestry resources as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: AG-1 The City will preserve agricultural lands by: • Developing effective zoning regulations or other land use mechanisms that control the expansion of intensive non-agricultural development onto productive or potentially productive agricultural lands. • Recognizing existing agriculture preserve contracts and promoting additional preservation contracts for prime agriculture land. (General Plan Implementation Program OS-28) Environmental Analysis 4-5 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.3 AIR QUALITY General Plan FOR Conclusions • Construction -related air quality impacts will occur periodically throughout implementation of the General Plan as individual development projects are constructed. While individual development projects will be required to employ construction approaches that minimize pollutant emissions (e.g., watering for dust control, tuning of equipment and limiting truck traffic to non -peak hours), on a cumulative basis over the next 20 years, the General Plan FEIR concluded pollutant emissions associated with construction activity will be significant, and mitigation is required. • Development consistent with proposed General Plan land use policies will generate additional emissions from both stationary sources and vehicle trips. For all pollutant categories except PMio, long-term pollutant emissions in year 2025 are projected to decrease relative to 2002. Levels of PMio have exceeded State standards regularly in the past and are expected to continue exceeding these standards in the future. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR determined long-term air quality impacts resulting from adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan will be significant, and mitigation measures are required. • Intersections within the Planning Area projected to experience the worst level of service (LOS) conditions, in combination with proximity to sensitive receptors were selected for CO hot spot analysis. The analysis shows that while all study intersections will experience some level of CO concentration, ranging from 0.1 ppm to 1.5 ppm during the 1-hour period, no intersections are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for 1-hour standard. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan will not result in a significant impact with regard to CO hot spots. Environmental Analysis 4-6 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR • The Air Quality Element of the General Plan addresses compliance with the current Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. The Air Quality Element is designed to ensure City land use decisions work to implement and comply with federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to air quality. The General Plan FEIR determined no conflict with the regional air quality plan will result, and no adverse impact will occur. • Development anticipated to occur pursuant to the General Plan will be predominantly residential and commercial uses consisting of retail stores, offices and business parks. Each new development will be required to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's guidelines regarding odor control. Compliance with these existing regulations will ensure that impact will be less than significant. Analysis of Modified Project The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use plan and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce impacts to air quality as a result of new development and would be required to implement General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures to reduce potential impacts to air quality due to construction -related emissions and operational activities by reviewing future development proposals for potential regional and local air quality impacts per CEQA and, if identified, require mitigation to reduce the impact to a level less than significant, where feasible; continue to update the Building Code and to enforce the City Trip Reduction Ordinance; partner with private industry to incorporate high - efficiency design and renewable energy features in commercial, business park, and industrial developments; and implement the AQMP. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-6 also ensures sensitive receptors are located away from air pollution sources and requires buffering of sensitive receptors from air pollution sources reduce potential impacts to air quality. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new air quality impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to air quality as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: AQ-1 The City will support regional transit initiatives and promote development of high-speed rail service connecting Temecula to San Diego and Los Angeles; actively participate in efforts to protect and improve air quality in the region; and attend meetings with the County of Riverside, WRCOG, SCAQMD, SCAG, and other agencies as required to support these objectives and fulfill Temecula's requirements and obligations under the AQMP and Sub- Regional Air Quality Implementation Program (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-1). Environmental Analysis 4-7 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR AQ-2 The City will continue to involve the general public, environmental groups, the business community, and special interest groups in the formulation and implementation of air quality programs; conduct periodic public outreach efforts; and continue to promote public education as a method of employer compliance with the City Trip Reduction Ordinance (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-2). AQ-3 The City will adhere to policies and programs of the Land Use Element, including development of mixed -use projects where designated and feasible (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-3). AQ-4 The City will encourage development and expansion of businesses, and promote development of housing affordable to all segments of the community near job opportunity sites, and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-4). AQ-5 The City will continue to implement a site development permit process and use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the review of proposed development projects. The City shall require individual development projects to comply with the following measures to minimize short-term, construction -related PMio and NOX emissions, and to minimize off -site impacts: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain in active for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. • Ensure that all cut and fill slopes are permanently protected from erosion. • Require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment is maintained in peak working order. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Wash or sweep away access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Approve development that could significantly impact air quality, either individually or cumulatively, only if it is conditioned with all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the impact. (General Plan Implementation Programs LU-4 and AQ-5). AQ-6 The City will ensure location of new sensitive receptors away from major air pollution sources, and require buffering of sensitive receptors from air pollution sources through the use of Environmental Analysis 4-8 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR landscaping, open space, and other separation techniques (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-6). AQ-7 The City will incorporate strategies into City-wide design guidelines and development standards that promote a pedestrian -scale environment, encourage use of mass transit, and reduce dependence on the automobile (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-7). AQ-8 The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and work -at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and continue to enforce provisions of the City Trip Reduction Ordinance, including requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-8). AQ-9 The City will require employee rideshare and transit incentives for large employers, consistent with the requirements of the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance, and continue to encourage voluntary compliance with the Ordinance for smaller employers (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-9). AQ-10 The City will require operators of large scale outdoor events to submit a Trip Reduction Plan (TRP) applicable to both patrons and employees during the course of the event, and encourage special event operators to advertise and offer discount parking incentives to carpooling patrons, with two or more persons per vehicle, for on -site parking facilities (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-10). AQ-11 The City will work to achieve local performance goals for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction, consistent with SCAG's Growth Management Plan recommended standards for the Western Riverside County sub -region, and enforce requirements and options within the Trip Reduction Ordinance (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-11). AQ-12 The City will promote and encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles and consider the adoption of an ordinance requiring provision of alternative fueling stations at or near major employment locations, shopping centers, public facilities, and mixed -use developments (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-12). AQ-13 The City will encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips as an alternative to single -occupancy vehicle trips by constructing and maintaining trails and bikeways specified in the Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, and will periodically update the Master Plan as needed to meet resident needs and City objectives (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-13). AQ-14 The City will work with Caltrans and RTA to identify potential sites for Park and Ride facilities adjacent to key commuting routes within the City, and to prioritize development of such facilities in corridors served by more than one mode of planned transportation (automobile, transit, and/or high-speed rail) (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-14). AQ-15 The City will require incorporation of energy efficient design elements in residential, commercial, light industrial and mixed -use development projects. Examples may include (but are not limited to) the following. Environmental Analysis 4-9 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR • Site orientation strategies that use shade and windbreak trees to reduce fossil fueled consumption for heating and cooling. • Building designs that maximize use of natural lighting, provide for task lighting, and specific high -efficiency electric lighting (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-15). AQ-16 The City will improve roadway capacity by restricting on -street parking, improving signal timing, widening intersections, adding through and turn lanes, and other transportation systems management measures (General Plan Implementation Program C-3). AQ-17 The City will develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities, and encourage preferred parking for ride -sharing and low emission vehicles (General Plan Implementation Program C-18). AQ-18 The City will continue to work with trucking industry representatives to orient trucks to truck routes, and to divert commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to reduce congestion and diesel emissions (General Plan Implementation Program C-19). Environmental Analysis 4-10 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Substantial ImpactSubstantial Information No Less Than No „Additional Significant Project Circumstance Requiring Greater Significant ImpactiNo Impact/Requiring Significant Thresholds: EIR Major EIR Revisions Revisions effects than Less Than Information Previous EIR Significant Requiring ImpactMajor ,.. . With an MND Application of Would theproject: Mitigation from FEIR a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in X local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with X 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 biological X resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, X or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? General Plan FEIR Conclusions • Development pursuant to implementation of the General Plan will result in adverse significant impacts if such development results in the modification or removal of regional sensitive habitats within the Planning Area, including: Coastal Sage Scrub/Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub; Vernal Pools/Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest/Open Water, Reservoir, Pond; Coast Live Oak Woodland, and; Raptor Foraging/Wintering Habitat. Environmental Analysis 4-11 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Impacts to non-native grassland and agricultural land will be significant if the habitat is determined to provide high wildlife value for raptor wintering and foraging, or to support federally or State listed, endangered or threatened species. The General Plan FEIR includes mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. • The Temecula Planning Area encompasses designated critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspot butterfly, as determined by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Critical habitat is primarily located in the northern portion of the Planning Area in French Valley where low -medium residential development is proposed. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan will result in significant impacts to designated critical habitat. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. • The Planning Area encompasses four Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) conservation areas and core linkages. Portions of MSHCP conservation areas will incur permanent, indirect impacts from development -associated increases in the amount of fragmented habitat, artificial nighttime illumination, and human intrusion into natural habitats. In addition, impacts to chaparral will be significant if the habitat is located within a MSHCP conservation, core, or linkage area (e.g., Pauba Valley or Temecula Valley). The General Plan provides for development in these areas; at a Plan level, impact may be significant and mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant. • Development associated with implementation of the General Plan will result in permanent indirect impacts to sensitive flora and fauna species present within the Planning Area where development encroaches into habitat or directly affects specific species. Impacts to federally and State -listed, rare, endangered and threatened species will be significant and adverse. Mitigation measures are required to reduce adverse impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts to lower sensitivity species will be significant if it is determined that the proposed future development will substantially reduce the species' population stability or conflict with the MSCHP conditions of coverage. Mitigation measures are required to provide further environmental review of individual future development projects. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. • All new development will comply with City policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, including tree preservation policies. The updated General Plan provides policies and implementation programs that fully support adopted habitat conservation plans. The General Plan FEIR concluded no impact will result. Analysis of Modified Project The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to biological resources and General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures B-1 through B-11 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. More specifically, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5 contain provisions to conserve and Environmental Analysis 4-12 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR protect sensitive and unique habitat, and require biological assessment in sensitive and regulated habitat areas; Mitigation Measure B-6 promotes regional cooperation on conservation, watershed management, and water resource management planning efforts; Mitigation Measure B-7 requires developers to retain coast live oak woodland and to postpone construction activities until the end of the fledgling season if active raptor nests are found; Mitigation Measures B-8, B-9, and B-10 requires developers to avoid and/or minimize adverse impacts to biological resources consistent with the MSHCP; and Mitigation Measure B-11 requires work corridor surveys to identify active nests for projects with the potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce impacts to biological resources and implement mitigation measures, as appropriate. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered, or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies protecting biological resources. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new biological resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to biological resources as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: B-1 The City shall require development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and MSCHP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game and the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, to provide detailed biological assessments to determine the potentially significant impacts of the project and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance (General Plan Implementation Program OS- 9). B-2 The City shall require the establishment of open space areas that contain significant water courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal species, with first priority given to the core linkage areas identified in the MSHCP (General Plan Implementation Program OS-10). B-3 The City shall require appropriate resource protection measures to be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals. Such requirements may include the preparation of a Vegetation Management Program that addresses landscape maintenance, fuel modification zones, management of passive open space areas, provision of corridor connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water courses, rehabilitation of biological resources displaced in the planning process, and use of project design, engineering, and construction practices that minimize impacts to sensitive species, MSHCP conservation areas, and designated critical habitats (General Plan Implementation Program OS-11). B-4 The City will evaluate and pursue the acquisition of areas with high biological resource significance. Such acquisition mechanisms may include acquiring land by development agreement Environmental Analysis 4-13 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR or gift; dedication of conservation, open space, and scenic easements; joint acquisition with other local agencies; transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements; State and federal grants; and impact fees/mitigation banking (General Plan Implementation Program OS-12). B-5 The City shall use the resources of national, regional, and local conservation organizations, corporations, associations, and benevolent entities to identify and acquire environmentally sensitive lands, and to protect water courses and wildlife corridors (General Plan Implementation Program OS-13). B-6 The City shall continue to participate in multi -species habitat conservation planning, watershed management planning, and water resource management planning efforts (General Plan Implementation Program OS-14). B-7 The City shall require project developers to retain coast live oak woodland, including oaks within new development areas, and shall require surveys of all coast live oak trees prior to construction to determine if any raptor nests are present and active. If active nests are observed, postponement of construction activities until the end of the fledgling season is required. The City shall apply the following guidelines adapted from the Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines: • Construction and development activities will be avoided within the root zone (e.g., encompassing an area one-third larger than the drip line of an oak tree • Landscaping, trenching, or irrigation systems will be avoided within the root zone • Land uses that will cause excessive soil compaction within the root zone will be avoided • Manufactured slopes will not be located within the root zone • Redirection of surface moisture which alters the soil moisture within the root zone for an extended period of time will be avoided • Filling around the bases of oak trees will be avoided through sedimentation and siltation control • Dying oak trees will be retained in place unless determined to pose a health or safety hazard • Relocation of trees will not constitute mitigation • Oak protection will be oriented toward protection of the life cycle of oak trees and woodland (General Plan Implementation Program OS-32). B-8 The City will require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the MSCHP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: on -site preservation, off - site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site (General Plan Implementation Program OS-33). B-9 The City shall require project proponents to avoid adverse impacts to Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water vegetations communities to the maximum extent possible. Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future mitigation ratios established by the City will be required, including, but not limited to: wetland creation in upland areas, wetland restoration that re-establishes the habitat functions of a former wetland, and wetland enhancement that improves Environmental Analysis 4-14 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR the self-sustaining habitat functions of an existing wetland. Mitigation measures will be required to achieve "no net loss" of wetland functions and values (General Plan Implementation Program OS-34). B-10 The City shall review development -associated impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development requirements, and shall require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines: • Drainage: Proposed developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation areas shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP conservation areas is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. Measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP conservation areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP conservation areas. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems. • Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP conservation area that use chemicals or generate byproducts (such as manure) that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP conservation area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented. • Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP conservation area to protect species within the MSHCP conservation area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient light levels within the MSHCP conservation area do not increase. • Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP conservation area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP conservation area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. • Invasives: When approving landscape plans for proposed development adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area, the City shall require revisions to landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species defined within the MSHCP for the portions of development adjacent to the conservation area. • Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the conservation area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms. Environmental Analysis 4-15 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR • Grading/Land Development: Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP conservation area (General Plan Implementation Program OS-35). B-11 The City shall require work corridor surveys to identify active nests for projects with the potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds, as defined under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Development projects shall avoid active nests and, if necessary, require seasonal timing constraints for riparian habitat clearing and an MBTA Special Purpose permit prior to the removal of active nests of MBTA covered species (General Plan Implementation Program OS-36). Environmental Analysis 4-16 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES General Plan FOR Conclusions • Development pursuant to the General Plan will occur mostly on vacant sites within the Planning Area that do not contain existing structures, as well as within currently urbanized Mixed -Use Overlay Areas and Village Centers identified in the Land Use Element. The General Plan strives to preserve existing historic resources through the maintenance of a historic properties inventory, assistance to property owners in seeking State and/or federal registration and appropriate zoning for historic sites and assets, and acquisition and preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan when possible. The General Plan also calls for an integrated approach to historic preservation in coordination with other affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for areas within the Planning Area and surrounding region that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or buildings with other historic features such as roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal waterways. Nevertheless, Small urban infill development or redevelopment projects that are not subject to discretionary review by the City may also occur that could involve the removal or alteration of existing structures with historical value or significance elsewhere within City limits. The General Plan FEIR determined that implementation of mitigation measures would minimize impacts to historic resources from adoption and implementation of the General Plan. • Portions of the Planning Area contain known archaeological and paleontological resources Implementation of the General Plan is expected to result in new development in vacant areas where no structures currently exist, as well as infill development within focus areas located throughout the Planning Area. Therefore, the General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element calls for the City to work to preserve or salvage potential archeological and paleontological resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review and mitigation monitoring processes, as well as maintain Environmental Analysis 4-17 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR an inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity, and historic sites in the Planning Area. However, unknown archaeological sites, structures, and fossils may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for specific projects. Mitigation measures are required, which would reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological and paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Analysis of Modified Project The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to historic and archeological resources and human remains. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires appropriate surveying and documentation of findings prior to ground -disturbing activities; effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or paleontological resources; monitoring by a qualified archeologist or paleontologist where the probable presence of resources is identified; implementation of measures for preservation or salvage of resources; and reporting to the City to avoid or minimize impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-2 calls on the City to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center of the University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for development. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-3 calls on the City to continue to implement a historic preservation ordinance in the Old Town area and General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-4 seeks to increase protections for historically significant sites. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources and implement mitigation measures, as appropriate. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies protecting cultural resources. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new cultural resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to cultural resources as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: CR-1 The City shall use the development and environmental review process to: a. Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and documentation of findings is provided prior to project approval. b. Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or paleontological resources. Environmental Analysis 4-18 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR c. Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of archaeological or paleontological resources is identified. d. Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities. e. Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on completion of mitigation and resource protection measures (General Plan Implementation Program OS- 26). CR-2 The City shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center of the University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-37). CR-3 The City shall continue to implement a historic preservation ordinance in the Old Town area to protect historically significant buildings, sites, roads/trails, and other landscape elements, and to encourage their re -use, where appropriate. Preservation of other historic resources will also be considered (General Plan Implementation Program OS-27). CR-4 The City will encourage owners of local sites to apply for recognition in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as Riverside County Landmarks, as State Points of Historic Interest, as State Landmarks, and as sites on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed necessary (General Plan Implementation Program OS-27). Environmental Analysis 4-19 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.6 ENERGY General Plan FEIR Conclusions Since certification of the General Plan FEIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist has been revised to include a discreet category for Energy impacts. The topic of energy is addressed in the General Plan FEIR's Utilities and Service Systems section. • Southern California Edison (SCE) will construct additional electricity facilities as necessary to meet increased demand. Individual development projects proposed pursuant to the General Plan will be required to assess project impacts during the environmental review process to ensure that SCE has sufficient electricity supplies to meet demand. Additionally, new developments will be required to comply with the current energy performance standards of the California Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24). The Gas Company will work with the community as new developments are proposed to construct additional natural gas infrastructure as necessary to meet demand. Individual development projects proposed pursuant to the General Plan will be required to assess project impacts during the environmental review process to ensure that the Gas Company has sufficient natural gas supplies to meet demand. Proposed General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs address the impact of new development to energy services. The General Plan emphasizes the efficient development and use of modern technologies that can minimize energy demand and consumption. To ensure that future energy supplies are available to support additional development pursuant to the General Plan, mitigation measures are required. With implementation of mitigation, the General Plan FEIR concluded impacts on energy supplies will be less than significant. Environmental Analysis 4-20 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Analysis of Modified Project The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to energy resources. In addition, the Housing Element includes Program 11: Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency, which calls on the City to review the General Plan to determine if updates are needed to support and encourage energy efficiency in existing and new housing. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts to energy resources. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures USS-6 through USS-9 ensure regional coordination with energy facilities, compliance with California State Energy Regulation requirements, and encourage the conservation of energy resources. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies addressing energy resources. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new energy resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to energy resources as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: USS-6 The City shall coordinate with Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas Company, and other responsible companies to provide for the continued maintenance, development, and expansion of electricity and natural gas systems (General Plan Implementation Program GM-11). USS-7 The City shall participate in the formation of regional siting plans and policies for energy facilities (General Plan Implementation Program OS-15). USS-8 The City shall implement land use and building controls that require new development to comply with the California State Energy Regulation requirements (General Plan Implementation Program OS-17). USS-9 The City shall 1) enforce all current residential and commercial California Energy Commission energy conservation standards, 2) encourage public institutions to use high -efficiency heating and cooling systems, advanced lighting systems, and passive solar systems to reduce energy use; and 3) adopt project -related energy conservation guidelines that are incorporated within the development approval process to promote and require conservation strategies as development occurs (General Plan Implementation Program OS-18). Environmental Analysis 4-21 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Substantial ImpactSubstantial Information No Less Than No „Additional Significant Project Circumstance Requiring Greater Significant ImpactiNo Impact/Requiring Significant Thresholds: EIR Major EIR Revisions Revisions effects than Less Than Information Previous EIR Significant Requiring ImpactMajor ,.. . With an IVIND Application of Would theproject: Mitigation from FEIR a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the X 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. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the X loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building X Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal X systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or X unique geologic feature? Environmental Analysis 4-22 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR General Plan FOR Conclusions • Temecula is located in a seismically active area. Projects developed pursuant to General Plan land use policies will expose additional people and structures to groundshaking hazards associated with earthquakes. Any groundshaking that will occur will be similar throughout the City and is not considered an unusual or unique risk. Per City and State building codes, all new development will be required to incorporate appropriate design and construction measures to guard against groundshaking hazards. All projects and structures will be constructed in compliance with existing seismic safety regulations of the California Uniform Building Code, which requires the use of site -specific engineering and construction standards identified for each class of seismic hazard. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies and programs that direct the City to identify and mitigate adverse impacts of ground surface rupture at the project level, to apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for new development, and to monitor the potential for seismic events. The General Plan FEIR determined impacts will be less than significant with implementation of these policies and mitigation measures. • Seismic activity along regional faults create the potential for groundshaking impacts within the Planning Area. Portions of the Planning Area are underlain with weak, semi -consolidated bedrock and loose, unconsolidated and often saturated alluvial sediments. These soil types have the potential to liquefy or collapse in the event of a major groundshaking event. The fine-grained components of the bedrock units are potentially expansive. The weak soil, combined with steep slopes and saturated drainage channels, make areas of Temecula susceptible to landslides and mudflows. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies and programs that direct the City to identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts of liquefaction and landslides at the project level, to apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for new development, to work with property owners to remediate hazardous buildings, and to establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides. The City requires geological and geotechnical investigations on properties where new development is proposed and seismic and geologic hazards are of concern. Liquefaction assessment studies are also required in areas identified as susceptible to liquefaction. According to the General Plan FEIR, compliance with General Plan Safety Element goals and policies and implementation of existing regulations will ensure that impacts can be avoided. Impact will be less than significant through the application of these policies and continued standard permit review and building practices. During the construction phase of development projects consistent with General Plan policies, grading could temporarily expose soil surfaces to erosion through stormwater runoff and wind. Long-term soil loss could also occur from the increased peak flows and total runoff produced by paved or landscaped surfaces in the Planning Area. Uncontrolled flows could result in scouring or down -cutting of stream channels in sections where runoff velocities and volumes are high. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies, and programs that direct the City to establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides. Development activities may lead to increased erosion or loss of top soil and the General Plan FEIR includes mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a level below significance. Environmental Analysis 4-23 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Analysis of Modified Project The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts associated with geology and soils. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with geology and soils, including preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis and required compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code. The Public Safety Element Update would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. The proposed Public Safety Element would continue to provide policies specific to reducing potential risks associated with geologic hazards within the City. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures GS-1 and GS-2 ensure the City would continue to monitor fault information and categorize according to risk. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure GS-3 requires hillside development standards and the use of property soil management and grading techniques in accordance with geotechnical engineering standards. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies regarding geology and soils. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element includes current information regarding fire hazard planning and emergency preparedness, as well as an evaluation of evacuation routes in hazard areas. Proposed policies would continue to promote development consistent with the adopted land use policy that considers natural and human -induced hazards and the overall safety of Temecula's residents. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new impacts to geology and soils beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to geology and soils as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: GS-1 The City shall work with the County of Riverside and California Geological Survey to monitor and compile information on faults located within the Planning Area (General Plan Implementation Program PS-4). GS-2 The City shall develop a Land Use Suitability Matrix for Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and County Fault Hazards Zones. The matrix will categorize land uses according to risk and develop restrictions for these uses within the Zones (General Plan Implementation Program PS-4). Environmental Analysis 4-24 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR GS-3 The City shall: 1) prepare and adopt hillside development standards for site development and drainage that work to control runoff for erosion control and water quality purposes; 2) implement a Hillside Grading Ordinance; 3) require the use of proper soil management techniques to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and other soil -related problems; and 4) implement a grading ordinance to ensure that grading associated with new development projects is conducted in accordance with appropriate geotechnical engineering standards (General Plan Implementation Programs OS-21, PS-5 and PS-16). Environmental Analysis 4-25 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS General Plan FOR Conclusions The Final EIR does not include a stand-alone Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis section. Analysis of Modified Project In March 2010, the Natural Resources Agency revised Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines to include a checklist item relating to a project's impacts relating to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In particular, Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines now includes a checklist item that provides: VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The City certified the General Plan Final EIR in 2005, several years before the above checklist item was added to the State CEQA Guidelines. California courts have held that where a new guideline or threshold is adopted after the certification of an EIR, an Addendum to the EIR need not include additional environmental analysis relating to that guideline or threshold where the potential environmental impact at issue in the new guideline or threshold was known or could have been known at the time the EIR was certified. (See Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 806 [even though State CEQA Guidelines were amended on March 18, 2010 to address greenhouse gas emissions, lead agency's 2010 Addendum to a 1997 EIR did not require analysis of greenhouse gas emissions because 'information about the potential environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions was known or could have been know at the time the 1997 EIR and the 2003 SEIR for the [project] were certified"]; Concerned Dublin Citizens Environmental Analysis 4-26 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1319-1320 ["the adoption of guidelines for analyzing and evaluating the significance of data does not constitute new information if the underlying information was otherwise known or should have been known at the time the EIR was certified"]; see also Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 532.). Because potential impacts relating to Greenhouse Gas Emissions were known or could have been known when the General Plan FEIR was certified in 2005, California law does not require these impacts to be analyzed in this Addendum. It is noted that the Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use plan and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce GHG emission impacts as a result of new development and construction -related emissions and operational activities. More specifically: the City's Trip Reduction Program Ordinance allows the City to receive revenues from vehicle registration fees and mandates the provision Trip Reduction Plans for certain employers; the General Plan Air Quality Element, Program AQ-12 promotes alternative fuel vehicles and Programs AQ-7, AQ-9, AQ-11, AQ-13, and AQ-14 promote multi -modal transportation and carpooling to reduce VMT; and the General Plan Circulation Element Programs C-12, C-15, C-16, and C-18 promote multi -modal transportation to reduce VMT. These measures, in addition to compliance with the AQMP, would contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions. Further the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. Environmental Analysis 4-27 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Substantial ImpactSubstantial Information No Less Than No „Additional Significant Project Circumstance Requiring Greater Significant ImpactiNo Impact/Requiring Significant Thresholds: EIR Major EIR Revisions Revisions effects than Less Than Information Previous EIR Significant Requiring ImpactMajor ,.. . With an MND Application of Would theproject: Mitigation from FEIR a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine X transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within X one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X 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, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency X response plan or emergency evacuation Ian? g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk X of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? General Plan FEIR Conclusions • In accordance with City, State, and federal requirements, any new development that involves contaminated property will necessitate the clean up and/or remediation of the property in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local requirements and regulations. No construction will be permitted to occur at such locations until a "no further action" or similar determination is issued by the City's Fire Department, Department of Environmental Analysis 4-28 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or other responsible agency. Compliance with existing regulations will ensure a level of safety to current standards, and the General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant. New development could result in the increased use, transport, and disposal volumes of hazardous materials within the Planning Area. However, the current regulatory environment provides a high level of protection from the hazardous materials manufactured within, transported to and stored in industrial and educational facilities within the Planning Area. The City will continue to enforce disclosure laws that require all users, producers and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they store, use or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, county, State and federal agencies in the event of a violation. Compliance with existing regulations will ensure a less than significant impact. • The General Plan FEIR did not identify any sites in Temecula included on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substance List (Cortese List) and impacts were determined to be less than significant. • Temecula has adopted a Multi -Hazard Functional Plan to ensure the effective management of City personnel and resources in responding to emergency situations stemming from natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense emergencies. The plan includes a responsibility matrix that delineates specific responsibilities to City departments or personnel in the event of an emergency. The plan also includes a comprehensive hazard analysis that addresses the following potential hazards: earthquake, hazardous materials incident, flooding, dam failure, major fire/wildfire, nuclear incident, and transportation incident. The Public Safety Element of the General Plan includes the goal of "an effective response of emergency services following a disaster" (Goal 4, Public Safety Element). Implementation of the General Plan policies, along with the continued implementation of the City's Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, will ensure a less than significant impact with regard to emergency preparedness. • The General Plan proposes new development within the French Valley Airport area of influence through creation of the Airport Overlay Ordinance. By establishing an overlay area, the City will be able to more strictly control development in the French Valley Airport area of influence. All land use development entitlements within the area of influence must be approved by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission; must be consistent with the French Valley Airport County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; must ensure continued orderly use of the Airport; and must prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. Compliance with the existing ALUCP, which is supported by numerous policies within the proposed General Plan, will ensure a less than significant impact. • Undeveloped areas, such as in the eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the Planning Area, have greater fire danger due to expansive areas of vegetation to fuel a fire. Any new development in the Planning Area, no matter how limited, will expose additional people and structures to wildland fire hazards. The City's Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance requires every property owner to remove all hazardous or flammable vegetation on the property constituting a fire hazard that may endanger or damage neighboring property. In addition, the Temecula Fire Department and the County of Riverside Fire Department Environmental Analysis 4-29 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR sponsor outreach and awareness programs to educate residents about fire dangers and whey they can do to protect themselves and their homes. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes policies and implementation programs that direct the City to reduce the potential for dangerous fires by concentrating development in previously developed areas where the risk of wildland fire is lower; to protect hillside areas from expansion of the urban-wildland interface; to encourage residents to plant and maintain drought -resistant, fire -retardant landscape species on slopes to reduce the risk of brush fire and soil erosion; and to work with the City Fire Department to control hazardous vegetation. The General Plan FEIR concluded that stringent application of these policies will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Analysis of Modified Project The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts due to hazards or hazardous materials. Additionally, the City's Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance and regional cooperation with the County of Riverside Fire Department reduce potential impacts due to wildland fires. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. Within the Introduction section of the Safety Element, new plans and programs were referenced, including the County of Riverside Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP), the City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP). Fire Hazards discussion was comprehensively updated to include current information regarding the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), CalFire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and major wildland fires in Temecula. Figure PS-3, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA (as Recommended by CalFIRE) was also added. The City has also included a new discussion related to emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation and identified new objectives to address this topic. Additional information related to the MJLHMP, LHMP, and the County's CAP are also included by reference. In accordance with SB 99, the City conducted an evaluation of evacuation routes serving residential developments in hazard areas. This analysis is presented in a separate background report available on the City's website and the results of the analysis, which found that while residential developers may comply with City of Temecula access standards, several residential areas warrant further study and coordination with RCFD and CalFIRE to ensure residents with limited emergency routes are well-educated on evacuation procedures during emergencies. No goals, policies or programs from the current Public Safety Element were eliminated as part of this update. Modifications or additions related to natural hazards were made to Polices 1.8 and 1.9 to further support the goal to minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from Environmental Analysis 4-30 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR structural or wildland fire hazards. More specifically, Policy 1.8 supports programs and plans consistent with state law and related to new development in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) and Policy 1.9 directs the City to reduce the risk of wildfire hazards by working with partners and other agencies on projects and programs like community fire breaks; Policy 4.5 directs the City to locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of the VHFHSZ; Policy 4.7 requires the City to coordinate with local, state and federal agency to evaluate and plan for emergency scenarios; Goal 5 states that the City will be a resilient, sustainable, and equitable community where risk resulting from things like climate change will be minimized; Policy 5.1 requires coordination with outside agencies on climate resiliency and adaption strategies; and Policy 5.2 requires the City to monitor climate change - related effects and respond appropriately at the local level. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new hazards and hazardous materials impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of the proposed Project. Environmental Analysis 4-31 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Substantial ImpactSubstantial Information No Less Than No Changein Changein Showing AdditionalSignificant Project Circumstance Requiring Greater Significant ImpactiNo Significant Impact/Requiring Thresholds: EIR Major EIR Revisions Revisions effects than Less Than Information Previous EIR Significant Requiring ImpactMajor ,.. . With an MND Application of Would theproject: Mitigation from FEIR a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or X otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the X project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: • result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; • substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a X manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; • create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or • impede or redirect flood flows? d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to X project inundation? e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or X sustainable groundwater management plan? Environmental Analysis 4-32 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR General Plan FOR Conclusions • All new development will be required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge regulations set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region. The General Plan FEIR concluded water quality impacts will be less than significant. • To avoid groundwater depletion, a conjunctive use program has been negotiated among Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), and Western Municipal Water District to recharge the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin and other groundwater basins serving the City. A conjunctive use program was developed to manage the basin, which refers to the planned use of groundwater in conjunction with surface and/or imported water to optimize total water resources and improve water supply reliability. This program allows imported water to be injected into the basin to ensure maintenance of a minimum level of groundwater within the basin and adequate supplies of available water without depleting the wells. The water master determines the safe annual yield based on annual audits of the groundwater basin, including how much water was withdrawn from and recharged to the aquifer. Water service providers must purchase imported water or utilize recycled water supplies based on the water master's yearly determination. Compliance with these existing agreements will ensure a less than significant impact on groundwater resources. To further ensure that groundwater supplies will not be impacted by future development pursuant to implementation of the General Plan, the General Plan FEIR recommends mitigation measures, that although not required, would have the City work with RCWD and EMWD to investigate additional measures to maintain supply and prevent groundwater depletion. To maintain the maximum level of water available for use and to ensure the quality of its potable water supply, RCWD protects its groundwater sources from two primary sources of contamination: septic tanks and underground storage tanks. Mitigation measures have been included in the General Plan FEIR that require all proposed development projects using septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater to provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the project site and siting recommendations that will ensure no impact to potable water production wells. • Development projects implementing General Plan land use policy will affect drainage systems throughout the Planning Area. Increased runoff volumes and speeds may create nuisance flooding in areas lacking adequate drainage facilities. To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all proposed development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by the Riverside County Flood Control District. New development projects are required to provide on -site drainage and to pay area drainage fees. Drainage fee revenues are used to support capacity expansion within the local storm drain system. Temecula is a member of the District's Storm Water Clean Water Protection Program and therefore requires all development project applicants to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate water quality impacts during storm events that occur during construction. In addition, all development proposals must prepare a Water Quality Management Plan, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), outlining how the project will minimize water quality impacts during project operation. Compliance with these existing regulations will ensure a less than significant Environmental Analysis 4-33 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR impact on surface water. The General Plan FEIR also recommends mitigation measures, although not required, to maintain adequate stormwater drainage. • Each new development will be required to comply with stormwater regulations set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region, including NPDES regulations. According to the General Plan FEIR, compliance with existing regulations on a project - by -project basis will reduce potential impact to a less than significant level. • Temecula contains several FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). These areas, corresponding to the 100-year floodplain, have the potential to become flooded when major rainstorms cause streams to overflow. Therefore, specific building standards apply to flood prone areas, including anchoring, building with flood resistant materials, providing adequate drainage paths, and elevating the structure to or above the base flood elevation. The City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes flood insurance available to affected property owners within the 100-year floodplain. The City also reviews development plans for projects within the floodplain to ensure compliance with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. No development of any kind will be allowed in the floodway portion of the 100-year floodplain. The General Plan FEIR determined implementation of these measures will reduce the risk from flooding to a less than significant level. Portions of Temecula are subject to flood inundation from dam failure. The City maintains a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan as part of the Multi -Hazard Functional Plan and coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the community. In addition, the General Plan Public Safety Element includes a policy to "provide and maintain adequate flood control facilities and limit development within the 100-year floodplain and potential dam inundation areas" (Policy 1.6, Public Safety Element). Therefore, the General Plan FEIR determined impacts will be less than significant. • The Planning Area is not subject to tsunamis due to its inland location and seiches have not historically occurred within the Planning Area; impacts are determined to be less than significant. Analysis of Modified Project The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with hydrology and drainage, including preparation of site -specific analysis and required compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, General Environmental Analysis 4-34 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures HW-1 through HW-7 outline strategies to increase water supply, decrease pollutants, and increase groundwater quality to reduce potential impacts. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new hydrology and water quality impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to hydrology and water as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: HW-1 The City will work with the water districts to promote water conservation and ultimately reduce the demand for peak -hour water supply wastewater capacity, review the adopted Uniform Building Code, and require water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the use of plumbing fixtures that reduce water use, low -flow toilets, drip irrigation systems, and xeriscape landscaping that maximizes the use of drought -tolerant plant species (General Plan Implementation Program OS-4). HW-2 The City shall review individual development projects to ensure that adequate stormwater detention facilities are provided to accommodate surface water runoff generated by the project, and where needed, incorporate detention of stormwater runoff at the point of origin (General Plan Implementation Program OS-6). HW-3 The City will require drought -tolerant landscaping in new development and where feasible, will require incorporation of reclaimed water systems within landscape irrigation plans (General Plan Implementation Program OS-7). HW-4 The City will implement, where appropriate, Water Resource Management Guidelines drafted by the subcommittee comprised of Eastern Municipal Water District and local jurisdictions (General Plan Implementation Program OS-8). HW-5 The City shall prohibit the use of underground storage tanks and conventional septic tanks/subsurface disposal systems in any area designated within Zone A of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wellhead protection area (General Plan Implementation Program GM-13). HW-6 The City shall require all proposed development projects using septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater to provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the project site and siting recommendations in accordance with the EPA's Design Manual for On -site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems that will ensure no impact to potable water production wells in any area designated within Zone A of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wellhead protection area (General Plan Implementation Program GM-13). HW-7 Proposed developments shall incorporate measures, including measures required by the City pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharge does not cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards. Measures shall be required to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements. This can be Environmental Analysis 4-35 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping or treatment devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems (General Plan Implementation Program OS-5). Environmental Analysis 4-36 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING General Plan FOR Conclusions • The majority of undeveloped land in the Planning Area is located north of Temecula in the sphere of influence and no physical division would result from development pursuant to the General Plan; no impact will occur. • Implementation of the General Plan may conflict with other land use plans and policies that apply within the Planning Area. The updated Southwest Area Plan envisions substantial amounts of new development surrounding Temecula. The City's General Plan Land Use Policy Map incorporates the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) recommended uses for unincorporated areas, and no direct conflicts result. However, development in unincorporated areas pursuant to the SWAP, particularly within the French Valley area, will result in significant impacts on traffic, air quality, and resources that are beyond the City's ability to control. Without annexation, projects would continue to be approved by the County, and may not adequately reduce impacts to the City's roadway infrastructure and natural resources to the extent that they would if under the City's jurisdiction, fully subject to policies and implementation programs within the General Plan. Thus, the City has developed a land use plan for the French Valley Area, and has designated this area as a Future Growth Area. This part of the land use plan is substantially similar to the County General Plan in this area. The General Plan FEIR includes mitigation that describes annexation requirements for surrounding areas. The General Plan may conflict with provisions of the City Development Code and Riverside County Zoning Ordinance, particularly with regard to land use designation/zoning consistency. Mitigation measures are included in the General Plan FEIR that require the City to review and update the Development Code to be consistent with the updated General Plan. Also, whenever the City annexes lands rezoning will occur to achieve General Plan/zoning consistency. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level with these actions. Environmental Analysis 4-37 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR The ALUCP for French Valley Airport establishes an area of influence surrounding the Airport. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document's Compatibility Criteria for Land Use Actions section delineates the criteria for assessing whether a land use plan, ordinance, or development proposal is to be judged compatible with a nearby airport. Accordingly, the General Plan includes Goal 8, and related policy 8.3 and implementation program LU-24 to assure that implementation of the Plan will not adversely impact French Valley airport operations. Implementation of the General Plan policies and programs will ensure that development pursuant to the General Plan within the French Valley Airport area of influence does not conflict with the current County ALUCP for French Valley Airport. Implementation Program LU-24 is required as a mitigation measure to ensure consistency between the General Plan and ALUCP. Impact will be less than significant with implementation of this measure. The SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains policies applicable to the General Plan. The General Plan is consistent with the applicable SCAG RCPG policies. Additionally, SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes several policies relevant to Temecula. The proposed General Plan is consistent with and does not conflict with applicable RTP policies. The General Plan is consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide administered by SCAG. Impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required. Development pursuant to the General Plan may result in annexations of lands, as well as additional public service needs in areas located within Temecula's sphere of influence. In addition, reorganization of service districts within the sphere of influence may be necessary to provide the required services efficiently and effectively, in keeping with General Plan policies expressed the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element. Such activities may conflict with established Riverside County LAFCO plans and priorities. This represents a significant impact, and mitigation is required. General Plan FEIR mitigation measures include: 1) describe annexation requirements for surrounding areas, and 2) require the City to cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO and the County of Riverside to direct growth outside the City limits to the French Valley Future Growth Area, on lands that are served or are planned to be served with a full range of urban services, such as public water and sewer, local and regional road networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and emergency response services, parks, trails and open spaces. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant with implementation of these measures. In compliance with California Water Code Section 10910-10915, all future development projects pursuant to the proposed General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are required to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single - dry, and multiple -dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. No major development project will be permitted to proceed unless required determinations can be made. Compliance with existing regulations will minimize the potential for impact. Development pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Element could be inconsistent with some of the development standards outlined in currently adopted specific plans, particularly Environmental Analysis 4-38 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR those under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside within the City's sphere of influence. To avoid conflict, mitigation measures are included that: 1) describe annexation requirements for surrounding areas, 2) require the City to periodically review and update the General Plan Land Use Policy Map, and to review and update the Development Code and Specific Plans to be consistent with the updated General Plan and 3) require the City to continue to implement the procedures, requirements, and contents of specific plans contained in the Development Code. Impact will be less than significant with implementation of these measures. Analysis of Modified Project The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. Potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use plan and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the Public Safety Element would not result in any modifications to existing land use designations or modify any General Plan policies or programs specific to land use and planning. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with land use policies and programs. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts resulting from new development and intensification of land uses. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new land use and planning impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to land use and planning as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: LUP-1 The City shall require preparation of an annexation plan and fiscal analysis prior to annexation of new areas to the City. Within the annexation plan, applicants must show how adequate levels of public services and facilities will be provided to serve the new development, without reducing service levels for currently urbanized areas. The fiscal analysis shall determine the impact that additional development will have on current Temecula neighborhoods and on the community as a whole, including any impact fees necessary to offset public costs caused by the proposed project, and shall include an examination of fiscal and service impacts of the proposed project on roads, water, sewer, storm water runoff, fire, police, schools, libraries and other community facilities (General Plan Implementation Program LU-15). LUP-2 The City shall review implementation of the General Plan and Land Use Policy Map to ensure consistency is maintained between the General Plan and the Development Code (General Plan Implementation Program LU-1). LUP-3 The City shall review and update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the General Plan (General Plan Implementation Program LU-3). Environmental Analysis 4-39 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR LUP-4 The City shall implement and update as necessary the Redevelopment Plan to establish consistency with the General Plan and amended Development Code (General Plan Implementation Program LU-11). LUP-5 The City shall ensure consistency with the County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for French Valley Airport through the following measures: a. The City shall review development projects within the French Valley Airport area of influence, and participate in any future updates to the ALUCP and Master Plan for the Airport, in conjunction with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. b. The City shall require project proponents to obtain avigation easements as required by the ALUCP to ensure that landowners acknowledge potential impacts associated with aircraft. (General Plan Implementation Program LU-24) LUP-6 The City shall review and update the Five -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on an annual basis to achieve consistency with improvements identified within the General Plan, and to meet changing needs, priorities, and financial conditions (General Plan Implementation Program LU-17). LUP-7 The City shall cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO and the County of Riverside to direct growth outside the City limits to the French Valley Future Growth Area, on lands that are served or are planned to be served with a full range of urban services, such as public water and sewer, local and regional road networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and emergency response services, parks, trails and open spaces (General Plan Implementation Program LU-16). LUP-8 The City shall continue to implement the procedures, requirements and contents of specific plans contained in the Development Code. Properties under single ownership or multiple ownership which are generally over 100 acres will utilize the specific plan or village center plan as an implementation tool. Private landowners or the City may undertake the preparation or amendment of a specific plan, in accordance with Government Code Section 65450. Specific plans shall include the location of land uses; standards to regulate height, bulk and setback limits; standards for constructing proposed streets; standards for population density and building intensity; standards for conservation and management of natural resources; and implementation provisions to carry out the Open Space/Conservation Element (General Plan Implementation Program LU-5). Environmental Analysis 4-40 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES General Plan FEIR Conclusions • According to the California Geological Survey, no known mineral resources exist in Temecula. Development pursuant to the General Plan will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. The General Plan FEIR concluded no impact will result. Analysis of Modified Project The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the Public Safety Element would not result in any modifications to existing and use designations or modify any General Plan policies or programs specific to mineral resources. The City reviews development proposals to ensure that mineral resources are conserved in compliance with the General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element and CEQA requirements. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new mineral resources impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to mineral resources as a result of the proposed Project. Environmental Analysis 4-41 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.13 NOISE General Plan FOR Conclusions • Long-term implementation of the General Plan could expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration and/or noise. Problems could arise in cases where noise -producing uses are located immediately adjacent to sensitive uses. In addition, construction -related activities will be short-term sources of groundborne noise that could affect occupants of neighboring uses. These are potentially significant impacts at the project level, and the General Plan FEIR concludes mitigation is required. • Transportation -related noise is the strongest contributor to ambient noise levels within the Temecula Planning Area. Nearly all of the roadway segments will carry additional trips in the future, which will produce additional noise. In some portions of the community, the 60 dB noise contour could expand by as much as 395 feet. In addition, new transportation facilities shown on the City's Roadway Plan will contribute new sources of noise. The General Plan EIR determined these increases in permanent ambient noise levels are considered a significant impact, and mitigation is required. Long-term implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for additional development within the Planning Area, which could result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities. Although construction -related noise will be short term for each specific construction project and will cease upon completion of construction, the cumulative impact over time could be significant at specific locations. Environmental Analysis 4-42 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Upon implementation of mitigation measures, the General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant. • The Land Use Policy Map and implementing zoning regulations restrict development of intensive new uses within airport influence areas. Development controls within the City's Development Code include limiting development within areas subject to high noise levels and limiting the intensity and height of development within aircraft hazard zones. These controls are consistent with the ALUCP for French Valley Airport, adopted by the ALUC, which designates airport influence areas and zones for every airport in Riverside County, and provides a series of policies and compatibility criteria to ensure that both aviation uses and surrounding areas may continue. The General Plan Noise Element includes goals and policies that direct the City to comply with the French Valley ALUCP. Ongoing compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of General Plan policy will ensure a less than significant impact. Analysis of Modified Project The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with noise, including preparation of site -specific analysis and required compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or modify General Plan policies or programs specific to noise. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to ambient noise levels as a result of groundborne vibration or exposure to excessive noise levels. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-5 ensure review and enforcement of noise standards on new and existing development, development of noise impact guidelines, and require construction activities to reduce potential impacts related to noise. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in noise impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to noise as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and new, inserted text is underlined. N-1 The City will review residential and other noise -sensitive development proposals to ensure that noise standards and compatibility criteria are met, and will require incorporation of noise - mitigating features identified in acoustical studies prepared for development projects including, but not limited to, the following measures identified in the Noise Element (General Plan Implementation Programs N-1, N-3, N-5 and N-7). Environmental Analysis 4-43 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR • Use of building setbacks to increase distance between noise sources and receivers • Placing noise tolerant land uses such as parking lots, maintenance facilities, and utility areas between noise sources and receptors. • Orienting or clustering buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources. • Placing bedrooms on the side of a house, facing away from major roadways. • Placement of noise tolerant rooms (e.g. garages, bathrooms and kitchens) to shield noise - sensitive portions of homes. • Use of additional insulation and double -pane windows when bedrooms cannot be located on the side of a house away from a major roadway. • Avoid placement of balconies facing major travel routes. N-2 Where architectural design treatments described in Mitigation Measure N-1 fail to adequately reduce adverse noise levels or will significantly increase the costs of land development, the City will require the combined use of noise barriers and landscaped berms (General Plan Implementation Program N-7). N-3 The City will require all non -emergency construction activity to comply with the limits (maximum noise levels, hours and days of activity) established in State and City noise regulations (Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Temecula Development Code and Chapter 8.32 9.20 of the Municipal Code), and will require proposed industrial or commercial projects located near residential areas to demonstrate that the project, when constructed, will meet City noise reduction requirements (General Plan Implementation Program N-2). N-4 During review of development applications, the City will consider the noise and vibration impacts of the proposed land use on current or planned adjacent uses (General Plan Implementation Program N-4). N-5 The City will 1) incorporate noise control measures, such as sound walls and berms, into roadway improvement projects to mitigate impacts to adjacent development; 2) provide noise control for City streets within the Planning Area experiencing unique noise problems; 3) use the ultimate roadway capacity at LOS C and the posted speed limit to estimate maximum future noise impacts; and 4) Coordinate with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol to enforce the California Vehicle Code noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles (General Plan Implementation Program N-8). Environmental Analysis 4-44 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING General Plan FOR Conclusions • General Plan land use policy establishes capacity for 25,005 net new housing units and 36.2 million net new square feet of nonresidential development. To accommodate the anticipated population increase, the General Plan Land Use Element directs most new development into the French Valley Future Growth Area. The Land Use Element also includes policies that encourage development of mixed -use projects within three established Mixed -Use Overlay Areas to promote infill development and redevelopment of vacant/underutilized sites and aging commercial developments. In addition, Land Use Element policies establish a number of strategies designed to preserve rural areas and protect existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Given historical growth patterns and growth management policies contained within the General Plan, implementation of the Plan will not substantially increase population beyond that already projected to occur within the Planning Area. Further, the General Plan is consistent with SCAG's growth management policies. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant. • The General Plan will allow the development of a variety of uses on currently undeveloped land. However, this new development will not displace substantial numbers of housing units or people and no impact will result. Analysis of Modified Project The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Additionally, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Environmental Analysis 4-45 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with substantial unplanned population growth and displacement. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in housing and population impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to population and housing as a result of the proposed Project. Environmental Analysis 4-46 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES General Plan FOR Conclusions • Development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in increased demand for fire and police protection services and facilities, as well as increased demand for water resources for fire protection and other emergencies. This represents a significant impact. The Fire Department conducts final construction plan check reviews and issues certificates of occupancy for all new development projects. Projects within the City limits are also required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) to fund the expansion of fire protection and emergency services. General Plan FEIR mitigation measures are required to reduce impact to a level below significance. The specific environmental impacts of constructing fire and police stations in the City cannot be determined at this level of analysis because no specific projects are proposed. However, the Riverside County Fire Department and Riverside County Sheriff's Department will require project -level analysis of impacts prior to approving occupancy certificates. • Residential development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in demand for new or expanded education facilities to adequately accommodate new students. Payment of alternative school fees will be used to offset the cost to Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) of providing education facilities to future students. The environmental effects of expansion, construction, and operation of additional school facilities will be evaluated by TVUSD in its efforts to plan for construction of new schools or Environmental Analysis 4-47 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR expansion of existing facilities. SB 50 states that for CEQA purposes, payment of fees to the affected school district reduces school facility impacts to a less than significant level. • Residential development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in demand for library resources beyond provided by the new Temecula Public Library. Even with the opening of the new library, the new development associated with implementation of the General Plan will require the construction of new or expanded library facilities. According to the General Plan FEIR, mitigation measures would be required to reduce the impact to less than significant. The specific impacts of constructing new library facilities in the Planning Area cannot be determined at this first -tier level of analysis because no specific project is proposed. However, Riverside County Library District will be required to conduct project -level analysis of potential impacts. • Sufficient acreage to meet the needs of existing residents is anticipated by the year 2013 through the acquisition and dedication of parks and school facilities within identified specific plan areas. However, new development projects pursuant to the General Plan will result in increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, other recreational facilities, and trails that may cause or accelerate substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. The General Plan EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant. Analysis of Modified Project The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. Potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to public services as a result of new development and intensification of land uses. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures PSR-1 and PSR-2 ensure acceptable service ratios and response times of police, fire, and emergency medical services. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures PSR-3 and PSR-4 ensure adequate funding and level of service for community libraries. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures PSR-5 through PSR- 7 ensures adequate parkland for residents, provides for a funding source for parks, and promotes recreational and bicycle facilities. The Public Safety Element update includes current information regarding fire hazard planning and emergency preparedness, as well as an evaluation of evacuation routes in hazard areas. Proposed policies would continue to promote development consistent with the adopted land use policy that considers natural and human -induced hazards and the overall safety of Temecula's residents, including the provision of adequate services and facilities. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in public services impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to public services as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Environmental Analysis 4-48 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR PSR-1 The City will periodically evaluate levels of sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, based on changes in population and development, and will: 1) provide a minimum of one full-time officer per 1,000 residents for police protection services; 2) maintain facilities, staffing, and equipment necessary to maintain a five-minute response time for 90 percent of all emergencies; and 3) implement new programs to meet the changing needs of residents (General Plan Implementation Program GM-4). PSR-2 As part of the development review process, the City will require new development projects to address fire and police protection proactively, through all-weather access street design, orientation of entryways, siting of structures, landscaping, lighting, and other security features; and will require illuminated addresses on new construction (General Plan Implementation Program GM-5). PSR-3 The City will identify and solicit funding from additional sources to supplement library facilities and services. Such funding sources may include: State and federal grants and loans, public and private donations, sponsorships by local and national corporations, and other private individuals and groups (General Plan Implementation Program GM-7). PSR-4 The City will coordinate with the County to determine location, facilities, and services of new branch libraries needed to serve the community (General Plan Implementation Program GM- 7). PSR-5 The City will identify potential sites for additional park land, monitor demand for park land and facilities concurrent with development approvals, and prioritize potential parkland acquisitions, expansions, and improvements within the five year Capital Improvement Program, consistent with the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan (General Plan Implementation Program OS-1). PSR-6 The City shall continue to implement a local code that incorporates standards for parkland dedication and development. Specifically the City shall: 1) require the dedication of parkland or the payment of in -lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities for all new development; and 2) require developers of residential projects greater than 200 units to dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents (General Plan Implementation Program OS-2). PSR-7 The City shall 1) implement policies and standards of the Parks and Recreation and Multi - Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans, including trail classifications, design standards, implementation mechanisms, and capital improvement programming; and 2) ensure that bike routes are provided or reserved concurrent with new development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-29). Environmental Analysis 4-49 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.16 RECREATION General Plan FOR Conclusions This topical area is addressed in the General Plan FEIR's Public Services and Recreation section; refer to Section 4.15, Public Services, above. Analysis of Modified Project The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities as a result of new development and intensification of land uses. Further, the Temecula Municipal Code sets parkland dedication requirements in accordance with the Quimby Act. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in parks and recreation facilities impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to recreation as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Environmental Analysis 4-50 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR PSR-5 The City will identify potential sites for additional park land, monitor demand for park land and facilities concurrent with development approvals, and prioritize potential parkland acquisitions, expansions, and improvements within the five year Capital Improvement Program, consistent with the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan (General Plan Implementation Program OS-1). PSR-6 The City shall continue to implement a local code that incorporates standards for parkland dedication and development. Specifically the City shall: 1) require the dedication of parkland or the payment of in -lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities for all new development; and 2) require developers of residential projects greater than 200 units to dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents (General Plan Implementation Program OS-2). PSR-7 The City shall 1) implement policies and standards of the Parks and Recreation and Multi - Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans, including trail classifications, design standards, implementation mechanisms, and capital improvement programming; and 2) ensure that bike routes are provided or reserved concurrent with new development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-29). Environmental Analysis 4-51 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.17 TRANSPORTATION General Plan FOR Conclusions • The General Plan Circulation Element is comprised of the Roadway Plan, long-range plans for transit facilities and multi -use trails, and goals, policies, and programs to ensure that current transportation facilities will be improved and new facilities constructed that provide adequate capacity to accommodate travel needs resulting from future development pursuant to the Land Use Element. Improvements to current roadways and construction of future roadways have also been designed to anticipate future development in the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta. Long-range implementation of the General Plan will result in as many as 699,558 additional vehicle trips per day, for a total trip generation of approximately 1.43 million vehicle trips per day. This represents an increase of 96 percent over existing (year 2002) conditions. The General Plan FEIR concluded that even with implementation of mitigation measures, significantly impacted intersections and freeway ramps (as identified in the General Plan FEIR) cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. • The City of Temecula coordinates with RTA to develop future transit schedules and routes in Temecula, and provides important transit support facilities, including park -and -ride lots and bus shelters. These ongoing actions are supported and expanded upon within the Circulation Element by policies directing the City to coordinate with public and private transit operators to provide fixed route transit service connecting major activity centers; to coordinate with WRCOG to identify, protect, and pursue opportunities for light rail or Environmental Analysis 4-52 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR high speed regional rail transit serving Temecula; to identify and reserve necessary rights - of -way for future regional transit facilities; and to encourage development of transit support facilities, such as park -and -ride lots, near the I-15 Freeway and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas established in the Land Use Element. • The French Valley Airport is located within Temecula's sphere of influence. Growth pursuant to the General Plan is not anticipated to change air traffic patterns and the General Plan EIR concluded potential impacts will be less than significant. • The Circulation Element addresses the importance of compatibility between design issues and land use compatibility. However, new development is expected to result in additional roadways. All new roadways will be built in accordance with all requisite City and County design requirements and the General Plan FEIR concluded no significant impact will result. • The City has a Multi -Hazard Functional Plan in place. In addition, the Public Safety Element calls for regular reviews by the City to assess response times and incorporate newly developed areas to ensure adequate fire and police protection, impacts will be less than significant. • One of the key components of the Circulation Element is to promote the use of alternative transportation modes, including bicycling and walking. Public bus service is provided by RTA. The City is committed to ensuring that public transportation becomes a viable alternative to the automobile for residents. The Circulation Element also emphasizes the network of Multi -Use Trails planned for in the City's Multi -Use Trails Master Plan. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant. Analysis of Modified Project The General Plan FEIR did not address potential impacts to VMT because at the time of preparation of the General Plan FEIR, VMT was not the primary metric used as the basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. However, the proposed Project does not include site -specific development or result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was considered in the General Plan FEIR. Thus, the proposed Project would result in similar VMT as would occur under the existing General Plan and would not result in new impacts or substantially more significant impacts related to VMT. It should be noted that although Level of Service (LOS) no longer serves as the basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA, the General Plan FEIR included mitigation to address potentially significant impacts to the LOS of various intersections and to support multi -modal travel to reduce potential impacts to the City's transportation system. These Mitigation Measures are identified below. As noted above, the Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to the circulation system, including Environmental Analysis 4-53 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR increased hazards and emergency access, as a result of new development and intensification of land uses. The Public Safety Element update includes current information regarding fire hazard planning and emergency preparedness, as well as an evaluation of evacuation routes in hazard areas. Proposed policies would continue to promote development consistent with the adopted land use policy that considers natural and human -induced hazards and the overall safety of Temecula's residents. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in transportation impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to transportation as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: T-1 The City will: 1) prioritize, secure funding, design, and build new roadways and complete roadway improvements using the established Capital Improvement Plan process to implement the circulation system shown on the proposed Roadway Plan concurrent with land development; and 2) require that new roadways meet roadway classification design specifications and performance criteria established in the proposed Circulation Element. General Plan FEIR Table 5.13-9 summarizes new roadways and arterial widening projects required to implement the proposed Roadway Plan2 (General Plan Implementation Program C-1). T-2 The City will monitor the performance of Principal Intersections on an ongoing basis and ensure that Principal Intersections approaching Level of Service D are prioritized for improvement within the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Program (General Plan Implementation Program C-3). T-3 The City will: 1) continue to update the Capital Improvement Plan on an annual basis to plan for and fund future improvements to the roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle systems; 2) identify available funding sources and establish a financing plan to guide construction and funding of transportation system improvements, and 3) require new development projects to construct and/or fund in whole or in part necessary traffic improvements associated with the proposed project, through the assessment and collection of traffic impact fees. Such improvements should address both automotive, as well as alternative means of transportation (General Plan Implementation Program C-5). T-4 The City will require additional dedication of right-of-way on all approaches to Principal Intersections. Such right-of-way shall be preserved for future intersection improvements that may be required at these intersections, such as full width auxiliary turn lanes and/or dual -left turn lanes (General Plan Implementation Program C-4). T-5 The City will implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize impacts of proposed development projects on the City's circulation system, and to encourage increased use of alternative transportation: Environmental Analysis 4-54 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR • Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and infrastructure system. • Require mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for significant impacts prior to or concurrent with project development. • Require dedication of adequate right-of-way along new roadways to permit pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Require new development to incorporate design features that facilitate transit service and encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike lanes, bikeways, and bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass through subdivision boundary walls, as appropriate. • Require new specific plans and other projects to provide an internal system of pathways and trails. Trails should link schools, shopping centers, transit, and other public facilities in residential areas. • Require transportation demand management plans to be submitted for preliminary review at the Specific Plan or Development Plan stage of site development and submitted for final approval prior to issuance of building permits (General Plan Implementation Program C-6). T-6 The City will: 1) identify local streets that are currently closed that may benefit citywide circulation if the street was re -opened or construction of the street was completed; 2) assess the feasibility of opening previously closed streets or completing construction of local connecting streets that benefit citywide circulation on a case -by -case basis, providing ample opportunity for both neighborhood residents and the community at -large to comment on such proposals, and 3) establish a review process for the future closing of any local street that requires City Council determination that the closure does not have an adverse affect on citywide circulation (General Plan Implementation Program C-7). T-7 The City will: 1) continue to work with WRCOG, SCAG and others to advocate future commuter or high speed rail service connecting Temecula to Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego; 2) ensure that any future commuter rail corridor serving Temecula is located on the west side of I-15 to reduce noise impacts on residential areas; and 3) require new commercial, industrial, or mixed use development in areas surrounding proposed stations to include transit -oriented design amenities (General Plan Implementation Program C-12). T-8 The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and work -at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and continue to enforce provisions of the City's Trip Reduction Program Ordinance, including requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program C-13). T-9 The City will implement the adopted Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan to complete design and construction of a comprehensive alternative transportation network, promote safe use of the trail system, and ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the disabled (General Plan Implementation Program C-15). Environmental Analysis 4-55 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR T-10 The City will continue to improve transit service and encourage ridership through the following actions: • Require transit facilities in major new development and rehabilitation projects. • Coordinate with providers to get more frequent service and broader transit coverage serving employment, shopping, educational, recreational, and residential areas. • Work with providers to identify and receive additional funding sources for additional transit services. The City will also collaborate with providers to identify needs and provide special transit services beyond fixed -route buses. Potential services include, but are not limited to: • Subscription or dial -a -ride service for lower density residential areas • Offering limited transit service between outlying residential areas and the City's commercial/employment core • Shuttle or trolley service between Old Town and other destinations along the I-15 commercial corridor, and expanded service to other areas, including the wineries along Rancho California Road, as opportunities arise • Providing bicycle carrying racks on buses. (General Plan Implementation Program C-16). T-11 The City will encourage carpooling and use of public transportation in Temecula through the following measures: • Develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities within the City. • Encourage preferred parking for ride sharing and low emission vehicles (General Plan Implementation Program C-18). Environmental Analysis 4-56 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES General Plan FEIR Conclusions Since certification of the General Plan FEIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist has been revised to include a new category for Tribal Cultural Resources impacts. This topical area is addressed in the General Plan FEIR's Cultural Resources section. Analysis of Modified Project The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Specifically, within the Open Space/Conservation Element, Policy 6.10 requires the City to work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to identify and appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process, and Policy 6.11 encourages voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural resource and tribal sacred sites Environmental Analysis 4-57 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR consistent with State requirements. Additionally, the General Plan FEIR includes Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 to reduce potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies protecting tribal cultural resources. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new tribal cultural resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to tribal cultural resources as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: CR-1 The City shall use the development and environmental review process to: a. Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and documentation of findings is provided prior to project approval. b. Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or paleontological resources. c. Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of archaeological or paleontological resources is identified. d. Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities. e. Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on completion of mitigation and resource protection measures (General Plan Implementation Program OS- 26). CR-2 The City shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center of the University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-37). Environmental Analysis 4-58 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Substantial ImpactSubstantial Information No Less Than No „Additional Significant Project Circumstance Requiring Greater Significant ImpactiNo Impact/Requiring Significant Thresholds: EIR Major EIR Revisions Revisions effects than Less Than Information Previous EIR Significant Requiring ImpactMajor ,.. . With an MND Application of Would theproject: Mitigation from FEIR a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or X telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably X foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dears? c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it X has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to theprovider's existing commitments? d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or X otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reductiongoals? e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? General Plan FEIR Conclusions • All new development pursuant to the General Plan will discharge wastewater to the EMWD's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The facility operates in compliance with the applicable State treatment standards. The General Plan will not result in development of any uses that could result in exceeding the established treatment standards. All new development will be required to comply with existing wastewater treatment requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region and impact will be less than significant. • Buildout of the General Plan will not result in demand for water service that exceeds RCWD's planned future supply. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts on the RCWD's ability to provide water will be less than significant. However, increased demand by agriculture and other water users within RCWD's service area could lead to an impact on future water supply. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR includes recommended mitigation Environmental Analysis 4-59 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR measures that direct the City to assist RCWD in planning for future water supplies, to promote water conservation programs, and to maximize City use of recycled water. Similarly, buildout of the General Plan will not result in demand for water service that exceeds EMWD's planned future supply. Impact on EMWD's ability to provide water will be less than significant. However, increased demand by other water users in the district's service area could lead to an impact on future water supply. Therefore, mitigation measures are recommended that direct the City to assist EMWD in planning for future water supplies, to promote water conservation programs, and to maximize City use of recycled water. • EMWD's calculates a future treatment capacity of 35 mgd for the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility service area. Estimated future wastewater treatment demand required to support General Plan buildout is 1 mgd greater than the projected capacity of District facilities serving Temecula. Given that future demand is based upon a very long- term buildout horizon, the General Plan FEIR concluded the 1 mgd difference is not considered significant; mitigation measures are included in the FEIR to provide for continued monitoring and potentially an update of EMWD's master plan to reflect Temecula's projections. • Development projects implementing General Plan land use policy will require construction of additional stormwater drainage facilities throughout the Planning Area. To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all proposed development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), at the request of the City, prior to approval by the City of Temecula or Riverside County. New development projects are required to provide on -site drainage connecting to the City's drainage system and to pay area drainage fees. Drainage fee revenues from the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan are used to support capacity expansion within the local storm drain system. In addition, all proposed development projects are reviewed by the RCFCWCD. Proposed General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs address the impact to City storm drain facilities. Implementation Program GM-9 directs the City to maintain an effective, safe, and environmentally compatible flood control system. The General Plan FEIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations and General Plan Implementation Program GM-9 will ensure a less than significant impact. • Solid waste generation is anticipated to increase associated with General Plan buildout. The City currently offers a residential recycling program that diverts nearly 50 percent of the solid waste generated. Furthermore, the Riverside County Waste Management Department expects to expand the capacity of both El Sobrante and Badlands Sanitary Landfills. The City will also continue to implement solid waste reduction programs in compliance with Section 40050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code. The General Plan FEIR concluded that although implementation of the General Plan will result in new development and redevelopment within the Planning Area and related increases in solid waste generation, impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. • Each development approved pursuant to General Plan policy will be required to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to the disposal of solid waste; thus, the General Plan FEIR concluded no adverse impact will result. Environmental Analysis 4-60 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Analysis of Modified Project The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to utilities and service systems as a result of new development and intensification of land uses. Additionally, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-1 and USS-5 ensures cooperation with regional water providers to plan for sufficient water and wastewater capacities; General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-2 considers services that reduce water demand; General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-3 reviews development and redevelopment proposals to ensure adequate water service; General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-4 reduces irrigation water usage and promotes recycled water, and; General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures USS-10, USS-11, and USS-12 provide measures to reduce solid waste. The Housing Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies addressing utilities and service systems The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new utilities and service systems impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to utilities and service systems as a result of the proposed Project. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: USS-1 The City shall assist the Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts in the process of updating their urban water management plans to be responsive to the population and housing unit capacities established by the General Plan (General Plan Implementation Program GM-8). USS-2 The City shall review the adopted Uniform Building Code and require new development projects to include water conservation features to reduce consumption, including, but not limited to: use of reduced -flow plumbing fixtures, low -flow toilets, drip irrigation systems and xeriscape landscaping (General Plan Implementation Program OS-4). USS-3 The City shall ensure that discretionary projects implementing the General Plan (Specific Plans, land divisions, development plans and conditional use permits) comply with California Water Code Section 10910, requiring the preparation of a water supply assessment indicating that a long- term water supply for a 20-year time frame is available. Written acknowledgement that water will be provided by a community or public water system with an adopted urban water management plan that includes consideration of the project's water consumption and supply shall constitute compliance with this requirement (General Plan Implementation Program OS-38). Environmental Analysis 4-61 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR USS-4 The City shall: 1) continue to require drought -tolerant landscaping in new development projects; 2) where feasible, incorporate reclaimed water systems into landscape irrigation plans; 3) continue to implement a recycled water ordinance in accordance with the requirements of Senate Bill 2095, Water Recycling in Landscaping Act; and 4) convert existing City of Temecula non -domestic water uses to recycled water use in accordance with Sections 13550-13556 of the State Water Code when feasible (General Plan Implementation Program OS-7). USS-5 The City shall assist the Eastern Municipal Water District in the process of updating its water master plan for projecting wastewater service to be responsive to the population and housing unit capacities established by the General Plan (General Plan Implementation Program GM-8). USS-10 The City will 1) assist the Riverside County Solid Waste Management Department to implement the County's Solid Waste Management Plan, and when feasible and appropriate, assist the County in locating cost effective and environmentally acceptable solid waste sites and facilities; and 2) promote awareness of recycling options for businesses (General Plan Implementation Program GM-10). USS-11 The City will require incorporation of recycling as a condition of approval for all multi- family residential, commercial and office projects, and will work with the private sector contractor providing solid waste services to ensure that appropriate recycling containers, procedures, and education are readily available (General Plan Implementation Program GM-14). USS-12 The City shall continue to compost green waste collected from landscape and park maintenance (General Plan Implementation Program GM-15). Environmental Analysis 4-62 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.20 WILDFIRE Substantial Changein Changein Information No Less Than No ImpactSubstantial Showing AdditionalSignificant Project Circumstance Requiring EIR Major Greater Significant Impact/No Significant Impact/Requiring EIR effects than Less Than Information Thresholds: Revisions Revisions ImpactMajor Previous EIR Significant Requiring .. With an MND Application of If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very Mitigation from FEIR high fire hazard severity zones, would theproject: a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation Ian? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, X pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) X that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a X result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? General Plan FEIR Conclusions Since certification of the General Plan FEIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist has been revised to include a new category for Wildfire impacts. This topical area is addressed in the General Plan FEIR's Hazards and Hazardous Materials section. • Undeveloped areas, such as in the eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the Planning Area, have greater fire danger due to expansive areas of vegetation to fuel a fire. Any new development in the Planning Area, no matter how limited, will expose additional people and structures to wildland fire hazards. The City's Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance requires every property owner to remove all hazardous or flammable vegetation on the property constituting a fire hazard that may endanger or damage neighboring property. In addition, the Temecula Fire Department and the County of Riverside Fire Department sponsor outreach and awareness programs to educate residents about fire dangers and whey they can do to protect themselves and their homes. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes policies and implementation programs that direct the City to reduce the potential for dangerous fires by concentrating development in previously developed areas where the risk of wildland fire is lower; to protect hillside areas from expansion of the Environmental Analysis 4-63 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR urban-wildland interface; to encourage residents to plant and maintain drought -resistant, fire -retardant landscape species on slopes to reduce the risk of brush fire and soil erosion; and to work with the City Fire Department to control hazardous vegetation. The FEIR concluded that stringent application of these policies will reduce impact to a less than significant level. Analysis of Modified Project The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts due to wildfires. Specifically, Policy 1.8 within the Public Safety Element reduces wildfire risk through imposition of site -specific development standards during project review and coordination with the City Fire Department and other organizations, and Implementation Program PS-8 promotes fire prevention in Temecula, including cooperation with the Fire Department, public education programs, and vegetation management efforts. Further, building codes outlined in Title 24 and the City's Municipal Code, the City's Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance, and regional cooperation with the County of Riverside Fire Department, would reduce potential impacts due to wildland fires. These impacts are considered less than significant. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. Within the Introduction section of the Safety Element, new plans and programs were referenced, including the County of Riverside Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP), the City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP). Fire Hazards discussion was comprehensively updated to include current information regarding the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), CalFire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and major wildland fires in Temecula. Figure PS-3, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA (as Recommended by CalFIRE) was also added. The City has also included a new discussion related to emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation and identified new objectives to address this topic. Additional information related to the MJLHMP, LHMP, and the County's CAP are also included by reference. In accordance with SB 99, the City conducted an evaluation of evacuation routes serving residential developments in hazard areas. This analysis is presented in a separate background report available on the City's website and the results of the analysis, which found that while residential developers may comply with City of Temecula access standards, several residential areas warrant further study and coordination with RCFD and CalFIRE to ensure residents with limited emergency routes are well-educated on evacuation procedures during emergencies. Environmental Analysis 4-64 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR No goals, policies or programs from the current Public Safety Element were eliminated as part of this update. Modifications or additions related to natural hazards were made to Polices 1.8 and 1.9 to further support the goal to minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from structural or wildland fire hazards. More specifically, Policy 1.8 supports programs and plans consistent with state law and related to new development in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) and Policy 1.9 directs the City to reduce the risk of wildfire hazards by working with partners and other agencies on projects and programs like community fire breaks; Policy 4.5 directs the City to locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of the VHFHSZ; Policy 4.7 requires the City to coordinate with local, state and federal agency to evaluate and plan for emergency scenarios; Goal 5 states that the City will be a resilient, sustainable, and equitable community where risk resulting from things like climate change will be minimized; Policy 5.1 requires coordination with outside agencies on climate resiliency and adaption strategies; and Policy 5.2 requires the City to monitor climate change - related effects and respond appropriately at the local level. The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new wildfire impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to wildfire as a result of the proposed Project. Environmental Analysis 4-65 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR 4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE General Plan FEIR Conclusions As described above, the General Plan FEIR concluded that full implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Section 5.3 Air Quality (Violate any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing air quality violation; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant; and Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations) and Section 5.13 Transportation (Causes an intersection to operate at LOS E or F [peak hour ICU greater than 0.90] and Causes a freeway ramp to operate at LOS F [peak hour V/C greater than 1.00]), which were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The General Plan FEIR's background and policy information and environmental impact conclusions are cited throughout this Addendum. Environmental Analysis 4-66 City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR Analysis of Modified Project Future housing could significantly impact, directly or through habitat modifications, sensitive vegetation communities and/or sensitive plant and wildlife species; refer to Section 4.4 above. Additionally, ground -disturbing activities associated with future development, such as grading or excavation, could unearth undocumented archeological or disturb unknown human remains; refer to Section 4.5 above. Individual project proposals would be subject to review under CEQA, and site -specific biological and cultural surveys would be conducted, as needed, to evaluate potential impacts to such resources. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework, recommended FEIR mitigation measures, and General Plan Policies, no new significant impact to biological or cultural resources or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts would occur with implementation of the Project. The General Plan FEIR determined that cumulative impacts would result in the following areas: short-term and long-term cumulative air quality impacts and cumulative impact on roadways and intersections. All other cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant. The anticipated housing development would not result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Environmental Analysis 4-67 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM. Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov December 3, 2021 Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager Community Development Department City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Luke Watson: RE: City of Temecula 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Temecula (City) draft housing element received for review on October 5, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation on November 19, 2021 with Senior Management Analyst, Mr. Brandon Rabidou and Planning consultant Amanda Tropiano. The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law. As a reminder, the City's 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City's 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance. For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower -income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government's housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager Page 2 Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower -income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research at: http://oi)r.ca.gov/docs/OPR Appendix C final.pdf and http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final 6.26.15.pdf. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD's Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. HCD appreciates the diligent work Amanda Tropiano and Brandon Rabidou during our review. We are committed to assisting the City of Temecula in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Tristan Lanza, of our staff, at tristan.lanza(aD_hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, we( Paul McDougall Senior Program Manager Enclosure APPENDIX CITY OF TEMECULA The following changes are necessary to bring the City's housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD's website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD's latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources. A. Review and Revision Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).) As part of the review of programs in the past cycle, the element must provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness). B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. Affirmatively furtherfing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2... shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) The element includes the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) that was prepared in 2017 and is only pertinent until 2022. The analysis must be for the entire planning period and additional information is necessary to address the requisite affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis requirement, including local contributing factors to the fair housing issues and develop strong programs and strategies to address the identified fair housing issues as follows: Enforcement and Outreach: The element describes past outreach efforts and fair housing services from the City's Analysis of Impediments (AI) completed in 2017. While the element lists the partnership with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, it must also include recent information on fair housing enforcement as well as local knowledge. Enforcement should include data and evaluation (e.g., characteristics of complaints) of any past or current fair housing lawsuits, findings, settlements, judgements, and complaints as well as confirm that the City complies with fair housing law. The analysis could also evaluate data and the results from any fair housing Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 December 3, 2021 testing. In addition, the analysis should also include ongoing outreach throughout the planning period. Integration and Segregation: While the element utilized data from the City's 2017 Al, the element must be updated to include recent data. The regional analysis of race should include an analysis of concentrations of race in comparison to the surrounding area, not just as a percentage of the overall population. In addition, the element must analyze whether families or non -family households are concentrated in certain areas or spread throughout the City and also include a regional level analysis (comparing the City to the region). The element must provide a local and regional analysis for race, disability, familial status, and income. Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty (R/ECAP): The element includes information relative to R/ECAP but the analysis must also provide a regional comparison. In addition, the City should also address concentrated areas of affluence. The combination of the R/ECAP and areas of affluence analyses will help guide goals and actions to address fair housing issues. The analysis should evaluate the patterns and changes over time at a local and regional level. Furthermore, the element does list one area of high poverty and segregation therefore the City should analyze this concentration and consider relevant factors such as past policies, practices, and investments as well as whether or not there is a concentration of subsidized housing units in that area. Access to Opportunity: While the element contains some general information on access to opportunity from its 2017 Al, it must be updated with more recent data and must include a local and regional analysis in relation to education, economy, transportation and environmental factors. The analysis should include maps and descriptions as appropriate. The element must also include a regional analysis regarding overall access comparing the City to the surrounding region. Disproportionate Housing Needs: While the element analyzes displacement, it must also include an analysis of all factors related to disproportionate housing needs to include the following: • Cost Burden: The element has some information on cost burden; however the element must be revised to expand on the local analysis by including overall cost burden and include a regional analysis. • Risk of Displacement: While the element stated that there was no displacement risk due to investment, it is unclear what data was utilized to reach this conclusion. The element should include an analysis to support the conclusion. In addition, the element must analyze the risk of displacement due to disaster (i.e. fire, flood earthquake). Overcrowding, substandard housing and homelessness: The element must be revised to include a local and regional analysis of overcrowding, substandard housing and homelessness including looking at trends, patterns, and other local knowledge, and conclude with a summary of issues. Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 December 3, 2021 Sites Inventory: The element must include an analysis demonstrating whether sites identified to meet the RHNA are distributed throughout the community in a manner that AFFH. A full analysis should address the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that effects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity). While the element states that sites identified for lower income are disbursed throughout the City, that information should be supported with maps and analysis. Also, the element must describe where the moderate and above moderate sites are located throughout the City. The element should also discuss whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions. If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program actions that will be taken to mitigate this (e.g. anti -displacement strategies). Contributing Factors: While the element contains information on contributing factors, it must also identify, evaluate, and prioritize the contributing factors to fair housing. Furthermore, the analysis shall result in strategic approaches to inform and connect goals and actions to mitigate contributing factors to affordable housing. Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place - based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. For more information, please see HCD's guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml#quidance. 2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) The City has a regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 4,193 housing units, of which 2,160 are for lower -income households. To address this need, the element relies on vacant sites, including sites in Specific Plan Areas and within the Affordable Housing Overlay area. To demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City's RHNA, the element must include complete analyses: Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element indicates (p. HBR 52, Table 32) that 159 units are either approved or are in the process of being approved of which 132 are affordable to lower -income households. The element must include additional information on the status of these units including any remaining entitlement that are needed prior to approval, and for projects approved, but not yet built, the jurisdiction must demonstrate the units are expected to be built in the planning period. The Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 December 3, 2021 element must also include an analysis to demonstrate the affordability of these units based on actual or projected sales prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability in the planning period. Sites Inventory: The element must clarify whether all sites in Appendix A are vacant and if the unit count includes realistic capacity assumptions. In addition, the unit count listed in the sites inventory should be the number of units without a decimal, currently there are sites listed that do not equal one unit per site. The sites inventory should include the allowed densities for all sites listed in the inventory. The element must also include a general map of identified sites. Realistic Capacity: While the element mentions an assumption of 85 percent of maximum allowable densities to calculate residential capacity on identified sites (p. HBR 125), it must also provide support for these assumptions. The capacity methodology must estimate of the number of units for each site based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element must also provide support for the assumptions within the three specific plans (Old Town, Harveston and Uptown) including accounting for the likelihood of development of 100 percent nonresidential uses. For example, the element could analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculation, policies and program accordingly. The element should include analysis based on factors such as development trends, performance standards or other relevant factors. Zoning Appropriate for Lower -Income: The element should clarify if the Affordable Housing Overlay which allows up to 30 units per acre applies to these sites. If not, the element must include an analysis evaluating the appropriateness of zoning to accommodate housing affordable to lower -income households. The analysis should be based on factors such as market demand, development experience within zones, and specifically address the impacts of density on financial feasibility. For communities with densities that meet specific standards (at least 30 units per acre for Temecula), this analysis is not required. Large Sites: Sites larger than ten acres in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower -income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower -income housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower -income housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).) For example, a site with a proposed and approved housing development that contains units affordable to lower -income households would be an appropriate site to accommodate housing for lower -income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(C).) In addition, p. HBR 128 states that two of the large sites are City -owned. The element must identify which sites are owned by the City and include the potential schedule for development. The element must also include a description of whether Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4 December 3, 2021 there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5. Availability of Infrastructure: While the element describes water and sewer infrastructure capacity (pg. HBR 106), it must also demonstrate sufficient existing or planned dry utilities, including the availability and access to distribution facilities to accommodate the City's RHNA. The element must also clarify that there is sufficient current or planned water and sewer capacity to meet the RHNA in all specific plans. Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes environmental conditions within the City (pg. HBR 111), it must relate those conditions to identified sites within the inventory and describe any other known environmental or other constraints that could impact housing development on identified sites in the planning period. Accessory Dwelling Units: The element assumes an ADU build out of 18 ADU and/or junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) per year based upon the City's 2020 production. Given that the City has only produced an average of 6 units per year since 2018, it is not clear if this production level will be achievable in the planning period. As a result, the element should be updated to include a realistic estimate of the potential for ADUs and include policies and programs that incentivize the production of ADUs. Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production throughout the course of the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing element. In addition to monitoring production, this program should also monitor affordability. Additional actions, if necessary, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g., within six months). Finally, if necessary, the degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and affordability. For example, if actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or something similar would be an appropriate action. If actual production and affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketing might be more appropriate. Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: • Emergency Shelters: While the element states emergency shelters are allowed by right in the Medium and High -Density Residential districts, the element must describe the development standards and requirements. In addition, the element must also demonstrate the zones have sufficient capacity to accommodate the identified housing need and analyze the access to services for zones that allow emergency shelters without conditions. In addition, the element must ensure the parking requirements meet AB 139. • Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing: The element describes the definition of transitional and supportive housing (p. HBR 95) but does not state whether the City complies. Transitional housing and supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) The element must describe and analyze Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5 December 3, 2021 the City's transitional and supportive housing standards and codes and demonstrate consistency with Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(5) or add or revise programs which comply with the statutory requirements. • Manufactured Housing: The element identifies manufactured homes as suitable housing in all of its residential zoning districts. However, the housing element must demonstrate the jurisdiction's zoning code allows and permits manufactured housing in the same manner and in the same zone as a conventional or stick -built structures are permitted pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.3. • Agricultural Housing: The element must demonstrate zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), specifically, sections 17021.5 and 17021.6. Section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Section 17021.6 requires employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone. • Single Room Occupancy (SRO): The element must clarify zoning that allows SRO units or add a program as appropriate. • ADUs: The element must also clarify that ADUs are allowed in all zones that allow residential uses. 3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7). Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Land -Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls including whether development standards impede the ability to achieve maximum allowable densities. Page HBR 75 lists target densities that are lower than the maximum density and states "The target density establishes a ceiling within the range which cannot be exceeded without Planning Commission/City Council approval." The element must clarify whether densities assumed in the sites inventory can be met without City Council approval and analyze whether this is a constraint and add a program as appropriate. In addition, Table 48 (HBR 80) lists zones that do not include minimum/maximum densities or Floor Area Ratios for the zones listed. The element Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6 December 3, 2021 must clarify whether residential development is allowed in these zones. In mixed -use overlay, the element must also clarify if residential development is allowed without a commercial component. Parking: The element must analyze the parking requirements (p. HBR 81) of two spaces for all residential dwelling units for properties with 12 or fewer units for its impact as a potential constraint on housing. Should the analysis determine the parking standards are a constraint on residential development, it must include a program to address or remove any identified constraints. Fees and Exactions: The element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including environmental and impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. In addition, the element must clarify if all fees listed in Table 54 (HBR 99) are the same for single family and multifamily developments. For example, the analysis could identify the total amount of fees and their proportion to the development costs for both single family and multifamily housing. Density Bonus: The City's current density bonus ordinance should be reviewed for compliance with current state density bonus law. (Gov. Code, § 65915.) and programs should be added as appropriate. Local Ordinances: The element must specifically analyze locally adopted ordinances such as inclusionary ordinances or short-term rental ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply or residential development. The analysis should demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters. Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element (p. HBR 104) includes some information about processing times, it should also describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development. The analysis should address the approval body, the number of public hearing if any, approval findings and the element should describe how the standards of decision -making impact development certainty. Furthermore, the analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. For example, the element (Table 57) should identify timeframes for conditional use permits, zoning changes, general plan amendments, site plan review, architectural/design review, parcel and tract maps, environmental impact reports and analyze approval findings for impacts on approval certainty, the presence of processes or guidelines to promote certainty and add or modify programs as appropriate. In addition, the element must analyze the difference in length of time to approve a single- family unit (four to six weeks) versus a multifamily unit (a minimum of a year) as a constraint on development. The element must also describe whether multifamily projects are required to have a discretionary hearing by City Council due to the size of the project (greater than 10,000 square feet) (p. HBR 104). Lastly, the element must address whether projects that are 100 percent affordable will be approved in the affordable housing overlay or whether they must be mixed -income projects (HBR 120). Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7 December 3, 2021 Specific Plan: The element must describe any process requirements to develop in the specific plan as well as the process to subdivide lots into developable parcels. Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe if there are any local amendments to the building code and their enforcement for impacts on housing supply and affordability. Zoning and Fees Transparency: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards for each parcel on the jurisdiction's website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1, subdivision (a)(1). Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: Group Homes: The element must analyze and revise requirements for both group homes for six or fewer residents as well as group homes for seven or more residents. Group homes for six or fewer residents must be allowed by -right in all residential zones. While the element conditionally permits the use for residential care facilities serving seven or more persons in residential and commercial zones, the element must include the City's process for objectively approving the conditional use permit and the description of the compatibility findings. The element must include the decisions making criteria as an objective procedure. The element also states it requires the State Fire Marshal's approval for group homes of seven or more residents. The element must be revised to analyze the process as a potential constraint on housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate to ensure zoning permits group homes objectively with approval certainty. Reasonable Accommodation Procedure: While the element (p. HBR103) indicates the City does have a reasonable accommodation procedure, it must list the specific findings and requirements for requesting and granting a reasonable accommodation separate from the conditional use permit procedures. The procedure should not be limited to the installation of accessibility improvements and must provide reasonable accommodations to zoning and land -use requirements for housing for persons with disabilities. 4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality's planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. (Gov. Code, § Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 8 December 3, 2021 65583, subd. (a)(6).) The element must contain an analysis of potential nongovernmental constraints including the following: • Land Costs: Estimate the average cost per acre for single-family and multifamily zoned developable parcels. • Availability of Financing: The element must include an analysis of whether housing financing, including private financing and government assistance programs, is generally available in the community. Developed Densities and Permit Times: The element must be revised to include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality's share of the regional housing need. 5. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).) Farmworker Housing: The element indicates that there are only 228 farmworkers employed farming occupations in the City. However, farmworkers from the broader area and those employed seasonally may have housing needs, including within the City's boundaries. As a result, the element should at least acknowledge the housing needs of permanent and seasonal farmworkers at a county -level (e.g., using USDA county -level farmworker data) and include programs as appropriate. 6. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to nonlow- income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).) While the element identifies 180 units for being at risk, the element lists four properties that are at -risk of expiring within the next 10 years for a total of 256 units. In addition, the element should describe any outreach to owners and interest in preserving the units identified. The element must identify local public agencies, public or private nonprofit corporations, and for -profit organizations with the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at -risk projects pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, subdivision (a)(8)(C)). In addition, the element must list potential federal, state, and local funding sources that can be used to preserve the units. While the element analyzes the cost of replacement for units designated high risk, the element must analyze replacement costs for all units with expiring restrictions in the next ten years. Furthermore, the analysis should contain the following: Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 9 December 3, 2021 Estimate the costs of producing new rental housing (comparable in size and rent levels to existing at -risk units) to replace units converting from affordable to market rate. The analysis should consider current land costs and either current construction costs (square footage rates for multifamily development) or the actual cost of recently completed units. Estimate the cost of preserving the identified assisted housing developments including acquisition and rehabilitation costs long-term affordability controls and project -based rent subsidies. A project -by -project replacement/preservation cost estimate is not required (Government Code Section 65583(a)(8)(B)). The element can make an assessment of the appropriate strategy (replace vs. preserve) based on sample cost estimates. C. Housing Programs Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) To address the program requirements of Gov. Code section 65583, subd. (c)(1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City's specific role in implementation; (2) all programs must be revised with discrete timelines (i.e. month and year); (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following: • Program 6 (Density Bonus Ordinance): The program must be revised to include outreach to developers as well as how often the law will be monitored for updates and potential revisions. • Program 7 (Land Assemblage and Affordable Housing Development): The program should be revised to include specific incentives to developers and include a how often outreach will occur within the planning period. • Program 10 (Mortgage Credit Certificate Program): The program must update when the certification program will be implemented. • Program 12 (Development Fees): The program should be updated to include outreach to developers and to revise the timeframe to include how often the program will be implemented within the planning period. • Program 13 (Expedite Processing of Affordable Housing Projects): The element must clarify when the objective criteria will be developed and adopted as well as include proactive outreach to developers. Review of the City of Temecula 6` Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 10 December 3, 2021 • Program 19 (Residential Improvement Program): The program must be revised to include how often the City will apply for funds throughout the planning period. 2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city's or county's share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single - room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows: Previously Identified Nonvacant and Vacant Sites: While the element includes a policy regarding sites identified for lower income that were listed in previous elements, this must be revised as a program with a specific timeframe for implementation. If nonvacant sites identified in a prior adopted housing element or vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods, the sites are inadequate to accommodate housing for lower -income households unless: The site's current zoning is appropriate for the development of housing affordable to lower -income households by either including analysis or meeting the appropriate density. See (Gov.Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c)(3)), and The site is subject to a housing element program that requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).). Program 1 (Land Use Policy and Development Capacity): This program mentions utilizing credits for constructed units towards the RHNA. If the units were constructed before June 30, 2021 they cannot count toward the 6t" cycle RHNA. In addition, the program must include how often the inventory will be monitored and updated. Program 3 (Public Property Conversion to Housing Program): This program should include a schedule of actions to facilitate development on City owned sites during the planning period. For example, the program could include zoning, outreach with developers, incentives, fee waivers, priority processing, or financial assistance. Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 11 December 3, 2021 Program 14 (Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing): As noted in Finding B.3, the element describes transitional housing as allowed in the same manner as emergency shelters, i.e., with a conditional use permit. However, transitional housing and supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) The element must demonstrate consistency with Section 65583(a)(5) or add or revise programs which comply with the statutory requirements. In addition, this program must be implemented early in the planning period. Housing for Agricultural Employees: As mentioned in finding B3, if the zoning code is not consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), specifically, sections 17021.5 and 17021.6, the element must include a program to revise the zoning code. 3. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate - income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) Program 8 (Housing for Extremely Low -Income Households): While Program 8 identifies SRO units and efficiency housing units to assist in meeting the needs of extremely low-income (ELI) households, it does not address the identified needs of larger ELI households. The element must also confirm whether the identified program incentives are currently in place or if they need to be adopted within the planning period. 4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding(s) B.4 and B.5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the following must be addressed: Program 9 (Special Needs Housing Construction): The program should be revised to specifically list which special needs groups are included and what incentives will be offered to developers. Program 16 (Zoning Code Amendments — Housing Constraints): This program must be revised to include permanent supportive housing by -right (AB 2162) as well as the residential care findings mentioned above in B.4. Review of the City of Temecula 6' Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 12 December 3, 2021 Program to Mitigate Nongovernmental Constraints: The element must be revised to include a program that mitigates nongovernmental constraints that create a gap in the jurisdictions ability to meet RHNA by income category (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(3).). 5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c) (5).) While the element includes Program 22 (Equal Housing Opportunity), the program should be revised to commit to annual outreach, enforcement, and education. In addition, programs throughout the element should be revised to integrate the fair housing analysis. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place -based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. 6. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a). The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).) Program 17 (Preserve At -Risk Housing Units): The program must be revised to include specific and proactive actions to preserve the at -risk units in addition to monitoring. In addition, the element should revise (c) tenant education, to include current State Preservation Notice Law (Gov. Code 65863.10, 65863.11, 65863.13) which requires owners to provide tenants and affected public entities (including the City) notices regarding expiring rental restrictions starting three years before expiration. 7. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate -income households. For purposes of this paragraph, "accessory dwelling units" has the same meaning as "accessory dwelling unit' as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) While the element includes Program 5 (ADUs), the City should provide specific incentives to promote the development. In addition, the timeframe should be revised to Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 13 December 3, 2021 include how often the City will monitor ADU production, as well as review and update the ordinance to comply with state law. D. Public Participation Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c) (8).) While appendix C tabulates general comments and goals from public comments, the element must also include the missing summary of public participation (p. HBR 6). In addition, the element must include information on whether the housing survey was available in multiple languages and how public comments were incorporated. Review of the City of Temecula 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 14 December 3, 2021 PC RESOLUTION NO.2022-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPDATED 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR18-1620) AND APPROVING EIR ADDENDUM NO. 2021-01 TO THE GENERAL PLAN" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine, and declare that: A. The City of Temecula adopted its first Housing Element (Second Cycle) on November 9, 1993. B. The City of Temecula first amended its Housing Element (Third Cycle) on October 8, 2002. C. The City of Temecula adopted a Comprehensive Update of its General Plan on April 12, 2005. D. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Fourth Cycle) on July 27, 2010. E. The City of Temecula amended its Dousing Element (Fifth Cycle) on January, 2014. F. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) completed the Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) on March 4, 2021, with a minor amendment adopted on July 1, 2021. G. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved the RHNA allocation on March 22, 2021. H. Government Code Section 65588 establishes October 15, 2021, as the due date for cities located in the SCAG region to submit their 2021-2029 Housing Element Update to the State. I. The City of Temecula must adopt its updated 2021-2029 Housing Element within 120 days of the above -referenced due date. J. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an analysis of potential sites that indicates that the City of Temecula has adequate development capacity under existing zoning designations to meet its RHNA of 4,139 total units and related affordable housing needs for lower and moderate income households. K. On August 17, 2021, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was released to the community for public comment and review including to groups that represent lower income and special needs populations in Temecula. L. On August 17, 2021, the City hosted a community open house to introduce the Draft Housing Element and solicit public feedback on the draft Housing Element. M. On , the City held a public hearing before the Planning Commission where the draft Housing Element was considered. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Housing Element for submission to HCD. N. On October 12, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing where the draft Housing Element was considered. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council adopted the draft Housing Element with the understanding that the Housing Element may need to be further amended in response to any comments received by HCD. O. On October 27, 2021, the City hosted a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) workshop, which included a discussion on the draft Housing Element. P. HCD provided a comment letter to the City on December 3, 2021, and staff working with its consultant, has amended the draft Housing Element in response to HCD's comments. Q. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, codified at Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (the Project); and R. This Housing Element Update was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by law. S. The Planning Commission considered the updated 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan and environmental review on January 19, 2022, 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. T. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, and EIR Addendum No. 2021-01 to the General Plan based upon the findings set forth hereunder. U. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending that the City Council adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan hereby finds, determines and declares that: General Plan Amendment A. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update has been designed to be consistent with State Housing Law, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for local agencies under jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and to be internally consistent with the other elements of the Temecula General Plan with implementation of the identified programs. B. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan will not have a significant impact on the character of the built environment; The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update is compatible with the nature, condition and development of existing uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the existing or planned uses, buildings, or structures. The Housing Element Update contains the goals, policies, and programs that will help guide the production of future housing within the City, in concert with other elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element Update will provide flexibility and opportunity in the development of residential uses to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community within the City. The specific programs of the Housing Element Update will provide opportunityfor affordable housing through the identification of appropriate sites and density, provisions for density bonus law, provisions for transitional, supportive, and employee housing, as well as establishment of development standards for emergency shelters. The Housing Element and the City's current General Plan have adequate capacity to accommodate all units. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. C. The nature of the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Minor Updates to the Public Safety Element of the General Plan is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update will promote the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the City and its residents through the goals, policies, and implementation programs geared towards ensuring adequate housing for all income levels in the community. The proposed Housing Element Update complies with all statutory requirements and is internally consistent with the other elements of the General Plan with implementation of the identified programs. The proposed Housing Element will not expose people to an increased risk of negative health or public safety impacts and potential impacts related to the health, safety and general welfare of the community were analyzed in the environmental review and determined to be less than significant as a result of this project. The Housing Element and the City's current General Plan have adequate capacity to accommodate all units. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. Section 3. Further Findings. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element has been prepared to meet the requirements of State law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with the other elements of the current Temecula General Plan. Section 4. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the recommendation for approval of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan, Long Range Planning Project No. LR18-1620. A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the General Plan certified by the City Council on April 12, 2005 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003061041), including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Staff has also reviewed the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019070974), Altair Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013061012). B. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR (Addendum 2021-01) was prepared in August 2021 which concludes that the draft General Plan Housing Element does not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. No new development is permitted under the draft Housing Element where it is not currently permitted in the General Plan, and all new development analyzed in the draft Housing Element is in areas already designated for residential or mixed use. In addition, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since the certification of the General Plan EIR. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. The draft Housing Element was amended in response to HCD's comments. The 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update, as revised in response to HCD's comments, does not create any new program or policy that would permit residential development where it is not otherwise permitted. As such, it was determined that the revisions to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated, and that it is still appropriate for the City to rely on Addendum 2021-01. It was determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR do not need to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and no further environmental review is required. C. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the General Plan Addendum 2021-01 prepared for this project that is attached as Exhibit "A" to the draft City Council resolution. Section 5. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula herby recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan and General Plan EIR Addendum 2021-01 in substantially the same form as attached here to as Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of January 2022. Watts, Chairperson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2022-03 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of January 2022, by the following vote: AYES: 3 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Hagel, Telesio, Turley-Trejo NOES: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Watts ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Ruiz 00, uke Watson Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 2022 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPDATED 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR18-1620) AND APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM NO. 2021-01 TO THE GENERAL PLAN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine, and declare that: A. The City of Temecula adopted its first Housing Element (Second Cycle) on November 9, 1993. B. The City of Temecula first amended its Housing Element (Third Cycle) on October 8, 2002. C. The City of Temecula adopted a Comprehensive Update of its General Plan on April 12, 2005. D. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Fourth Cycle) on July 27, 2010. E. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Fifth Cycle) on January, 2014. F. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Sixth Cycle) on October 12, 2021. G. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) completed the Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) on March 4, 2021, with a minor amendment adopted on July 1, 2021. H. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved the RHNA allocation on March 22, 2021. I. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provided a comment letter on December 3, 2021. J. Government Code Section 65588 establishes October 15, 2021, as the due date for cities located in the SCAG region to submit their 2021-2029 Housing Element Update to the State. K. The City of Temecula must adopt its 2021-2029 Housing Element within 120 days of the above -referenced due date. L. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an analysis of potential sites that indicates that the City of Temecula has adequate development capacity under existing zoning designations to meet its RHNA of 4,139 total units and related affordable housing needs for lower and moderate income households. M. On August 17, 2021, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was released to the community for public comment and review including to groups that represent lower income and special needs populations in Temecula; and N. On August 17, 2021, the City hosted a community open house to introduce the Draft Housing Element and solicit public feedback on the Housing Element O. On October 27, 2021, the City hosted a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) workshop, which included a discussion on Housing Element. P. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, codified at Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element (the Project); and Q. This Housing Element Update was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by law. R. The Planning Commission considered the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan and environmental review on January 19, 2022, 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. S. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-XX recommending that the City Council adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan, and EIR Addendum No. 2021-01 to the General Plan, based upon the findings set forth hereunder. T. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the 2021-2029 Housing Element (Sixth Cycle) of the General Plan 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. U. At the conclusion of the City Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the City Council adopted the EIR Addendum No. 2021-01 to the General Plan and the 2021-2029 Housing Element (Sixth Cycle) of the General Plan, Long Range Planning Project No. LR18-1620 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. V. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council, in adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update hereby finds, determines and declares that: General Plan Amendment A. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update has been designed to be consistent with State Housing Law, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for local agencies under jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and to be internally consistent with the other elements of the Temecula General Plan with implementation of the identified programs. B. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan will not have a significant impact on the character of the built environment; The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update is compatible with the nature, condition and development of existing uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the existing or planned uses, buildings, or structures. The Housing Element Update contains the goals, policies, and programs that will help guide the production of future housing within the City, in concert with other elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element Update will provide flexibility and opportunity in the development of residential uses to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community within the City. The specific programs of the Housing Element Update will provide opportunity for affordable housing through the identification of appropriate sites and density, provisions for density bonus law, provisions for transitional, supportive, and employee housing, as well as establishment of development standards for emergency shelters. The Housing Element and the City s current General Plan have adequate capacity to accommodate all units. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. C. The nature of the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update will promote the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the City and its residents through the goals, policies, and implementation programs geared towards ensuring adequate housing for all income levels in the community. The proposed Housing Element Update complies with all statutory requirements and is internally consistent with the other elements of the General Plan with implementation of the identified programs. The proposed Housing Element will not expose people to an increased risk of negative health or public safety impacts and potential impacts related to the health, safety and general welfare of the community were analyzed in the environmental review and determined to be less than significant as a result of this project. The Housing Element and the City s current General Plan have adequate capacity to accommodate all units. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. Section 3. Further Findings. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element has been prepared to meet the requirements of State law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with the other elements of the current Temecula General Plan. Section 4. Environmental Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the recommendation for approval of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan, Long Range Planning Project No. LR18-1620. A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the General Plan certified by the City Council on April 12, 2005 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003061041), including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Staff has also reviewed the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019070974), Altair Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013061012). B. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR (Addendum 2021-01) was prepared in August 2021 which concludes that the draft General Plan Housing Element does not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. No new development is permitted under the draft Housing Element where it is not currently permitted in the General Plan, and all new development analyzed in the draft Housing Element is in areas already designated for residential or mixed use. In addition, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since the certification of the General Plan EIR. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. The draft Housing Element was amended in response to HCD's comments. The 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update, as revised in response to HCD's comments, does not create any new program or policy that would permit residential development where it is not otherwise permitted. As such, it was determined that the revisions to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated, and that it is still appropriate for the City to rely on Addendum 2021-01. It was determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR do not need to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and that no further environmental review is required. C. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the City Council herby adopts General Plan Addendum 2021-01 prepared for this project. Section 4. Adoption. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and General Plan Addendum 2021-01 in substantially the same form as attached here to as Exhibit "A" PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of February, 2022. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk P: (626) 381-9248 0 155 South Hudson Avenue F: (626) 389-5414 Mitchell M. Tsai Suite 200 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Attorney At Law Pasadena, California 91101 VIA E-MAIL January 19, 2022 City of Temecula Council Chambers 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Em: stuart.fisk&temeculaca.gov RE: City of Temecula's 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element Update Dear Commissioners, On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ("Southwest Carpenters" or "SWRCC"), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Temecula's ("City") Agenda Item No. 2 for the City's January 19, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, regarding the 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element Update ("Project"). The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project's environmental impacts. SWRCC expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code 5 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control P. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards P. Monterey rater Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. SWRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City City of Temecula — 6th Cycle Housing Element Update January 19, 2022 Page 2of5 of Wloodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project's environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties). Moreover, SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Cal Public Resources Code ("PRC") 5 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law ("Planning and Zoning Law"), Cal. Gov't Code §§ 65000-65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(1 and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body. The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community's economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California. Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note: [A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction -related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. City of Temecula — 6th Cycle Housing Element Update January 19, 2022 Page 3of5 March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling. Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded: .. labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost — and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California's workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.' Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area's jobs -housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the "[u] se of a local state -certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component" can result in air pollutant reductions.2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to "promote local hiring ... to help achieve a more positive jobs -housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions."3 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https: / /laborcenter.berkeleLedu/ w�p-content/uploads /2020 /09 /Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 — Warehouse Indirect Source Rule — Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 — Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available athttp://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021 /2021-May7-027.12dfpsfvrsn=10 a City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General Plan FINAL.pdf. City of Temecula — 6th Cycle Housing Element Update January 19, 2022 Page 4of5 In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City "[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state -approved, joint labor-management training programs,.. ."' In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to "utilize apprentices from state -approved, joint labor-management training programs.115 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008: People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.' In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.' Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note: In nearly built -out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing." The city's First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, a City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https: / /www.hayward-ca.gov/sites /default/files /Ha3ward%20Downtown% 20S12ecific%20Plan.12df. 5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs -Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing_pdf Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs - Housing Balance or Retail -Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available athtip://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Up1oads/UTCT- 825.12df. City of Temecula — 6th Cycle Housing Element Update January 19, 2022 Page 5 of 5 especially for entry- and intermediate -level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment -ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits. The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts. Sincerely, Mitchell M. Tsai Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Attached: March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). EXHIBIT A S� p Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and JLitigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com March 8, 2021 Mitchell M. Tsai 155 South El Molino, Suite 104 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE") is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts. Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations The California Emissions Estimator Model ("CaIEEMod") is a "statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects."' CaIEEMod quantifies construction -related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off -road construction equipment; on -road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on -road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2 The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CaIEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on -road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.' 1 "California Emissions Estimator Model." CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/home. Z "California Emissions Estimator Model." CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 "CaIEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 1 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled ("VMT") associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle -class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CaIEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction -related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4 Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CaIEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below): "VMTd = F(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length 1) n Where: n = Number of land uses being modeled."' Furthermore, to calculate the on -road emissions associated with worker trips, CaIEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below): "EmisslonSpollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant Where: Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions."' Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise. Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CaIEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on -road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.' In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CaIEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site -specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project - specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.' The default number of construction -related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, P. 23. ' "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 "CalEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. $ CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 2 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively."10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home -to -work vehicle trips.11 The operational home -to -work vehicle trip lengths are: "[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings" (emphasis added)." Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CaIEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13 Worker Trip Length by Air Basin Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles) Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 Average 16.47 11.17 Minimum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 9 "CaIEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CaIEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 "Appendix D Default Data Tables." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05 appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 - D-86. 3 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location. Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction -related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan ("Project") located in the City of Claremont ("City"). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles -South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project's construction -related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C). Local Hire Provision Net Change Without Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 3,623 120.77 With Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) % Decrease in Construction -related GHG Emissions 3,024 100.80 17% As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction -related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project -level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction -related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project's urbanization level and location. 14 "Appendix D Default Data Tables." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05 appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 4 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, G Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. �p Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. 5 Attachment A Rural H-W Urban H-W Location Type Location Name (miles) (miles) Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8 Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3 Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8 Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11 Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8 Air Basin San Francisco 10.8 10.8 Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8 Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7 Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8 Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8 Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8 Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54 Air District Calaveras 16.8 10.8 Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8 Air District El Dorado 16.8 10.8 Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8 Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8 Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8 Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3 Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8 Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8 Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8 Air District Mariposa 16.8 10.8 Air District Mendocino 16.8 10.8 Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8 Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Air District Monterey Bay 16.8 10.8 Air District North Coast 16.8 10.8 Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8 Air District Northern 16.8 10.8 Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8 Air District Sacramento 15 10 Air District San Diego 16.8 10.8 Air District San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 Air District San Luis Obispo 13 13 Air District Santa Barbara 8.3 8.3 Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8 Air District Siskiyou County 16.8 10.8 Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7 Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8 Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8 Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8 Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10 County Alameda 10.8 10.8 County Alpine 16.8 10.8 County Amador 16.8 10.8 County Butte 12.54 12.54 County Calaveras 16.8 10.8 County Colusa 16.8 10.8 County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8 County Del Norte 16.8 10.8 County El Dorado -Lake 16.8 10.8 County El Dorado- 16.8 10.8 County Fresno 16.8 10.8 County Glenn 16.8 10.8 County Humboldt 16.8 10.8 County Imperial 10.2 7.3 County Inyo 16.8 10.8 County Kern -Mojave 16.8 10.8 County Kern -San 16.8 10.8 County Kings 16.8 10.8 County Lake 16.8 10.8 County Lassen 16.8 10.8 County Los Angeles- 16.8 10.8 County Los Angeles- 19.8 14.7 County Madera 16.8 10.8 County Marin 10.8 10.8 County Mariposa 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8 County Merced 16.8 10.8 County Modoc 16.8 10.8 County Mono 16.8 10.8 County Monterey 16.8 10.8 County Napa 10.8 10.8 County Nevada 16.8 10.8 County Orange 19.8 14.7 County Placer -Lake 16.8 10.8 County Placer -Mountain 16.8 10.8 County Placer- 16.8 10.8 County Plumas 16.8 10.8 County Riverside- 16.8 10.8 County Riverside- 19.8 14.7 County Riverside -Salton 14.6 11 County Riverside -South 19.8 14.7 County Sacramento 15 10 County San Benito 16.8 10.8 County San Bernardino- 16.8 10.8 County San Bernardino- 19.8 14.7 County San Diego 16.8 10.8 County San Francisco 10.8 10.8 County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8 County San Luis Obispo 13 13 County San Mateo 10.8 10.8 County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3 County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3 County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8 County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8 County Shasta 16.8 10.8 County Sierra 16.8 10.8 County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8 County Solano- 15 10 County Solano-San 16.8 10.8 County Sonoma -North 16.8 10.8 County Sonoma -San 10.8 10.8 County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8 County Sutter 16.8 10.8 County Tehama 16.8 10.8 County Trinity 16.8 10.8 County Tulare 16.8 10.8 County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8 County Ventura 16.8 10.8 County Yolo 15 10 County Yuba 16.8 10.8 Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8 Worker Air Basin Great Basin Valleys Lake County Lake Tahoe Mojave Desert Mountain Counties North Central Coast North Coast Northeast Plateau Sacramento Valley Salton Sea San Diego San Francisco Bay Area San Joaquin Valley South Central Coast South Coast Average Mininum Maximum Range igth by Air Basin Rural (miles) 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 17.1 16.8 16.8 16.8 14.6 16.8 10.8 16.8 16.8 19.8 16.47 10.80 19.80 9.00 Urban (miles) 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 12.3 10.8 10.8 10.8 11 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 14.7 11.17 10.80 14.70 3.90 Attachment B CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 ---------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- - h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 + High = — — ;-------------------- 1000sgft ; 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 -----------------------------_------------------------------ _------------------------------ Hotel 50.00 + = — -- —;------------- ------- Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 -----------y----------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 + = --- ---—;-------------------- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 ----------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- Apartments Low Rise 25.00 + = --- --------- —;------------- Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 -----------------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------=-----------------------i------------------+--------------- Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------ _------------------------------ _----------------------------- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass IT 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ -------------------------- NumberWood r 1.25 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------r----------------------------- ------------------------- NumberWood 48.75 0.00 ---------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------ ------------------------- ST_TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST_TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ST_TR 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST_TR r 158.37 79.82 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST_TR r 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 94.36 63.99 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 49.97 10.74 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 6.07 6.16 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- SU_TR 5.86 4.18 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 1.05 0.69 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- SU_TR 131.84 78.27 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y---------------------------- SU_TR �-----------------------------T-------------------------- } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass i 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 •i 0.1713 i 1.8242 � 1.1662 i 2.4000e- 0.4169 0.0817 i 0.4986 0.1795 i 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 i 213.1969 213.1969 i 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993 003 ------------- 2022 •i 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 i 1,721.682 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 i � i � � i � i � � i � '� i i i i i i i i • 1 6 i 6 i i i 7 2023 •i 0.6148 i 3.3649 � 5.6747 i 0.0178 � 1.1963 � 0.0996 i 1.2959 � 0.3203 i 0.0935 0.4138 � 0.0000 i 1,627.529 1,627.529 i 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492 '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i 5 2024 •1 4.1619 i 0.1335 0.2810 i 5.9000e- 0.0325 6.4700e- i 0.0390 8.6300e- i 6.0400e- 0.0147 0.0000 i 52.9078 52.9078 i 8.0200e- 0.0000 1 53.1082 004 003 003 003 : 003 i Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 6 6 7 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 •i 0.1713 i 1.8242 � 1.1662 i 2.4000e- 0.4169 0.0817 i 0.4986 0.1795 i 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 i 213.1967 � 213.1967 i 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991 003 2022 •i 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 i 1,721.682 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 i � i � � i � i � � i 3 i 3 i i i 3 2023 •i 0.6148 i 3.3648 5.6747 i 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 i 1.2959 0.3203 i 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 i 1,627.529 1,627.529 i 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492 2024 •1 4.1619 i 0.1335 0.2810 i 5.9000e- 0.0325 6.4700e- i 0.0390 8.6300e- i 6.0400e- 0.0147 0.0000 i 52.9077 52.9077 i 8.0200e- 0.0000 53.1082 004 003 003 003 : 003 i Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 1,721.682 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918 3 3 3 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103 2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613 3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985 4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921 5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774 7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320 8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265 10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857 11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207 Highest 2.8857 2.8857 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 i 10.3804 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 i i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 i 220.9670 i 0.0201 i 3.7400e- 222.5835 Energy •i 0.1398 i 1.2312 i 0.7770 7.6200e- i i 0.0966 i 0.0966 i i 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1 3,896.073 i 3,896.073 i 0.1303 i 0.0468 3,913.283 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i 3 ;� i i i i Mobile •1 1.5857 i 7.9962 i 19.1834 i 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 i 7.8559 i 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 1 7,620.498 7,620.498 i 0.3407 0.0000 1 7,629.016 '1 i i i i i i i i 1 6 i 6 i i 1 2 Waste •1 i i i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 i 0.0000 207.8079 i 12.2811 0.0000 1 514.8354 ------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- -------------- ----------------------*------r------ ---------------j-------*------- Water •1 i i i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 � 29.1632 i 556.6420 � 585.8052 i 3.0183 � 0.0755 � 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 12,531.15 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 j j j j 07 19 j 51 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 10.3804 i 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 � i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 � 220.9670 i 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 003 003 i Energy •i 0.1398 i 1.2312 0.7770 i 7.6200e- 0.0966 i 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 i 3,896.073 3,896.073 i 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Mobile •i 1.5857 i 7.9962 19.1834 i 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 i 7.8559 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 i 7,620.498 7,620.498 i 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 6 i 6 i i i 2 Waste •1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 i 0.0000 207.8079 i 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water •1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 29.1632 i 556.6420 585.8052 i 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 12,531.15 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 07 19 51 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 ;Demolition +Demolition 19/1/2021 110/12/2021 5: 30: + i 2 :Site Preparation +Site Preparation 110/13/2021 :11/9/2021 5: 20: + i 3 •Grading +Grading 111/10/2021 :1/11/2022 5: 45: + i 4 -Building Construction +Building Construction 11/12/2022 :12/12/2023 5: 500: + i 5 -Paving +Paving 112/13/2023 :1/30/2024 5: 35: + i 6 -Architectural Coating -Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5. 35, Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 2 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 2 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 3 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 �_ _ i - - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 7.001 _ 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 46• 0.45 �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 2 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00" 0.001 458.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix (HHDT ------------- Site Preparation 7; -----_--, 18.00: --------i 0.001 0.00: --------- 14.70: ------------------------ 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------r--------_ ;HDT_Mix ;HHDT �- --------------- ° Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 14.70: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT ----------------° �- Building Construction v -------------=---------------''''-, 9; i----------i- 801.00- I --------i 143.001 ,- 0.00: ---------' --------- �- 14.70: ------------------------�----------' 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- ;HHDT ° �- Paving -------------- 6; - i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: ---------- 14.70: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT i f ; Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i , , , , 0.0496 , 0.0000 , 0.0496 , 7.5100e- , 0.0000 ; 7.5100e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0475 , 0.4716 , 0.3235 , 5.8000e- , , 0.0233 , 0.0233 , , 0.0216 ; 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0012 , 51.0012 , 0.0144 , 0.0000 i 51.3601 004 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 1.9300e- i 0.0634 i 0.0148 1.8000e- i 3.9400e- 1.9000e- 4.1300e- i 1.0800e- 1.8000e- 1.2600e- 0.0000 i 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- i 0.0000 i 17.4869 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 9.7000e- 7.5000e- 8.5100e- 2.000Oe- 2.4700e- 2.000Oe- 2.4900e- 6.5000e- 2.000Oe- 6.7000e- 0.0000 i 2.2251 2.2251 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 2.2267 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 2.9000e- 0.0641 0.0233 2.000Oe- 6.4100e- 2.1000e- 6.6200e- 1.7300e- 2.000Oe- 1.9300e- 0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e- 0.0000 19.7136 11 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 i 7.5100e- 0.0000 7.5100e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 003 Off -Road •i 0.0475 i 0.4716 i 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 i 0.0000 i 51.3600 004 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 004 003 1 j CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Hauling •I 1.9300e- I 0.0634 I 0.0148 11.8000e- 13.9400e- I 1.9000e- 14.1300e- I 1.0800e- 11.8000e- 1.2600e- 0.0000 I 17.4566 I 17.4566 11.2100e- I 0.0000 i 17.4869 �I 003 I I I 004 I 003 I 004 I 003 I 003 I 004 003003 I I- I I I I I I I I I I I Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I I I- I I I Worker •I 9.7000e- 6.7000e- � 0.0000 I 2.2251 2.2251 0.0000 i 2.2267 17.5000e- 18.5100e- 12.00OOe- 12.4700e- 12.00OOe- 12.4900e- 16.5000e- 12.00OOe- I 17.00OOe- I 'I 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 005 � Total 2.9000e- 0.0641 0.0233 2.00OOe- 6.4100e- 2.1000e- 6.6200e- 1.7300e- 2.00OOe- 1.9300e- 0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e- 0.0000 19.7136 11 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1807 I 0.0000 I 0.1807 I 0.0993 I 0.0000 0.0993 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I •I I I I I I I I I I I I I Off -Road •I 0.0389 I 0.4050 I 0.2115 13.8000e- I I 0.0204 I 0.0204 I I 0.0188 � 0.0188 � 0.0000 I 33.4357 I 33.4357 I 0.0108 I 0.0000 i 33.7061 004 I I I I 1 I I I I Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I Hauling •I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I- I I I I I I I I I I I Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •I 7.7000e- 1.9700e- 5.4000e- 0.0000 I 1.7801 1.7801 0.0000 i 1.7814 16.000Oe- 16.8100e- 12.000Oe- I 12.000Oe- 11.9900e- 15.2000e- 11.000Oe- I 15.000Oe- I 'I 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 005 � Total 7.7000e- 6.000Oe- 6.8100e- 2.000Oe- 1.9700e- 2.000Oe- 1.9900e- 5.2000e- 1.000Oe- 5.4000e- 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.000Oe- 0.0000 1.7814 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1807 I 0.0000 I 0.1807 I 0.0993 I 0.0000 0.0993 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I •I I I I I I I I I I I I I Off -Road •I 0.0389 I 0.4050 I 0.2115 13.8000e- I I 0.0204 I 0.0204 I I 0.0188 � 0.0188 � 0.0000 I 33.4357 I 33.4357 I 0.0108 I 0.0000 i 33.7060 004 I I I I 1 I I I I Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 - ------------------------------------------'------------------ - - -- -- - -+-------------'--------------- ------- Worker •i 7.7000e- 6.00OOe- 6.8100e- 2.00OOe- 1.9700e- 2.00OOe- 1.9900e- 5.2000e- 1.00OOe- 5.4000e- 0.0000 i 1.7801 1.7801 5.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.7814 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 7.7000e- 6.00OOe- 6.8100e- 2.00OOe- 1.9700e- 2.00OOe- 1.9900e- 5.2000e- 1.00OOe- 5.4000e- 0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.00OOe- 0.0000 1.7814 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 i 0.0693 i 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0796 i 0.8816 i 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 i 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 i 0.0000 i 104.3776 003 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.6400e- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.000Oe- 4.1600e- 3.000Oe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.000Oe- 1.1400e- 0.0000 i 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 0.0000 i 3.7607 i i i i i 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 i Total 1.6400e- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.000Oe- 4.1600e- 3.000Oe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.000Oe- 1.1400e- 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 0.0000 3.7607 11 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 i 0.0693 i 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0796 i 0.8816 i 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 i 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 i 0.0000 i 104.3775 003 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.6400e- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.00OOe- 4.1600e- 3.00OOe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.00OOe- 1.1400e- 0.0000 i 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 0.0000 i 3.7607 i i i i i 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 i Total 1.6400e- 1.2700e- 0.0144 4.00OOe- 4.1600e- 3.00OOe- 4.2000e- 1.1100e- 3.00OOe- 1.1400e- 0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e- 0.0000 3.7607 11 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 0.0807 i 0.0000 i 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 0.0807 5.7200e- 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 19.2414 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.000Oe- 7.7000e- 1.000Oe- 7.7000e- 2.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 2.1000e- 0.0000 i 0.6679 0.6679 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.6684 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.0000e- 7.7000e- 1.000Oe- 7.7000e- 2.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 2.1000e- 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.6684 11 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 0.0807 i 0.0000 i 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 0.0807 5.7200e- 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 19.2414 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.00OOe- 7.7000e- 1.00OOe- 7.7000e- 2.00OOe- 1.00OOe- 2.1000e- 0.0000 i 0.6679 0.6679 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.6684 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 2.8000e- 2.1000e- 2.4400e- 1.00OOe- 7.7000e- 1.00OOe- 7.7000e- 2.00OOe- 1.00OOe- 2.1000e- 0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.6684 11 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.2158 i 1.9754 2.0700 i 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 i i 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 i 293.1324 i 293.1324 0.0702 i 0.0000 i 294.8881 003 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0527 i 1.6961 i 0.4580 4.5500e- i 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 i 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 0.0000 i 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 442.6435 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.4088 i 0.3066 i 3.5305 0.0107 i 1.1103 8.8700e- 1.1192 i 0.2949 8.1700e- 0.3031 0.0000 i 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 i 0.0000 i 967.4773 003 003 Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 1,408.795 1,408.795 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120 [777000 2 2 8 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.2158 i 1.9754 i 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 i 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 i 0.0000 i 294.8877 003 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0527 i 1.6961 i 0.4580 4.5500e- i 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 i 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 0.0000 i 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 442.6435 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.4088 i 0.3066 i 3.5305 0.0107 i 1.1103 8.8700e- 1.1192 i 0.2949 8.1700e- 0.3031 0.0000 i 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 i 0.0000 i 967.4773 003 003 Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 1,408.795 1,408.795 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120 [777000 2 2 8 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1942 i 1.7765 i 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 i 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 i 0.0000 i 287.9814 003j Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 003 j CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0382 i 1.2511 i 0.4011 4.3000e- i 0.1113 1.4600e- 0.1127 i 0.0321 1.4000e- 0.0335 0.0000 i 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 i 0.0000 i 418.5624 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.3753 i 0.2708 i 3.1696 0.0101 i 1.0840 8.4100e- 1.0924 i 0.2879 7.7400e- 0.2957 0.0000 i 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 i 0.0000 i 909.9291 003 003 Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e- 1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e- 1,327.336 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491 j 003 j j 003 j [-377000 9 [1,327.336 9 j 6 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1942 i 1.7765 i 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 i 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 i 0.0000 i 287.9811 i i i i i • i i i i 003j Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 003 j CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0382 i 1.2511 i 0.4011 4.3000e- i 0.1113 1.4600e- 0.1127 i 0.0321 1.4000e- 0.0335 0.0000 i 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 i 0.0000 i 418.5624 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.3753 i 0.2708 i 3.1696 0.0101 i 1.0840 8.4100e- 1.0924 i 0.2879 7.7400e- 0.2957 0.0000 i 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 i 0.0000 i 909.9291 003 003 Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e- 1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e- 1,327.336 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491 j 003 j j 003 j [-377000 9 [1,327.336 9 j 6 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 i 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 i 13.1227 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 1 m CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 --------------------------------------------'----------------------- -+ ----�-------------'--------------� Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.000Oe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.000Oe- 2.9000e- 0.0000 i 0.8963 0.8963 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.8968 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.0000e- 1.0700e- 1.000Oe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.000Oe- 2.9000e- 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.8968 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 i 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 i 13.1227 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 1 m CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ----------------------- ---------------------'------------------------ --+ ----� -------------'----00- ----00 1 000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.00OOe- 1.0700e- 1.00OOe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.00OOe- 2.9000e- 0.0000 i 0.8963 0.8963 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.8968 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 3.7000e- 2.7000e- 3.1200e- 1.00OOe- 1.0700e- 1.00OOe- 1.0800e- 2.8000e- 1.00OOe- 2.9000e- 0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.8968 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0109 i 0.1048 0.1609 i 2.5000e- i i 5.1500e- i 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 i 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- i 0.0000 i 22.2073 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.0000 22.2073 11 004 003 003 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.000Oe- 1.8100e- 1.000Oe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.000Oe- 4.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.4697 1.4697 4.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.4706 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.000Oe- 1.8100e- 1.000Oe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.000Oe- 4.9000e- 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.000Oe- 0.0000 1.4706 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 i 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.0000 i 22.2073 i i i •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.0000 11 004 003 003 003 003 003 m CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 - ------------------------------------------'------------------ - - -- -- - -+-------------'--------------- ------- Worker •i 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.00OOe- 1.8100e- 1.00OOe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.00OOe- 4.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.4697 1.4697 4.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.4706 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.9000e- 4.1000e- 4.9200e- 2.00OOe- 1.8100e- 1.00OOe- 1.8200e- 4.8000e- 1.00OOe- 4.9000e- 0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.00OOe- 0.0000 1.4706 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •1 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 i i i 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.00OOe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.4745 005 003 003 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ��--------------------------------------------'----------------------- -+ - -------------'--.--�-------T Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 '� I '� • I • Worker •i 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 i 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 0.0000 i 24.9558 i i i i � i 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i Total 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1007 0.0000 24.9558 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •1 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 i i i 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.4745 005 003 003 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I Worker •i 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 i 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e- 0.0000 i 24.9558 i i i i � i 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i Total 0.0101 6.9900e- 0.0835 2.8000e- 0.0307 2.3000e- 0.0309 8.1500e- 2.2000e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1007 0.0000 24.9558 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 1.5857 i 7.9962 i 19.1834 i 0.0821 i 7.7979 i 0.0580 7.8559 i 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 i 7,620.498 � 7,620.498 � 0.3407 i 0.0000 i 7,629.016 6 i 6 i i i 2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 • 7,620.498 • 0.3407 - 0.0000 • 7,629.016 6 6 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................-------------------------------- -----------------------:------------------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ; 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ------------T-----------Y------------------------:-------------------------- ......................................----------- General Office Building ; 288.45 ; 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 ......................................--- ----- ------------ - ---- - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -r - High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 .................................................. ---------- - ------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -r - Ho.............�---.----192.00 1--T----------- y-------------------------- 445,703 .. Quality Restaurant + 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 ......................................-------------------------- - - - - -- -----------------------:------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW IH-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 8.50 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 72.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 37 - - - - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - Quality Restaurant 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 12.00 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 69.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 38 - - - - - - - - - - 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971; 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332; 0.021166; 0.033577; 0.002613; 0.001817; 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216: 0.209971: 0.116369: 0.014033: 0.006332: 0.021166: 0.033577: 0.002613: 0.001817: 0.005285: 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f........*-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------� _ ..... _ . -0.002613 -0.001817 -0.005285 Hotel 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.014033, 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_----------------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity •1 I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I I 12,512.646 1 2,512.646 I 0.1037 I 1 0.0215 i 2,521.635 Mitigated 5 1 5 1 1 1 6 •1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 • 1 1 I 1 Electricity •1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 0.0000 1 I 1 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 I 12,512.646 1 2,512.646 I 0.1037 I 1 0.0215 2,521.635 Unmitigated 5 1 5 1 I 1 6 •1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 • I 1 1 I 1 NaturalGas 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 Miti 003 7 7 8gated • I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 • 1 1 I 1 NaturalGas 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- - 0.0966 0.0966 - 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 - 1,383.426 - 0.0265 - 0.0254 1,391.647 Unmitigated 003 7 7 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 408494 42.2000e- 1 0.0188 1 8.0100e- 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1 1.5200e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1.5200e- � 0.0000 1 21.7988 1 21.7988 1 4.2000e- 1 4.000Oe- i 21.9284 Rise 1 '1 003 1 1 003 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 004 1 004 1 ; 1 1 r------�I------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � - 1 1 1 1 T Apartments Mid i 1.30613e .1 0.0704 1 0.6018 1 0.2561 1 3.8400e- 1 1 0.0487 1 0.0487 1 1 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 1 696.9989 1 696.9989 1 0.0134 1 0.0128 i 701.1408 Rise +007 ; 1 I I 003 _ 1 ; 1 r------71------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � - 1 1 1 1 T General Office Building i 468450 .1 2.5300e- 1 0.0230 1 0.0193 1 1.4000e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1 1.7500e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 1 24.9983 1 24.9983 1 4.8000e- 1 4.6000e- i 25.1468 1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 -----------1 '1-----------------------------------------------------------------------• 1------------------------1 High Turnover (Sit 8.30736e •1 0.0448 1 0.4072 1 0.3421 1 2.4400e- 1 1 0.0310 1 0.0310 1 1 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 1 443.3124 1 443.3124 1 8.5000e- 1 8.1300e- i 445.9468 Down Restaurant) 1 +006 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 ----------- Hotel ------ �'1------------------------------------------�-------�---------------� 1 �-------�-------�-------1 r71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �____--'I-------1 1 1 T____'-_ 1.74095e 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 1 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 1.7000e- 93.4557 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 __ " '-" "I Quality 1 j-------i-------i-------i-------i--------------- i------- i---------------. 1 �-------�-------�-------' r------71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �____--'I-------1 1 1 T____'-_ 1 1.84608e •1 9.9500e- 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 1.8100e- 1 99.0993 Restaurant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 __t------71-------1 1 , I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 - 1 I I I T_____-_ Regional Shopping Centers i 91840 .1 5.000Oe- 1 4.5000e- 1 3.7800e- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.4000e- 1 3.4000e- 1 1 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1 4.9009 1 4.9009 1 9.000Oe- 1 9.000Oe- i 4.9301 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . 1 1 005 1 005 1 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 003 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 408494 42.2000e- 1 0.0188 1 8.0100e- 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1 1.5200e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1.5200e- � 0.0000 1 21.7988 1 21.7988 1 4.2000e- 1 4.000Oe- i 21.9284 Rise 1 '1 003 1 1 003 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 004 1 004 1 1 ; 1 r------�I------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , - 1 1 1 1 T Apartments Mid i 1.30613e .1 0.0704 1 0.6018 1 0.2561 1 3.8400e- 1 1 0.0487 1 0.0487 1 1 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 1 696.9989 1 696.9989 1 0.0134 1 0.0128 i 701.1408 Rise +007 ; 1 I I 003 _ 1 ; 1 r------71------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , - 1 1 1 1 T General Office Building i 468450 .1 2.5300e- 1 0.0230 1 0.0193 1 1.4000e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1 1.7500e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 1 24.9983 1 24.9983 1 4.8000e- 1 4.6000e- i 25.1468 1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 -----------1 '1-----------------------------------------------------------------------• 1------------------------1 High Turnover (Sit 8.30736e .1 0.0448 1 0.4072 1 0.3421 1 2.4400e- 1 1 0.0310 1 0.0310 1 1 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 1 443.3124 1 443.3124 1 8.5000e- 1 8.1300e- i 445.9468 Down Restaurant) 1 +006 i 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 ----------- Hotel ------ �'1------------------------------------------�-------�---------------� 1 �-------�------- -------1 r71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , �____--'I-------1 1 1 ------- 1.74095e •1 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 1 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 1.7000e- 93.4557 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -""'-""i Quality '1 j-------i-------i-------i-------i--------------- i------- i---------------��1 �-------�-------�-------1 r-------------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , ____--'I-------1 1 1 T_----- 71 1.84608e •1 9.9500e- 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 1.8100e- 99.0993 Restaurant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 __t------71-------1 1 , I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 - 1 I I I T_____-_ Regional Shopping Centers i 91840 •1 5.000Oe- 1 4.5000e- 1 3.7800e- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.4000e- 1 3.4000e- 1 1 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1 4.9009 1 4.9009 1 9.000Oe- 1 9.000Oe- i 4.9301 ; 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . 1 1 005 1 005 1 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 003 8 8 j j 8 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 106010 •i 33.7770 i 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978 Rise 003 004 i --�------it------ Apartments Mid •---------------- *------- 3.94697e •i 1,257.587 i 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 Rise +006 9 i i i 9 General Office -j--------j------- i 584550 •i 186.2502 i 7.6900e- 1.5900e- 186.9165 Building 003 003 High Turnover (Sit -j- - - - - --- - - - - - - 1.58904e •1 506.3022 i 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135 Down Restaurant) i +006 003 -- Hotel -----•--------------- -ii------- i 550308 •1 175.3399 i 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672 003 003 - Quality •�- - - - - --- - - - - -- ------ii------- 353120 •1 112.5116 i 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141 Restaurant ;1 i 003 i 004 Regional 756000 •i 240.8778 i 9.9400e- 2.0600e- T 241.7395 Shopping Center 003 i 003 Total 2,512.646 0.1037 0.0215 2:521.635 5 6 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 106010 •i 33.7770 i 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978 Rise 003 004 i Apartments Mid • ---------------- 3.94697e •i 1,257.587 i 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 Rise +006 9 i i i 9 General Office -j--------j------- i 584550 •i 186.2502 i 7.6900e- 1.5900e- 186.9165 Building 003 003 High Turnover (Sit -j- - - - - --- - - - - - - 1.58904e •1 506.3022 i 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135 Down Restaurant) i +006 003 ---r--- Hotel ------- *------- ---ii•--------------- i 550308 •1 175.3399 i 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672 003 003 --- Quality •�- - - - - --- r------ii------- *------- 353120 •1 112.5116 i 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141 Restaurant ;1 003 i 004 Regional -------------- 756000 •i 240.8778 i 9.9400e- 2.0600e- 241.7395 Shopping Center 003 i 003 Total 2,512.646�71037 0.0215 2,521.635 5 6 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 � 10.3804 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 i i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 � 220.9670 i 0.0201 � 3.7400e- 1 222.5835 003 003 Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- - 0.0714 - 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 - 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 003 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.4137 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating % ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------*------- Consumer �� 4.3998 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 0.0206 i 0.1763 0.0750 i 1.1200e- i 0.0143 i 0.0143 i 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 i 204.1166 204.1166 i 3.9100e- 3.7400e- i 205.3295 •� 003 003 003 i . Landscaping •i 0.3096 i 0.1187 10.3054 i 5.4000e- i 0.0572 i 0.0572 i 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 i 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 i 17.2540 i 004 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.4137 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 4.3998 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 0.0206 i 0.1763 0.0750 i 1.1200e- 0.0143 i 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 i 204.1166 204.1166 i 3.9100e- 3.7400e- 205.3295 003 003 003 i Landscaping •i 0.3096 i 0.1187 10.3054 i 5.4000e- i 0.0572 i 0.0572 i 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 i 16.8504 16.8504 i 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 004 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 11 003 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •1 585.8052 i 3.0183 i 0.0755 i 683.7567 - - - - - - - - - - - % --------------4------------------------------- - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low 1.62885 / •1 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471 Rise 1.02688 ;i i 003 '-------- -------- ------- Apartments Mid 1 63.5252 / •1 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 Rise 40.0485 ; -- - - - --- - - - - - - General Office 1 7.99802 / •i 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- i 61.6019 Building 4.90201 ;i i 003 - - - - - - - ------- -j------- --------- - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit 10.9272 / •i 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 62.8482 Down Restaurant) i 0.697482 ;i i 003 ' -------- ------- Hotel i 1.26834 / •1 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- i 7.5079 0.140927 'i 003 -- - - - - --- - - - - - - Quality 2.42827 / •i 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663 Restaurant i 0.154996 ;i i 003 ---------- --------------- Regional 4.14806 / •i 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 31.9490 Shopping Center 2.54236 ;i i 003 Total 585.8052 j 3.0183 j 0.0755 683.7567 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low 1.62885 / •1 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471 Rise 1.02688 ;i i 003 '-------- -------- ------- Apartments Mid 1 63.5252 / •1 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 Rise 40.0485 ; -- - - - --- - - - - - - General Office 1 7.99802 / •i 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- i 61.6019 Building 4.90201 ;i 003 --r- ----- ------- -j--------------- * - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit 10.9272 / •i 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 62.8482 Down Restaurant) i 0.697482 ;i i 003 ' -------- ------- Hotel i 1.26834 / •1 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- i 7.5079 0.140927 'i 003 -- - - - - --- - - - - - - Quality 2.42827 / •i 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663 Restaurant i 0.154996 ;i i 003 ---------- --------------- Regional 4.14806 / •i 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 31.9490 Shopping Center 2.54236 ;i i 003 Total 585.8052 j 3.0183 j 0.0755 683.7567 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual CategoryNear Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 207.8079 i 12.2811 i 0.0000 1 514.8354 - - - - - - - - - - - % --------------+------------------------------ - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low 11.5 •1 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Rise •� i • '-------'------- Apartments Mid i 448.5 •i 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 i 225.5513 Rise •� -------- i -------- ------- '------- GeneralOffice i 41.85 •1 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 i 21.0464 Building i •� - ------ �i------- '------- '------- *------- High Turnover (Sit 428.4 •1 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Down Restaurant)1 •� • '-------'------- Hotel i 27.38 •1 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 i 13.7694 __ i i Quality 7.3 •i 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Restaurant i •� • -------- ------- 58.8 •i 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Shopping Center i •� Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low 11.5 •1 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Rise •� i • '-------'------- Apartments Mid i 448.5 •i 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 i 225.5513 Rise •� -------- i -------- ------- '------- GeneralOffice i 41.85 •1 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 i 21.0464 Building i •� - ------ �i------- '------- '------- *------- High Turnover (Sit 428.4 •1 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Down Restaurant)1 •� '-------'------- Hotel i 27.38 •1 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 i 13.7694 __ i i Quality 7.3 •i 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Restaurant i •� • - ' - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - Regional 58.8 •i 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Shopping Center i •� Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 ----------------------------_------------------------------_ h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 High ----------------------- - - - - -- = - - ;------- - - - - --- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 + -----------------------------_------------------------------_- Hotel 50.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = - ---;-------------- - - - - - - Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 ------ - - - --y----------------_------------------------------_- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = --- ----;-------------- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 _ --- - - - - -p--------------------_------------------------------ A Apartments Low Rise 25.00 + ----------------------------- = --- ----;------------- - - - - - - Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 ---- - - - - ---------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------= Apartments artments Mid Rise 975.00 + ----- -------- --------- -i------------------+--------------- Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------_------------------------------_ ----------------------- - - - - -- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass IT 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ -------------------------- NumberWood r 1.25 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------r----------------------------- ------------------------- NumberWood 48.75 0.00 ---------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------ ------------------------- ST_TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST_TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ST_TR 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST_TR r 158.37 79.82 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST_TR r 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 94.36 63.99 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 49.97 10.74 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 6.07 6.16 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- SU_TR 5.86 4.18 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 1.05 0.69 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- SU_TR 131.84 78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y---------------------------- SU_TR �-----------------------------T-------------------------- } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass i 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2021 •i 4.2769 i 46.4588 31.6840 i 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 i 20.3135 9.9840 i 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 i 6,234.797 6,234.797 i 1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535 4 i 4 i i 2 2022 •i 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 i 15,251.56 15,251.56 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 i i i i i •� 74 74 i 88 2023 •i 4.8957 i 26.3317 46.7567 i 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 i 10.6482 2.6381 i 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 i 14,807.52 14,807.52 i 1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15 2024 •1 237.1630 i 9.5575 15.1043 i 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 i 1.8628 0.4743 i 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 i 2,361.398 2,361.398 i 0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342 9 i 9 i i i 1 Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56 15,251.56 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 11 74 74 88 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2021 •i 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 i 6,234.797 6,234.797 1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535 i i i i i 4 i 4 i i 2 2022 •i 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 i 15,251.56 15,251.56 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 i i i i i •� 74 74 i 88 2023 •i 4.8957 i 26.3317 46.7567 i 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 i 10.6482 2.6381 i 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 i 14,807.52 14,807.52 i 1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15 2024 •1 237.1630 i 9.5575 15.1043 i 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 i 1.8628 0.4743 i 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 i 2,361.398 2,361.398 i 0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342 9 i 9 i i i 1 Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56 15,251.56 1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52 74 74 88 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 i i � � i � i i 50 50 i 92 --------------- Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile •1 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 i 46.2951 12.2950 i 0.3119 12.6070 i 50,306.60 50,306.60 i 2.1807 50,361.12 08 34 i 34 � � i Total 41.1168 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 76,811.18 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 11 762 16 16 86 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 88.4430 i 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 i 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 �� ■ 50 50 i 92 Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 i 8,405.638 '� i i i i i i i i i i i ■ 2 2 i 7 Mobile 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 i 46.2951 12.2950 i 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 50,306.60 i 2.1807 i 50,361.12 i ■ 34 34 i 08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 76,811.18 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 16 16 86 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !9/1/2021 110/12/2021 5 30: i i _ 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation !10/13/2021 i11/9/2021 5 20: i i _ 3 •Grading +Grading !11/10/2021 i1/11/2022 5 45: i i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction ! 1/12/2022 :12/12/2023 5: 500: i i _ 5 :Paving +Paving ! 12/13/2023 i 1/30/2024 5: 35: + I 1 1 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating -1/31/2024 -3/19/2024 5, 35- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 2 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 2 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 3 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 �_ _ i - - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 7.001 _ 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 46• 0.45 �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 2 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00 0.001 458.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix IHDT_Mix EHHDT ------------- Site Preparation 7; -----_-_, 18.00: --------i 0.001 0.00: --------- 14.70: ------------------------ 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------r--------_ ;HDT_Mix ?HHDT �- --------------- ° Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 14.70: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT ----------------° �- Building Construction v -------------=---------------''''-, 9; i----------i- 801.00- I --------i 143.001 ,- 0.00: ---------' --------- �- 14.70: ------------------------�----------' 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- ;HHDT ° �- Paving -------------- 6; - i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: ---------- 14.70: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT i f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ;1 , , , , 3.3074 , 0.0000 , 3.3074 , 0.5008 , 0.0000 ; 0.5008 � i , 0.0000 , , i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 , 31.4407 , 21.5650 , 0.0388 , , 1.5513 , 1.5513 , , 1.4411 ; 1.4411 i 3,747.944 , 3,747.944 , 1.0549 , i 3,774.317 9 i 9 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3:774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 1,292.241 0.0877 i 1,294.433 i i � i i � � i '� i i i i i i i i • 3 i 3 i i i 7 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0643 i 0.0442 i 0.6042 1.7100e- i 0.1677 1.3500e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2500e- 0.0457 i 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e- i 1 170.9413 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.0927 1,465.375 f-77771,463.056 8 17,463.056 8 1 0 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 i 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 i 31.4407 i 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 i 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 i i 3,774.317 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 9 9 i 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 i 1,292.241 1,292.241 0.0877 i 1,294.433 i i � i i • � � i '� i i i i i i i i • 3 i 3 i i i 7 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0643 i 0.0442 i 0.6042 1.7100e- i 0.1677 1.3500e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2500e- 0.0457 i 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e- i 1 170.9413 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.0927 1,465.375 f-77771,463.056 8 17,463.056 8 1 0 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 � 0.0380 i � 2.0445 � 2.0445 i � 1.8809 � 1.8809 � i 3,685.656 � 3,685.656 � 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 '� i i i i i i i i i • g 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0772 i 0.0530 i 0.7250 2.0600e- i 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 i 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- i i 205.1296 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 205.1296 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 i 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 i g 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0772 i 0.0530 i 0.7250 2.0600e- i 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 i 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- i i 205.1296 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e- 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e- 205.1296 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 777 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0857 i 0.0589 i 0.8056 2.2900e- i 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 i 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- i i 227.9217 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 227.9217 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0857 i 0.0589 i 0.8056 2.2900e- i 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 i 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- i i 227.9217 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e- 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e- 227.9217 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 � 0.0621 i � 1.6349 � 1.6349 i � 1.5041 1.5041 � i 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 � 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 i 5 5 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0803 i 0.0532 i 0.7432 2.2100e- i 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- i i 219.8941 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 219.8941 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 i 5 5 i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0803 i 0.0532 i 0.7432 2.2100e- i 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- i i 219.8941 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e- 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e- 219.8941 003 003 003 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 i 0.0269 0.8090 i 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.4079 i 13.2032 i 3.4341 � 0.0364 i 0.9155 � 0.0248 0.9404 i 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 3,896.548 0.2236 i i 3,902.138 2 i 2 i i i 4 Worker •i 3.2162 i 2.1318 i 29.7654 0.0883 i 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 i 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 i 8,800.685 8,800.685 0.2429 i i 8,806.758 7 i 7 i i i 2 Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 12,697.23 0.4665 12,708.89 j j j j [77712,697.23 39 39 j 66 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 i 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.4079 i 13.2032 i 3.4341 � 0.0364 i 0.9155 � 0.0248 0.9404 i 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548 3,896.548 0.2236 i i 3,902.138 2 i 2 i i i 4 Worker •i 3.2162 i 2.1318 i 29.7654 0.0883 i 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 i 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 i 8,800.685 8,800.685 0.2429 i i 8,806.758 7 i 7 i i i 2 Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 12,697.23 0.4665 12,708.89 j j j j [77712,697.23 39 39 j 66 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 � i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 i i i i i i i i 9 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.658T 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 j j j j j j 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.3027 i 10.0181 i 3.1014 0.0352 i 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 i 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 i 3,773.876 3,773.876 0.1982 i i 3,778.830 2 i 2 i i i 0 Worker •i 3.0203 i 1.9287 i 27.4113 0.0851 i 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 i 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440 8,478.440 0.2190 i i 8,483.916 8 i 8 i i i 0 Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31 12,252.31 0.4172 12,262.74 70 70 60 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 9 i 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 11 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.3027 i 10.0181 i 3.1014 0.0352 i 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 i 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 i 3,773.876 3,773.876 0.1982 i i 3,778.830 2 i 2 i i 1 0 Worker •i 3.0203 i 1.9287 i 27.4113 0.0851 i 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 i 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440 8,478.440 0.2190 i i 8,483.916 8 i 8 i i i 0 Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31 12,252.31 0.4172 12,262.74 70 70 60 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 i 10.1917 i 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i i 2,225.433 '� i i i i i i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 • Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0566 i 0.0361 i 0.5133 1.5900e- i 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- i i 158.8748 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 158.8748 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 i 10.1917 i 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 i 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i i 2,225.433 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 11 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0566 i 0.0361 i 0.5133 1.5900e- i 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- i i 158.8748 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e- 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e- 158.8748 003 003 003 003 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 14.6258 i 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0535 i 0.0329 i 0.4785 1.5400e- i 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 i 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- i i 153.9458 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 153.9458 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 i 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0535 i 0.0329 i 0.4785 1.5400e- i 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 i 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- i i 153.9458 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e- 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e- 153.9458 003 003 003 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 236.4115 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ��--------------------------------------------'----------------------- -+ ------� -------------'--------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.5707 i 0.3513 i 5.1044 0.0165 i 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 i 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 i 1,641.085 1,641.085 0.0401 i i 1,642.088 2 i 2 i i i 6 Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 777 1,641.085 1,641.085 0.0401 1,642.088 2 2 6 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � ---------------------------------------------'------------------------ --+ ------� -------------'--------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.5707 i 0.3513 i 5.1044 0.0165 i 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 i 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 i 1,641.085 1,641.085 0.0401 i i 1,642.088 2 i 2 i i i 6 Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 777 1,641.085 1,641.085 0.0401 1,642.088 2 2 6 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 i 45.9592 i 0.3360 46.2951 i 12.2950 � 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 50,306.60 2.1807 i i 50,361.12 •� . 34 34 i 08 Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 • 50,306.60 • 2.1807 - 50,361.12 34 34 08 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................-------------------------------- -----------------------:------------------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ; 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ------------T-----------Y------------------------:-------------------------- ......................................----------- General Office Building ; 288.45 ; 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 ......................................--- ----- ------------ - ---- - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -r - High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 .................................................. ---------- - ------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -r - Ho.............�---.----192.00 1--T----------- y-------------------------- 445,703 .. Quality Restaurant + 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 ......................................-------------------------- - - - - -- -----------------------:------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW IH-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 8.50 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 72.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 37 - - - - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - Quality Restaurant 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 12.00 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 69.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 38 - - - - - - - - - - 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971; 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332; 0.021166; 0.033577; 0.002613; 0.001817; 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216: 0.209971: 0.116369: 0.014033: 0.006332: 0.021166: 0.033577: 0.002613: 0.001817: 0.005285: 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f........*-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------� _ ..... _ . -0.002613 -0.001817 -0.005285 Hotel 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.014033, 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_----------------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 i 4.2573 0.0418 i i 0.5292 0.5292 i i 0.5292 0.5292 + i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 i 0.1532 1 8,405.638 Mitigated ;i . i 2 2 i 7 NaturalGas 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 • 8,355.983 • 0.1602 0.1532 • 8,405.638 Unmitigated 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low i 1119.16 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�---------------------- Apartments Mid 35784.3 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1------------------------------------------�-------�--------------- ------1------- --------------------- r------ � � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1283.42 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 ------7------- '1------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- � 1 ---------------------1 r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22759.9 •1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r-------1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4769.72 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 1 1 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 Quality 1 5057.75 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --r------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � v 1 1 1 1 T""--- 251.616 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low i 1.11916 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�---------------------- Apartments Mid i 35.7843 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1 1------- ----------------------------- -------�-------�--------------- ------1------- --------------------- r------71_----__ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1.28342 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 ------7------- '1------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- � 1 ---------------------1 r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22.7599 .1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r------�1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4.76972 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 I I 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -r------71 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 ------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �-------I-------1 1 1 T'------ Quality 5.05775 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --r------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T""--- 0.251616 •1 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 077 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 � 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 i i 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 50 50 92 -------------i i Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 • 18,148.59 - 0.4874 • 0.3300 • 18,259.11 50 50 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 2.2670 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating•' ' i %i- ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------*------- Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products •' . ' i Hearth •i 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 18,000.00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 i i i i i i i Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 50 50 92 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 2.2670 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 1.6500 i 14.1000 6.0000 i 0.0900 1.1400 i 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 i 18,000.00 18,000.00 i 0.3450 1 0.3300 1 18,106.96 ---- -- - - - ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --- - -- ------------------------------ Landscaping i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 152.1542 003 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 j j F-777000 50 50 j 92 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Fire Pumos and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 ----------------------------_------------------------------_ h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 High ----------------------- - - - - -- = - - ;------- - - - - --- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 + -----------------------------_------------------------------_- Hotel 50.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = - ---;-------------- - - - - - - Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 ------ - - - --y----------------_------------------------------_- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = --- ----;-------------- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 _ --- - - - - -p--------------------_------------------------------ A Apartments Low Rise 25.00 + ----------------------------- = --- ----;------------- - - - - - - Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 ---- - - - - ---------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------= Apartments artments Mid Rise 975.00 + ----- -------- --------- -i------------------+--------------- Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------_------------------------------_ ----------------------- - - - - -- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass IT 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ -------------------------- NumberWood r 1.25 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------r----------------------------- ------------------------- NumberWood 48.75 0.00 ---------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------ ------------------------- ST_TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST_TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ST_TR 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST_TR r 158.37 79.82 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips -------------------------------------- ST_TR r 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 94.36 63.99 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 49.97 10.74 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 6.07 6.16 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- SU_TR 5.86 4.18 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- SU_TR r 1.05 0.69 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- SU_TR 131.84 78.27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y---------------------------- SU_TR �-----------------------------T-------------------------- } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass i 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2021 •i 4.2865 i 46.4651 31.6150 i 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 i 20.3135 9.9840 i 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 i 6,221.493 6,221.493 i 1.9491 � 0.0000 6,270.221 7 i 7 i i 4 2022 •i 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 i 14,630.30 14,630.30 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 i i i i i 99 99 63 2023 •i 5.2705 i 26.4914 � 44.5936 i 0.1413 � 9.8688 � 0.7800 i 10.6488 � 2.6381 i 0.7328 3.3708 � 0.0000 i 14,210.34 � 14,210.34 i 1.0230 � 0.0000 � 14,235.91 •� i i � � i � i � � i 24 i 24 i 60 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------*-------� -------------------------------*------- 2024 •1 237.2328 i 9.5610 15.0611 i 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 i 1.8628 0.4743 i 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 i 2,352.417 2,352.417 i 0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355 8 i 8 i i i 0 Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30 14,630.30 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 11 99 99 63 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2021 •i 4.2865 i 46.4651 31.6150 i 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 i 20.3135 9.9840 i 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 i 6,221.493 6,221.493 i 1.9491 � 0.0000 6,270.221 7 i 7 i i 4 2022 •i 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 i 14,630.30 14,630.30 1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26 i i i i i 99 99 63 2023 •i 5.2705 i 26.4914 � 44.5936 i 0.1413 � 9.8688 � 0.7800 i 10.6488 � 2.6381 i 0.7328 3.3708 � 0.0000 i 14,210.34 � 14,210.34 i 1.0230 � 0.0000 � 14,235.91 •� i i � � i � i � � i 24 i 24 i 60 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------*-------� -------------------------------*------- 2024 •1 237.2328 i 9.5610 15.0611 i 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 i 1.8628 0.4743 i 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 i 2,352.417 2,352.417 i 0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355 8 i 8 i i i 0 Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30 14,630.30 1.94 99 0.0000 14,657.26 99 99 63 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 i i � � i � i i 50 50 i 92 Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile •i 9.5233 i 45.9914 � 110.0422 i 0.4681 � 45.9592 � 0.3373 i 46.2965 � 12.2950 i 0.3132 12.6083 i 47,917.80 � 47,917.80 i 2.1953 � � 47,972.68 '� 05 05 i 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 74,422.37 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 87 87 17 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 88.4430 i 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 i 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 �� ■ 50 50 i 92 Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 i 8,405.638 '� i i i i i i i i i i i ■ 2 2 i 7 Mobile 9.5233 i 45.9914 110.0422 i 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 i 46.2965 12.2950 i 0.3132 12.6083 � 47,917.80 47,917.80 i 2.1953 47,972.68 i ■ 05 05 i 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 74,422.37 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 87 87 17 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !9/1/2021 110/12/2021 5 30: i i _ 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation !10/13/2021 i11/9/2021 5 20: i i _ 3 •Grading +Grading !11/10/2021 i1/11/2022 5 45: i i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction ! 1/12/2022 :12/12/2023 5: 500: i i _ 5 :Paving +Paving ! 12/13/2023 i 1/30/2024 5: 35: + I 1 1 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating -1/31/2024 -3/19/2024 5, 35- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 2 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 2 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 3 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 �_ _ i - - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 7.001 _ 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 46• 0.45 �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 2 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00" 0.001 458.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix (HHDT ------------- Site Preparation 7; -----_--, 18.00: --------i 0.001 0.00: --------- 14.70: ------------------------ 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------r--------_ ;HDT_Mix ;HHDT �- --------------- ° Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 14.70: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT ----------------° �- Building Construction v -------------=---------------''''-, 9; i----------i- 801.00- I --------i 143.001 ,- 0.00: ---------' --------- �- 14.70: ------------------------�----------' 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- ;HHDT ° �- Paving -------------- 6; - i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: ---------- 14.70: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT i f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ;1 , , , , 3.3074 , 0.0000 , 3.3074 , 0.5008 , 0.0000 ; 0.5008 � i , 0.0000 , , i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 , 31.4407 , 21.5650 , 0.0388 , , 1.5513 , 1.5513 , , 1.4411 ; 1.4411 i 3,747.944 , 3,747.944 , 1.0549 , i 3,774.317 9 i 9 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3:774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 1,269.855 0.0908 i 1,272.125 i i � i � i i '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i i 2 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0715 i 0.0489 i 0.5524 1.6100e- i 0.1677 1.3500e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2500e- 0.0457 i 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e- i 1 160.9560 003 003 003 003 1 Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693 1,430.693 0.0955 1,433.081 2 2 2 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 i 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 i 31.4407 i 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 i 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 i i 3,774.317 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 9 9 i 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 i 1,269.855 1,269.855 0.0908 i 1,272.125 i i � i � i • i '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i i 2 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0715 i 0.0489 i 0.5524 1.6100e- i 0.1677 1.3500e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2500e- 0.0457 i 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e- i 1 160.9560 003 003 003 003 1 Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693 1,430.693 0.0955 1,433.081 2 2 2 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 � 0.0380 i � 2.0445 � 2.0445 i � 1.8809 � 1.8809 � i 3,685.656 � 3,685.656 � 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 '� i i i i i i i i • g i 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0858 i 0.0587 i 0.6629 1.9400e- i 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 i 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- i i 193.1472 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 193.1472 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 i 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 i g g 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0858 i 0.0587 i 0.6629 1.9400e- i 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 i 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- i i 193.1472 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e- 0.2012 1.6300e- 0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e- 0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e- 193.1472 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 777 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0954 i 0.0652 i 0.7365 2.1500e- i 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 i 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- i i 214.6080 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 214.6080 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0954 i 0.0652 i 0.7365 2.1500e- i 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 i 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- i i 214.6080 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e- 0.2236 1.8100e- 0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e- 0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e- 214.6080 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 � 0.0621 i � 1.6349 � 1.6349 i � 1.5041 1.5041 � i 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 � 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 i 5 5 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0896 i 0.0589 i 0.6784 2.0800e- i 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- i i 207.0563 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 207.0563 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 i 5 5 i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0896 i 0.0589 i 0.6784 2.0800e- i 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- i i 207.0563 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e- 0.2236 1.7500e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e- 0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e- 207.0563 003 003 003 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 i 0.0269 0.8090 i 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.4284 i 13.1673 i 3.8005 � 0.0354 i 0.9155 � 0.0256 0.9412 i 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 3,789.075 0.2381 i i 3,795.028 0 i 0 i i i 3 Worker •i 3.5872 i 2.3593 i 27.1680 0.0832 i 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 i 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 i 8,286.901 8,286.901 0.2282 i i 8,292.605 3 i 3 i i i 8 Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 12,075.97 0.4663 12,087.63 [77712,075.97 63 63 41 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 i 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.4284 i 13.1673 i 3.8005 � 0.0354 i 0.9155 � 0.0256 0.9412 i 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 3,789.075 0.2381 i i 3,795.028 0 i 0 i i i 3 Worker •i 3.5872 i 2.3593 i 27.1680 0.0832 i 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 i 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 i 8,286.901 8,286.901 0.2282 i i 8,292.605 3 i 3 i i i 8 Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 12,075.97 0.4663 12,087.63 [77712,075.97 63 63 41 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 � i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 i i i i i i i i 9 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.658T 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 j j j j j j 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.3183 i 9.9726 i 3.3771 0.0343 i 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 i 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 i 3,671.400 3,671.400 0.2096 i i 3,676.641 7 i 7 i i i 7 Worker •i 3.3795 i 2.1338 i 24.9725 0.0801 i 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 i 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731 � 7,983.731 0.2055 i i 7,988.868 8 i 8 i i i 3 Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13 11,655.13 0.4151 11,665.50 j j j j 25 25 j 99 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 9 i 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 11 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.3183 i 9.9726 i 3.3771 0.0343 i 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 i 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 i 3,671.400 3,671.400 0.2096 i i 3,676.641 '� i i i i i i i i • 7 i 7 i i i 7 Worker •i 3.3795 i 2.1338 i 24.9725 0.0801 i 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 i 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731 � 7,983.731 0.2055 i i 7,988.868 8 i 8 i i i 3 Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13 11,655.13 0.4151 11,665.50 j j j j 25 25 j 99 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 i 10.1917 i 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i i 2,225.433 '� i i i i i i i i • 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0633 i 0.0400 i 0.4677 � 1.5000e- i 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- i i 149.6043 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 149.6043 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 i 10.1917 i 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 i 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i i 2,225.433 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 11 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0633 i 0.0400 i 0.4677 � 1.5000e- i 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- i i 149.6043 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e- 0.1677 1.2800e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e- 0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e- 149.6043 003 003 003 003 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 14.6258 i 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0601 i 0.0364 i 0.4354 1.4500e- i 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- i i 144.9587 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 144.9587 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 i 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0601 i 0.0364 i 0.4354 1.4500e- i 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 i 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- i i 144.9587 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e- 0.1677 1.2600e- 0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e- 0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e- 144.9587 003 003 003 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 236.4115 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.6406 i 0.3886 i 4.6439 0.0155 i 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 i 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 i 1,545.286 1,545.286 0.0376 1,546.226 0 i 0 i i i 2 Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 1,545.286 0.0376 7546.226 0 0 2 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I Off -Road •1 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.6406 i 0.3886 i 4.6439 0.0155 i 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 i 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 i 1,545.286 1,545.286 0.0376 1,546.226 0 i 0 i i i 2 Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286 1,545.286 0.0376 7546.226 0 0 2 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 9.5233 i 45.9914 i 110.0422 i 0.4681 45.9592 i 0.3373 , 46.2965 i 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 i 47,917.80 47,917.80 2.1953 i : 47,972.68 •� . 05 05 i 39 Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 - 47,917.80 47,917.80 • 2.1953 - 47,972.68 05 05 39 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................-------------------------------- -----------------------:------------------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ; 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ------------T-----------Y------------------------:-------------------------- ......................................----------- General Office Building ; 288.45 ; 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 ......................................--- ----- ------------ - ---- - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -r - High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 .................................................. ---------- - ------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -r - Ho.............�---.----192.00 1--T----------- y-------------------------- 445,703 .. Quality Restaurant + 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 ......................................-------------------------- - - - - -- -----------------------:------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW IH-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 8.50 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 72.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 37 - - - - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - Quality Restaurant 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 12.00 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 69.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 38 - - - - - - - - - - 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971; 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332; 0.021166; 0.033577; 0.002613; 0.001817; 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216: 0.209971: 0.116369: 0.014033: 0.006332: 0.021166: 0.033577: 0.002613: 0.001817: 0.005285: 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f........*-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------� _ ..... _ . -0.002613 -0.001817 -0.005285 Hotel 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.014033, 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_----------------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 i 4.2573 0.0418 i i 0.5292 0.5292 i i 0.5292 0.5292 + i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 i 0.1532 1 8,405.638 Mitigated ;i . i 2 2 i 7 NaturalGas 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 • 8,355.983 • 0.1602 0.1532 • 8,405.638 Unmitigated 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low i 1119.16 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�---------------------- Apartments Mid 35784.3 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1------------------------------------------�-------�--------------- ------1------- --------------------- r------ � � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1283.42 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 ------7------- '1------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- � 1 ---------------------1 r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22759.9 •1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r-------1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4769.72 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 1 1 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 Quality 1 5057.75 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --r------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � v 1 1 1 1 T""--- 251.616 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low i 1.11916 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�---------------------- Apartments Mid i 35.7843 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1 1------- ----------------------------- -------�-------�--------------- ------1------- --------------------- r------71_----__ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1.28342 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 ------7------- '1------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- � 1 ---------------------1 r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22.7599 .1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r------�1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4.76972 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 I I 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -r------71 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 ------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �-------I-------1 1 1 T'------ Quality 5.05775 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --r------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T""--- 0.251616 •1 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 077 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 � 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 i i 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 50 50 92 -------------i i Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 • 18,148.59 - 0.4874 • 0.3300 • 18,259.11 50 50 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 2.2670 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating•' ' i %i- ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------*------- Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products •' . ' i Hearth •i 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 18,000.00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 i i i i i i i Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 50 50 92 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 2.2670 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 1.6500 i 14.1000 6.0000 i 0.0900 1.1400 i 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 i 18,000.00 18,000.00 i 0.3450 1 0.3300 1 18,106.96 ---- -- - - - ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --- - -- ------------------------------ Landscaping i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 152.1542 003 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 j j F-777000 50 50 j 92 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Fire Pumos and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 ---------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- - h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 + High = — — ;-------------------- 1000sgft ; 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 -----------------------------_------------------------------ _------------------------------ Hotel 50.00 + = — -- —;------------- ------- Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 -----------y----------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 + = --- ---—;-------------------- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 ----------------------------_------------------------------_----------------------------- Apartments Low Rise 25.00 + = --- --------- —;------------- Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 -----------------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------=-----------------------i------------------+--------------- Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------ _------------------------------ _----------------------------- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces -----r------------------------------ FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- NumberWood 1.25 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ ------------------------- NumberWood r 48.75 0.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------r----------------------------- -------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST_TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- ST_TR 158.37 79.82 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y---------------------------- ST_TR �-----------------------------T-------------------------- } 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR } 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass i 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 •i 0.1704 i 1.8234 � 1.1577 i 2.3800e- 0.4141 � 0.0817 i 0.4958 0.1788 i 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 i 210.7654 210.7654 i 0.0600 0.0000 212.2661 003 2022 •i 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 i 1,418.655 1,418.655 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 i i i i i 2023 •i 0.5190 i 3.2850 � 4.7678 i 0.0147 � 0.8497 � 0.0971 i 0.9468 � 0.2283 i 0.0912 0.3195 � 0.0000 i 1,342.441 1,342.441 i 0.1115 0.0000 1,345.229 '� i i i i i i i i • 2 i 2 i i 1 2024 •i 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.000Oe- 0.0221 6.3900e- 0.0285 5.8700e- 5.9700e- 0.0118 0.0000 i 44.6355 44.6355 7.8300e- 0.0000 44.8311 i i i i i 004 003 003 003 003 i Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 1,418.655 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 11 4 4 5 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 •i 0.1704 i 1.8234 � 1.1577 i 2.3800e- 0.4141 � 0.0817 i 0.4958 0.1788 i 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 i 210.7651 210.7651 i 0.0600 0.0000 212.2658 003 2022 •i 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 i 1,418.655 1,418.655 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 i i i i i 0 2023 •i 0.5190 i 3.2850 4.7678 i 0.0147 0.8497 0.0971 i 0.9468 0.2283 i 0.0912 0.3195 0.0000 i 1,342.440 1,342.440 i 0.1115 0.0000 1,345.228 9 i 9 i i 7 2024 •i 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.000Oe- 0.0221 6.3900e- 0.0285 5.8700e- 5.9700e- 0.0118 0.0000 i 44.6354 44.6354 7.8300e- 0.0000 44.8311 i i i i i 004 003 003 003 003 Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655 1,418.655 0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692 11 0 0 1 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4091 1.4091 2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3329 1.3329 3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1499 1.1499 4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1457 1.1457 5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1415 1.1415 6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 1.0278 7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.9868 0.9868 8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.9831 0.9831 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.9798 0.9798 10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8757 2.8757 11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6188 1.6188 Highest 2.8757 2.8757 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 i 10.3804 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 i i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 i 220.9670 i 0.0201 i 3.7400e- 222.5835 Energy •i 0.1398 i 1.2312 i 0.7770 7.6200e- i i 0.0966 i 0.0966 i i 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1 3,896.073 i 3,896.073 i 0.1303 i 0.0468 3,913.283 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i 3 ;� i i i i Mobile •1 1.5857 i 7.9962 i 19.1834 i 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 i 7.8559 i 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 1 7,620.498 7,620.498 i 0.3407 0.0000 1 7,629.016 '1 i i i i i i i i 1 6 i 6 i i 1 2 Waste •1 i i i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 i 0.0000 207.8079 i 12.2811 0.0000 1 514.8354 ------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- -------------- ----------------------*------r------ ---------------j-------*------- Water •1 i i i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 � 29.1632 i 556.6420 � 585.8052 i 3.0183 � 0.0755 � 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 12,531.15 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 j j j j 07 19 j 51 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 10.3804 i 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 � i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 � 220.9670 i 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 003 003 i Energy •i 0.1398 i 1.2312 0.7770 i 7.6200e- 0.0966 i 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 i 3,896.073 3,896.073 i 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283 003 i i i i i 2 i 2 i i i 3 Mobile •i 1.5857 i 7.9962 19.1834 i 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 i 7.8559 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 i 7,620.498 7,620.498 i 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016 6 i 6 i i i 2 Waste •1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 i 0.0000 207.8079 i 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water •1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 29.1632 i 556.6420 585.8052 i 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 12,531.15 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47 07 19 51 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 ;Demolition +Demolition 19/1/2021 110/12/2021 5: 30: + i 2 :Site Preparation +Site Preparation 110/13/2021 :11/9/2021 5: 20: + i 3 •Grading +Grading 111/10/2021 :1/11/2022 5: 45: + i 4 -Building Construction +Building Construction 11/12/2022 :12/12/2023 5: 500: + i 5 -Paving +Paving 112/13/2023 :1/30/2024 5: 35: + i 6 -Architectural Coating -Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5. 35, Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 2 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 2 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 3 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 �_ _ i - - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 7.001 _ 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 46• 0.45 �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 2 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00" , 0.001 458.00; 10.00: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix (HHDT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Site Preparation - - - - - - - - - - - - - �_ 7; ________ __'------ -- 18.00: I - - 0.001 - - - - - - i 0.00: - - - - - - - - - ' - - 10.00: - - - - - - - - - - 6.90; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.00;LD_Mix - - - - - - - - - ;HDT_Mix - T - - - - - - - - - ;HHDT --------------- ° �- Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 10.00: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT ----------------° �- Building Construction v -------------=---------------''''-, 9; i----------i- 801.00- I --------i 143.001 ,- 0.00: ---------' --------- �- 10.00: ------------------------�----------' 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- ;HHDT ° �- Paving -------------- 6; - i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: ---------- 10.00: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT i f ; Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.00, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i , , , , 0.0496 , 0.0000 , 0.0496 , 7.5100e- , 0.0000 ; 7.5100e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0475 , 0.4716 , 0.3235 , 5.8000e- , , 0.0233 , 0.0233 , , 0.0216 ; 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0012 , 51.0012 , 0.0144 , 0.0000 i 51.3601 004 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 1.9300e- i 0.0634 i 0.0148 1.8000e- i 3.9400e- 1.9000e- 4.1300e- i 1.0800e- 1.8000e- 1.2600e- 0.0000 i 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e- i 0.0000 i 17.4869 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 7.2000e- 5.3000e- 6.0900e- 2.000Oe- 1.6800e- 1.000Oe- 1.6900e- 4.5000e- 1.000Oe- 4.6000e- 0.0000 i 1.5281 1.5281 5.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.5293 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 2.6500e- 0.0639 0.0209 2.000Oe- 5.6200e- 2.000Oe- 5.8200e- 1.5300e- 1.9000e- 1.7200e- 0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e- 0.0000 19.0161 11 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 i 7.5100e- 0.0000 7.5100e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 003 Off -Road •i 0.0475 i 0.4716 i 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 i 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 i 0.0000 i 51.3600 004 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e- 0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e- 0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 004 003 1 j CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Hauling •I 1.9300e- I 0.0634 I 0.0148 11.8000e- 13.9400e- I 1.9000e- 14.1300e- I 1.0800e- 11.8000e- 1.2600e- 0.0000 I 17.4566 I 17.4566 11.2100e- I 0.0000 i 17.4869 �I 003 I I I 004 I 003 I 004 I 003 I 003 I 004 003003 I I- I I I I I I I I I I I Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I I I- I I I Worker •I 7.2000e- 1.6800e- 1.00OOe- 4.6000e- � 0.0000 I 1.5281 1.5281 0.0000 i 1.5293 15.3000e- 16.0900e- 12.00OOe- I I 11.6900e- 14.5000e- 11.00OOe- I 15.00OOe- I 'I 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 005 � Total 2.6500e- 0.0639 0.0209 2.00OOe- 5.6200e- 2.00OOe- 5.8200e- 1.5300e- 1.9000e- 1.7200e- 0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e- 0.0000 19.0161 11 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1807 I 0.0000 I 0.1807 I 0.0993 I 0.0000 0.0993 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I •I I I I I I I I I I I I I Off -Road •I 0.0389 I 0.4050 I 0.2115 13.8000e- I I 0.0204 I 0.0204 I I 0.0188 � 0.0188 � 0.0000 I 33.4357 I 33.4357 I 0.0108 I 0.0000 i 33.7061 004 I I I I 1 I I I I Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Hauling •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I • I- I I I I I I I I I I I Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Worker •I 5.8000e- 1.3400e- 1.000Oe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 I 1.2225 1.2225 0.0000 i 1.2234 14.3000e- 14.8700e- 11.000Oe- I I 11.3500e- 13.6000e- 11.000Oe- I 14.000Oe- I 'I 'I 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 I 005 � I I I I I I I 1 • Total 5.8000e- 4.3000e- 4.8700e- 1.000Oe- 1.3400e- 1.000Oe- 1.3500e- 3.6000e- 1.000Oe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0007 0.0000 1.2234 11 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I I I I I I Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1807 I 0.0000 I 0.1807 I 0.0993 I 0.0000 0.0993 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 ;� I I I I I I I 1 • � I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I •I I I I I I I I I I I I I Off -Road •I 0.0389 I 0.4050 I 0.2115 13.8000e- I I 0.0204 I 0.0204 I I 0.0188 � 0.0188 � 0.0000 I 33.4357 I 33.4357 I 0.0108 I 0.0000 i 33.7060 004 I I I I 1 • I I I I Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e- 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 - ------------------------------------------'------------------ - - -- -- - -+-------------'--------------- ------- Worker •i 5.8000e- 4.3000e- 4.8700e- 1.00OOe- 1.3400e- 1.00OOe- 1.3500e- 3.6000e- 1.00OOe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 i 1.2225 1.2225 4.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.2234 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 5.8000e- 4.3000e- 4.8700e- 1.00OOe- 1.3400e- 1.00OOe- 1.3500e- 3.6000e- 1.00OOe- 3.7000e- 0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.00OOe- 0.0000 1.2234 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 i 0.0693 i 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0796 i 0.8816 i 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 i 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 i 0.0000 i 104.3776 003 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ------------------------------------------'------------------------ --+-------------'---------------------- Worker •i 1.2200e- 9.000Oe- 0.0103 3.000Oe- 2.8300e- 2.000Oe- 2.8600e- 7.5000e- 2.000Oe- 7.8000e- 0.0000 i 2.5808 2.5808 8.000Oe- 0.0000 i 2.5828 i i i i i 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 1.2200e- 9.000Oe- 0.0103 3.000Oe- 2.8300e- 2.000Oe- 2.8600e- 7.5000e- 2.000Oe- 7.8000e- 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0007 0.0000 2.5828 11 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 0.1741 i 0.0000 i 0.1741 i 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0796 i 0.8816 i 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 i 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 i 0.0000 i 104.3775 003 i i i i i • i i i i Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e- 0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.2200e- 9.000Oe- 0.0103 3.000Oe- 2.8300e- 2.000Oe- 2.8600e- 7.5000e- 2.000Oe- 7.8000e- 0.0000 i 2.5808 2.5808 8.000Oe- 0.0000 i 2.5828 i i i i i 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 1.2200e- 9.000Oe- 0.0103 3.000Oe- 2.8300e- 2.000Oe- 2.8600e- 7.5000e- 2.000Oe- 7.8000e- 0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.000Oe- 0.0000 2.5828 7-t-I 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 0.0807 i 0.0000 i 0.0807 0.0180 i 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 0.0807 5.7200e- 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 19.2414 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 2.1000e- i 1.5000e- i 1.7400e- 1.000Oe- i 5.2000e- 0.0000 5.3000e- i 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- 0.0000 i 0.4587 0.4587 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.4590 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 Total 2.1000e- 1.5000e- 1.7400e- 1.0000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 5.3000e- 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.000Oe- 0.0000 0.4590 11 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 0.0807 i 0.0000 i 0.0807 0.0180 i 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 5.7200e- 5.7200e- 5.2600e- 5.2600e- 0.0000 i 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 i 19.2414 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e- 0.0807 5.7200e- 0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e- 0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e- 0.0000 19.2414 004 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 2.1000e- i 1.5000e- i 1.7400e- 1.00OOe- i 5.2000e- 0.0000 5.3000e- i 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- 0.0000 i 0.4587 0.4587 1.00OOe- i 0.0000 i 0.4590 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 Total 2.1000e- 1.5000e- 1.7400e- 1.00OOe- 5.2000e- 0.0000 5.3000e- 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4000e- 0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.00OOe- 0.0000 0.4590 11 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.2158 i 1.9754 2.0700 i 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 i i 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 i 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 i 0.0000 i 294.8881 003 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0527 i 1.6961 i 0.4580 4.5500e- i 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 i 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 0.0000 i 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 442.6435 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.3051 i 0.2164 i 2.5233 7.3500e- i 0.7557 6.2300e- 0.7619 i 0.2007 5.7400e- 0.2065 0.0000 i 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 i 0.0000 i 664.4604 003 003 003 i Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e- 0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e- 0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977 1,105.977 0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103 003 003 1 1 9 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.2158 i 1.9754 i 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 i 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 i 0.0000 i 294.8877 003 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e- 0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0527 i 1.6961 i 0.4580 4.5500e- i 0.1140 3.1800e- 0.1171 i 0.0329 3.0400e- 0.0359 0.0000 i 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 442.6435 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.3051 i 0.2164 i 2.5233 7.3500e- i 0.7557 6.2300e- 0.7619 i 0.2007 5.7400e- 0.2065 0.0000 i 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 i 0.0000 i 664.4604 003 003 003 i Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e- 0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e- 0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977 1,105.977 0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103 003 003 1 1 9 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1942 i 1.7765 i 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 i 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 i 0.0000 i 287.9814 003j Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 003 j CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0382 i 1.2511 i 0.4011 4.3000e- i 0.1113 1.4600e- 0.1127 i 0.0321 1.4000e- 0.0335 0.0000 i 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 i 0.0000 i 418.5624 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.2795 i 0.1910 i 2.2635 6.9100e- i 0.7377 5.9100e- 0.7436 i 0.1960 5.4500e- 0.2014 0.0000 i 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 i 0.0000 i 624.9466 003 003 003 i Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e- 0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e- 0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529 1,042.529 0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509 003 003 4 4 0 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1942 i 1.7765 i 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 i 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 i 0.0000 i 287.9811 i i i i i • i i i i 003j Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e- 0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 003 j CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0382 i 1.2511 i 0.4011 4.3000e- i 0.1113 1.4600e- 0.1127 i 0.0321 1.4000e- 0.0335 0.0000 i 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 i 0.0000 i 418.5624 003 003 003 i Worker •i 0.2795 i 0.1910 i 2.2635 6.9100e- i 0.7377 5.9100e- 0.7436 i 0.1960 5.4500e- 0.2014 0.0000 i 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 i 0.0000 i 624.9466 003 003 003 i Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e- 0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e- 0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529 1,042.529 0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509 003 003 4 4 0 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 i 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 i 13.1227 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 1 m CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ��----------------------- ---------------------'----------------------- -+ - -------------'--.--�-------T Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 '� I '� • I • Worker •i 2.8000e- 1.9000e- 2.2300e- 1.000Oe- 7.3000e- 1.000Oe- 7.3000e- 1.9000e- 1.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.6156 0.6156 2.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.6160 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 2.8000e- 1.9000e- 2.2300e- 1.000Oe- 7.3000e- 1.000Oe- 7.3000e- 1.9000e- 1.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.6160 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 i 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 i 13.1227 i i i •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 6.7100e- 0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e- 3.3200e- 3.3200e- 3.0500e- 3.0500e- 0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e- 0.0000 13.1227 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 1 1 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I Worker •i 2.8000e- 1.9000e- 2.2300e- 1.00OOe- 7.3000e- 1.00OOe- 7.3000e- 1.9000e- 1.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.6156 0.6156 2.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.6160 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 2.8000e- 1.9000e- 2.2300e- 1.00OOe- 7.3000e- 1.00OOe- 7.3000e- 1.9000e- 1.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.6160 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0109 i 0.1048 0.1609 i 2.5000e- i i 5.1500e- i 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 i 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- i 0.0000 i 22.2073 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.0000 22.2073 11 004 003 003 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 4.4000e- 2.9000e- 3.5100e- 1.000Oe- 1.2300e- 1.000Oe- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.000Oe- 3.4000e- 0.0000 i 1.0094 1.0094 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.0100 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 4.4000e- 2.9000e- 3.5100e- 1.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.000Oe- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.000Oe- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.000Oe- 0.0000 1.0100 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I I PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 i 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.0000 i 22.2073 i i i •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Paving •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e- 5.1500e- 5.1500e- 4.7400e- 4.7400e- 0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e- 0.0000 11 004 003 003 003 003 003 m CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 4.4000e- 2.9000e- 3.5100e- 1.00OOe- 1.2300e- 1.00OOe- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.00OOe- 3.4000e- 0.0000 i 1.0094 1.0094 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.0100 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 4.4000e- 2.9000e- 3.5100e- 1.00OOe- 1.2300e- 1.00OOe- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.00OOe-F74000e- 0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.00OOe- 0.0000 1.0100 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •1 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 i i i 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.00OOe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.4745 005 003 003 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 7.4800e- 4.9300e- 0.0596 1.9000e- 0.0209 1.6000e- 0.0211 5.5500e- 1.5000e- 5.7000e- 0.0000 i 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 0.0000 i 17.1394 i i i i i 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i Total 7.4800e- 4.9300e- 0.0596 1.9000e- 0.0209 1.6000e- 0.0211 5.5500e- 1.5000e- 5.7000e- 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 0.0000 17.1394 11 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •1 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1600e- 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 i 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 4.4745 i i i 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.000Oe- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.4745 005 003 003 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 7.4800e- 4.9300e- 0.0596 1.9000e- 0.0209 1.6000e- 0.0211 5.5500e- 1.5000e- 5.7000e- 0.0000 i 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 0.0000 i 17.1394 i i i i i 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i Total 7.4800e- 4.9300e- 0.0596 1.9000e- 0.0209 1.6000e- 0.0211 5.5500e- 1.5000e- 5.7000e- 0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e- 0.0000 17.1394 11 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 1.5857 i 7.9962 i 19.1834 i 0.0821 i 7.7979 i 0.0580 7.8559 i 2.0895 i 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 i 7,620.498 � 7,620.498 � 0.3407 i 0.0000 i 7,629.016 6 i 6 i i i 2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 • 7,620.498 • 0.3407 - 0.0000 • 7,629.016 6 6 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................-------------------------------- -----------------------:------------------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ; 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ------------T-----------Y------------------------:-------------------------- ......................................----------- General Office Building ; 288.45 ; 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 ......................................--- ----- ------------ - ---- - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -r - High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 .................................................. ---------- - ------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -r - Ho.............�---.----192.00 1--T----------- y-------------------------- 445,703 .. Quality Restaurant + 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 ......................................-------------------------- - - - - -- -----------------------:------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW IH-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 8.50 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 72.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 37 - - - - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - Quality Restaurant 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 12.00 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 69.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 38 - - - - - - - - - - 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971; 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332; 0.021166; 0.033577; 0.002613; 0.001817; 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216: 0.209971: 0.116369: 0.014033: 0.006332: 0.021166: 0.033577: 0.002613: 0.001817: 0.005285: 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f........*-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------� _ ..... _ . -0.002613 -0.001817 -0.005285 Hotel 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.014033, 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_----------------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity •1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 0.0000 1 I 1 0.0000 1 I I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I I 12,512.646 1 2,512.646 I 0.1037 I 1 0.0215 i 2,521.635 Mitigated 5 1 5 1 1 1 6 •1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 Electricity •1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 0.0000 1 I 1 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 I 12,512.646 1 2,512.646 I 0.1037 I 1 0.0215 2,521.635 Unmitigated 5 1 5 1 I 1 6 •1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 NaturalGas 0.1398I 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 I 0.0254 1 1,391.647 Miti 1 I 003 7 7 8gated I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 NaturalGas 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- - 0.0966 0.0966 - 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 • 1,383.426 • 0.0265 - 0.0254 • 1,391.647 Unmitigated 003 7 7 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 408494 42.2000e- 1 0.0188 1 8.0100e- 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1 1.5200e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1.5200e- � 0.0000 1 21.7988 1 21.7988 1 4.2000e- 1 4.000Oe- i 21.9284 Rise 1 '1 003 1 1 003 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 004 1 004 1 ; 1 1 r------�I------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � - 1 1 1 1 T Apartments Mid i 1.30613e .1 0.0704 1 0.6018 1 0.2561 1 3.8400e- 1 1 0.0487 1 0.0487 1 1 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 1 696.9989 1 696.9989 1 0.0134 1 0.0128 i 701.1408 Rise +007 ; 1 I I 003 _ 1 ; 1 r------71------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � - 1 1 1 1 T General Office Building i 468450 .1 2.5300e- 1 0.0230 1 0.0193 1 1.4000e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1 1.7500e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 1 24.9983 1 24.9983 1 4.8000e- 1 4.6000e- i 25.1468 1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 -----------1 '1-----------------------------------------------------------------------• 1------------------------1 High Turnover (Sit 8.30736e •1 0.0448 1 0.4072 1 0.3421 1 2.4400e- 1 1 0.0310 1 0.0310 1 1 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 1 443.3124 1 443.3124 1 8.5000e- 1 8.1300e- i 445.9468 Down Restaurant) 1 +006 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 ----------- Hotel ------ �'1------------------------------------------�-------�---------------� 1 �-------�-------�-------1 r71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �____--'I-------1 1 1 T____'-_ 1.74095e 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 1 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 1.7000e- 93.4557 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 __ " '-" "I Quality 1 j-------i-------i-------i-------i--------------- i------- i---------------. 1 �-------�-------�-------' r------71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �____--'I-------1 1 1 T____'-_ 1 1.84608e •1 9.9500e- 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 1.8100e- 1 99.0993 Restaurant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 __t------71-------1 1 , I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 - 1 I I I T_____-_ Regional Shopping Centers i 91840 .1 5.000Oe- 1 4.5000e- 1 3.7800e- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.4000e- 1 3.4000e- 1 1 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1 4.9009 1 4.9009 1 9.000Oe- 1 9.000Oe- i 4.9301 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . 1 1 005 1 005 1 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 003 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 408494 42.2000e- 1 0.0188 1 8.0100e- 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1 1.5200e- 1 1 1.5200e- 1.5200e- � 0.0000 1 21.7988 1 21.7988 1 4.2000e- 1 4.000Oe- i 21.9284 Rise 1 '1 003 1 1 003 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 004 1 004 1 1 ; 1 r------�I------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , - 1 1 1 1 T Apartments Mid i 1.30613e .1 0.0704 1 0.6018 1 0.2561 1 3.8400e- 1 1 0.0487 1 0.0487 1 1 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 1 696.9989 1 696.9989 1 0.0134 1 0.0128 i 701.1408 Rise +007 ; 1 I I 003 _ 1 ; 1 r------71------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , - 1 1 1 1 T General Office Building i 468450 .1 2.5300e- 1 0.0230 1 0.0193 1 1.4000e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1 1.7500e- 1 1 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 1 24.9983 1 24.9983 1 4.8000e- 1 4.6000e- i 25.1468 1 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 -----------1 '1-----------------------------------------------------------------------• 1------------------------1 High Turnover (Sit 8.30736e .1 0.0448 1 0.4072 1 0.3421 1 2.4400e- 1 1 0.0310 1 0.0310 1 1 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 1 443.3124 1 443.3124 1 8.5000e- 1 8.1300e- i 445.9468 Down Restaurant) 1 +006 i 1 1 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 ----------- Hotel ------ �'1------------------------------------------�-------�---------------� 1 �-------�------- -------1 r71-------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , �____--'I-------1 1 1 ------- 1.74095e •1 9.3900e- 0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 1 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e- 1.7000e- 93.4557 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -""'-""i Quality '1 j-------i-------i-------i-------i--------------- i------- i---------------��1 �-------�-------�-------1 r-------------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , ____--'I-------1 1 1 T_----- 71 1.84608e •1 9.9500e- 0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 6.8800e- 0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e- 1.8100e- 99.0993 Restaurant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +006 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 __t------71-------1 1 , I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 - 1 I I I T_____-_ Regional Shopping Centers i 91840 •1 5.000Oe- 1 4.5000e- 1 3.7800e- 1 3.000Oe- 1 1 3.4000e- 1 3.4000e- 1 1 3.4000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1 4.9009 1 4.9009 1 9.000Oe- 1 9.000Oe- i 4.9301 ; 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 004 004 . 1 1 005 1 005 1 Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e- 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426 1,383.426 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647 003 8 8 j j 8 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 106010 •i 33.7770 i 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978 Rise 003 004 i --�------it------ Apartments Mid •---------------- *------- 3.94697e •i 1,257.587 i 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 Rise +006 9 i i i 9 General Office -j--------j------- i 584550 •i 186.2502 i 7.6900e- 1.5900e- 186.9165 Building 003 003 High Turnover (Sit -j- - - - - --- - - - - - - 1.58904e •1 506.3022 i 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135 Down Restaurant) i +006 003 -- Hotel -----•--------------- -ii------- i 550308 •1 175.3399 i 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672 003 003 - Quality •�- - - - - --- - - - - -- ------ii------- 353120 •1 112.5116 i 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141 Restaurant ;1 i 003 i 004 Regional 756000 •i 240.8778 i 9.9400e- 2.0600e- T 241.7395 Shopping Center 003 i 003 Total 2,512.646 0.1037 0.0215 2:521.635 5 6 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low 106010 •i 33.7770 i 1.3900e- 2.9000e- 33.8978 Rise 003 004 i Apartments Mid • ---------------- 3.94697e •i 1,257.587 i 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086 Rise +006 9 i i i 9 General Office -j--------j------- i 584550 •i 186.2502 i 7.6900e- 1.5900e- 186.9165 Building 003 003 High Turnover (Sit -j- - - - - --- - - - - - - 1.58904e •1 506.3022 i 0.0209 4.3200e- 508.1135 Down Restaurant) i +006 003 ---r--- Hotel ------- *------- ---ii•--------------- i 550308 •1 175.3399 i 7.2400e- 1.5000e- 175.9672 003 003 --- Quality •�- - - - - --- r------ii------- *------- 353120 •1 112.5116 i 4.6500e- 9.6000e- 112.9141 Restaurant ;1 003 i 004 Regional -------------- 756000 •i 240.8778 i 9.9400e- 2.0600e- 241.7395 Shopping Center 003 i 003 Total 2,512.646�71037 0.0215 2,521.635 5 6 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 5.1437 i 0.2950 � 10.3804 1.6700e- 0.0714 i 0.0714 i i 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 i 220.9670 � 220.9670 i 0.0201 � 3.7400e- 1 222.5835 003 003 Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e- - 0.0714 - 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 - 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 003 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.4137 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating % ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------*------- Consumer �� 4.3998 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 0.0206 i 0.1763 0.0750 i 1.1200e- i 0.0143 i 0.0143 i 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 i 204.1166 204.1166 i 3.9100e- 3.7400e- i 205.3295 •� 003 003 003 i . Landscaping •i 0.3096 i 0.1187 10.3054 i 5.4000e- i 0.0572 i 0.0572 i 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 i 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 i 17.2540 i 004 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.4137 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 4.3998 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 0.0206 i 0.1763 0.0750 i 1.1200e- 0.0143 i 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 i 204.1166 204.1166 i 3.9100e- 3.7400e- 205.3295 003 003 003 i Landscaping •i 0.3096 i 0.1187 10.3054 i 5.4000e- i 0.0572 i 0.0572 i 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 i 16.8504 16.8504 i 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 004 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e- 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 222.5835 11 003 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •1 585.8052 i 3.0183 i 0.0755 i 683.7567 - - - - - - - - - - - % --------------4------------------------------- - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low i 1.62885 / •1 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471 Rise i 1.02688 003 i•i ------- ------- 1 11 Apartments Mid 63.5252 / •i 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 Rise i 40.0485 i General Office 7.99802 / ■i 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- 11 61.6019 Building i 4.90201 ;i 003 i•i ------- ------- High Turnover (Sit 10.9272 / ■i 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 1 62.8482 Down Restaurant) i 0.697482 003 i ___r ------- .�____-__ T_______ Hotel 1.26834 / •i 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- 7.5079 i 0.140927 ;: 003 ----------- r------- .T�____-__ T_______ Quality 2.42827 / •i 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663 Restaurant i 0.154996 003 i ___________ ------- T_______ Regional 4.14806 / •i 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 31.9490 Shopping Center i 2.54236 003 Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Low 1.62885 / •1 10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e- 12.6471 Rise 1.02688 ;i i 003 '-------- -------- ------- Apartments Mid 1 63.5252 / •1 425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363 Rise 40.0485 ; -- - - - --- - - - - - - General Office 1 7.99802 / •i 53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e- i 61.6019 Building 4.90201 ;i 003 --r- ----- ------- -j--------------- * - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit 10.9272 / •i 51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e- 62.8482 Down Restaurant) i 0.697482 ;i i 003 ' -------- ------- Hotel i 1.26834 / •1 6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e- i 7.5079 0.140927 'i 003 -- - - - - --- - - - - - - Quality 2.42827 / •i 11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e- 13.9663 Restaurant i 0.154996 ;i i 003 ---------- --------------- Regional 4.14806 / •i 27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e- 31.9490 Shopping Center 2.54236 ;i i 003 Total 585.8052 j 3.0183 j 0.0755 683.7567 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual CategoryNear Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 207.8079 i 12.2811 i 0.0000 1 514.8354 - - - - - - - - - - - % --------------+------------------------------ - - - - - - - Unmitigated •• 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low 11.5 •1 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Rise •� i • '-------'------- Apartments Mid i 448.5 •i 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 i 225.5513 Rise •� -------- i -------- ------- '------- GeneralOffice i 41.85 •1 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 i 21.0464 Building i •� - ------ �i------- '------- '------- *------- High Turnover (Sit 428.4 •1 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Down Restaurant)1 •� • '-------'------- Hotel i 27.38 •1 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 i 13.7694 __ i i Quality 7.3 •i 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Restaurant i •� • -------- ------- 58.8 •i 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Shopping Center i •� Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low 11.5 •1 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Rise •� i • '-------'------- Apartments Mid i 448.5 •i 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 i 225.5513 Rise •� -------- i -------- ------- '------- GeneralOffice i 41.85 •1 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 i 21.0464 Building i •� - ------ �i------- '------- '------- *------- High Turnover (Sit 428.4 •1 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430 Down Restaurant)1 •� '-------'------- Hotel i 27.38 •1 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 i 13.7694 __ i i Quality 7.3 •i 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712 Restaurant i •� • - ' - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - Regional 58.8 •i 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706 Shopping Center i •� Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 44 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 ----------------------------_------------------------------_ h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 High ----------------------- - - - - -- = - - ;------- - - - - --- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 + -----------------------------_------------------------------_- Hotel 50.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = - ---;-------------- - - - - - - Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 ------ - - - --y----------------_------------------------------_- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = --- ----;-------------- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 _ --- - - - - -p--------------------_------------------------------ A Apartments Low Rise 25.00 + ----------------------------- = --- ----;------------- - - - - - - Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 ---- - - - - ---------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------= Apartments artments Mid Rise 975.00 + ----- -------- --------- -i------------------+--------------- Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------_------------------------------_ ----------------------- - - - - -- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces -----r------------------------------ FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- NumberWood 1.25 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ ------------------------- NumberWood r 48.75 0.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------r----------------------------- -------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST_TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- ST_TR 158.37 79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y---------------------------- ST_TR ---------------------------------T-------------------------- } 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR } 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass i 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2021 •i 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 i 6,163.416 6,163.416 1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103 i i � i i i 2022 •i 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 i 12,493.44 12,493.44 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 i i i i i 03 03 07 2023 •i 4.1534 i 25.7658 38.7457 i 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 i 7.7679 1.8799 i 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 i 12,150.48 12,150.48 i 0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46 2024 •1 237.0219 i 9.5478 14.9642 i 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 i 1.2875 0.3229 i 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 i 2,313.180 2,313.180 i 0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095 8 i 8 i i i 6 Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44 12,493.44 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 11 03 03 07 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2021 •i 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 i 6,163.416 6,163.416 1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103 i i � i i i 2022 •i 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 i 12,493.44 12,493.44 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 i i i i i 03 03 07 2023 •i 4.1534 i 25.7658 38.7457 i 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 i 7.7679 1.8799 i 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 i 12,150.48 12,150.48 i 0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46 2024 •1 237.0219 i 9.5478 14.9642 i 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 i 1.2875 0.3229 i 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 i 2,313.180 2,313.180 i 0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095 8 i 8 i i i 5 Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44 12,493.44 1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57 03 03 07 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 i i � � i � i i 50 50 i 92 --------------- Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile •1 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 i 46.2951 12.2950 i 0.3119 12.6070 i 50,306.60 50,306.60 i 2.1807 50,361.12 08 34 i 34 � � i Total 41.1168 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 76,811.18 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 11 762 16 16 86 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 88.4430 i 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 i 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 �� ■ 50 50 i 92 Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 i 8,405.638 '� i i i i i i i i i i i ■ 2 2 i 7 Mobile 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 i 46.2951 12.2950 i 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 50,306.60 i 2.1807 i 50,361.12 i ■ 34 34 i 08 Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18 76,811.18 2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87 16 16 86 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !9/1/2021 110/12/2021 5 30: i i _ 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation !10/13/2021 i11/9/2021 5 20: i i _ 3 •Grading +Grading !11/10/2021 i1/11/2022 5 45: i i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction ! 1/12/2022 :12/12/2023 5: 500: i i _ 5 :Paving +Paving ! 12/13/2023 i 1/30/2024 5: 35: + I 1 1 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating -1/31/2024 -3/19/2024 5, 35- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 2 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 2 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 3 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 �_ _ i - - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 7.001 _ 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 46• 0.45 �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 2 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00 0.001 458.00; 10.00: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix IHDT_Mix EHHDT - - - - - - - - - - - - - Site Preparation 7; --------- I, 18.00: - - 0.001 - - - - - - i 0.00: - - - - - - - - - - - 10.00: - - - - - - - - - - 6.90; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.00;LD_Mix --------------------- ;HDT_Mix ?HHDT �- --------------- ° Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 10.00: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT ----------------° �- Building Construction v -------------=---------------''''-, 9; i----------i- 801.00- I --------i 143.001 ,- 0.00: ---------' --------- �- 10.00: ------------------------�----------' 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- ;HHDT ° �- Paving -------------- 6; - i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: ---------- 10.00: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT i f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.00, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ;1 , , , , 3.3074 , 0.0000 , 3.3074 , 0.5008 , 0.0000 ; 0.5008 � i , 0.0000 , , i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 , 31.4407 , 21.5650 , 0.0388 , , 1.5513 , 1.5513 , , 1.4411 ; 1.4411 i 3,747.944 , 3,747.944 , 1.0549 , i 3,774.317 9 i 9 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3:774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241 1,292.241 0.0877 i 1,294.433 i i � i i � � i '� i i i i i i i i • 3 i 3 i i i 7 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0487 i 0.0313 i 0.4282 1.1800e- i 0.1141 9.5000e- 0.1151 i 0.0303 8.8000e- 0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e- i i 117.3678 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.0912 1,411.801 f-77771,409.521 2 17,409.5211 2 1 5 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 i 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 i 31.4407 i 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 i 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 i i 3,774.317 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 9 9 i 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 i 1,292.241 1,292.241 0.0877 i 1,294.433 i i � i i • � � i '� i i i i i i i i • 3 i 3 i i i 7 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0487 i 0.0313 i 0.4282 1.1800e- i 0.1141 9.5000e- 0.1151 i 0.0303 8.8000e- 0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e- i i 117.3678 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.0912 1,411.801 f-7771,409.521 2 17,409.5211 2 1 5 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 � 0.0380 i � 2.0445 � 2.0445 i � 1.8809 � 1.8809 � i 3,685.656 � 3,685.656 � 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 '� i i i i i i i i i • g 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0584 i 0.0375 i 0.5139 1.4100e- i 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 i 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- i i 140.8414 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 140.8414 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 i 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 i g 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0584 i 0.0375 i 0.5139 1.4100e- i 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 i 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 i 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- i i 140.8414 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e- 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e- 140.8414 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 777 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0649 i 0.0417 i 0.5710 1.5700e- i 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 1 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- i i 156.4904 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 156.4904 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 8.6733 0.0000 i 8.6733 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0649 i 0.0417 i 0.5710 1.5700e- i 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- i i 156.4904 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e- 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e- 156.4904 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 � 0.0621 i � 1.6349 � 1.6349 i � 1.5041 1.5041 � i 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 � 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 i i i 5 5 i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0607 i 0.0376 i 0.5263 1.5100e- i 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- i i 150.9813 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 150.9813 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 i 5 5 i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0607 i 0.0376 i 0.5263 1.5100e- i 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- i i 150.9813 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e- 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e- 150.9813 003 003 003 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 i 0.0269 0.8090 i 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.4079 i 13.2032 i 3.4341 0.0364 i 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 i 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 i 3,896.548 3,896.548 0.2236 i i 3,902.138 2 i 2 i i i 4 Worker •i 2.4299 i 1.5074 i 21.0801 0.0607 i 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 i 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 i 6,042.558 6,042.558 0.1697 i i 6,046.800 5 i 5 i i 1 0 Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 9,939.106 0.3933 9,948.938 [7779,939.106 7 7 4 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 i 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.4079 i 13.2032 i 3.4341 0.0364 i 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 i 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 i 3,896.548 3,896.548 0.2236 i i 3,902.138 2 i 2 i i i 4 Worker •i 2.4299 i 1.5074 i 21.0801 0.0607 i 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 i 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 i 6,042.558 6,042.558 0.1697 i i 6,046.800 5 i 5 i i 1 0 Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 9,939.106 0.3933 9,948.938 [7779,939.106 7 7 4 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 � i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 i i i i i i i i 9 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.658T 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 j j j j j j 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.3027 i 10.0181 i 3.1014 0.0352 i 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 i 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 i 3,773.876 3,773.876 0.1982 i i 3,778.830 2 i 2 i i i 0 Worker •i 2.2780 i 1.3628 i 19.4002 0.0584 i 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 i 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 i 5,821.402 5,821.402 0.1529 5,825.225 8 i 8 i i i 4 Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279 9,595.279 0.3511 9,604.055 0 0 4 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 9 i 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 11 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.3027 i 10.0181 i 3.1014 0.0352 i 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 i 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 i 3,773.876 3,773.876 0.1982 i i 3,778.830 2 i 2 i i 1 0 Worker •i 2.2780 i 1.3628 i 19.4002 0.0584 i 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 i 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 i 5,821.402 5,821.402 0.1529 i i 5,825.225 8 i 8 i i i 4 Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279 9,595.279 0.3511 9,604.055 0 0 4 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 i 10.1917 i 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i i 2,225.433 '� i i i i i i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 • Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0427 i 0.0255 i 0.3633 1.0900e- i 0.1141 9.000Oe- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- i i 109.0866 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 0.1141 9.000Oe- 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 109.0866 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 i 10.1917 i 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 i 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i i 2,225.433 1 i 1 i i i 6 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 11 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0427 i 0.0255 i 0.3633 1.0900e- i 0.1141 9.00OOe- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- i i 109.0866 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e- 0.1141 9.00OOe- 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e- 109.0866 003 004 004 003 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 14.6258 i 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0403 i 0.0233 i 0.3384 1.0600e- i 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- i i 105.6992 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 105.6992 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 i 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0403 i 0.0233 i 0.3384 1.0600e- i 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- i i 105.6992 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e- 105.6992 003 004 004 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 236.4115 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4296 i 0.2481 i 3.6098 0.0113 i 1.2171 � 9.4300e- 1.2266 i 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,126.758 1,126.758 0.0280 i i 1,127.458 003 003 3 3 i 3 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,126.758 1,126.758 0.0280 1,127.458 =.t.l 003 003 3 3 3 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4296 i 0.2481 i 3.6098 0.0113 i 1.2171 � 9.4300e- 1.2266 i 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,126.758 1,126.758 0.0280 i i 1,127.458 003 003 3 3 i 3 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e- 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,126.758 1,126.758 0.0280 1,127.458 =.t.' 003 003 3 3 3 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 9.8489 i 45.4304 114.8495 i 0.4917 i 45.9592 i 0.3360 46.2951 i 12.2950 � 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 50,306.60 2.1807 i i 50,361.12 •� . 34 34 i 08 Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60 • 50,306.60 • 2.1807 - 50,361.12 34 34 08 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................-------------------------------- -----------------------:------------------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ; 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ------------T-----------Y------------------------:-------------------------- ......................................----------- General Office Building ; 288.45 ; 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 ......................................--- ----- ------------ - ---- - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -r - High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 .................................................. ---------- - ------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -r - Ho.............�---.----192.00 1--T----------- y-------------------------- 445,703 .. Quality Restaurant + 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 ......................................-------------------------- - - - - -- -----------------------:------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW IH-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 8.50 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 72.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 37 - - - - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - Quality Restaurant 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 12.00 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 69.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 38 - - - - - - - - - - 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971; 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332; 0.021166; 0.033577; 0.002613; 0.001817; 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216: 0.209971: 0.116369: 0.014033: 0.006332: 0.021166: 0.033577: 0.002613: 0.001817: 0.005285: 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f........*-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------� _ ..... _ . -0.002613 -0.001817 -0.005285 Hotel 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.014033, 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_----------------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 i 4.2573 0.0418 i i 0.5292 0.5292 i i 0.5292 0.5292 + i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 i 0.1532 1 8,405.638 Mitigated ;i . i 2 2 i 7 NaturalGas 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 • 8,355.983 • 0.1602 0.1532 • 8,405.638 Unmitigated 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low i 1119.16 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�---------------------- Apartments Mid 35784.3 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1------------------------------------------�-------�--------------- ------1------- --------------------- r------ � � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1283.42 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 ------7------- '1------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- � 1 ---------------------1 r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22759.9 •1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r-------1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4769.72 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 1 1 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 Quality 1 5057.75 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --r------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � v 1 1 1 1 T""--- 251.616 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low i 1.11916 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�---------------------- Apartments Mid i 35.7843 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1 1------- ----------------------------- -------�-------�--------------- ------1------- --------------------- r------71_----__ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1.28342 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 ------7------- '1------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- � 1 ---------------------1 r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22.7599 .1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r------�1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4.76972 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 I I 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -r------71 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 ------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �-------I-------1 1 1 T'------ Quality 5.05775 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --r------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T""--- 0.251616 •1 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 077 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 � 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 i i 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 50 50 92 -------------i i Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 • 18,148.59 - 0.4874 • 0.3300 • 18,259.11 50 50 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 2.2670 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating•' ' i %i- ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------*------- Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products •' . ' i Hearth •i 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 18,000.00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 i i i i i i i Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 50 50 92 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 2.2670 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 1.6500 i 14.1000 6.0000 i 0.0900 1.1400 i 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 i 18,000.00 18,000.00 i 0.3450 1 0.3300 1 18,106.96 ---- -- - - - ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --- - -- ------------------------------ Landscaping i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 152.1542 003 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 j j F-777000 50 50 j 92 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer Fire Pumos and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 + 1000sgft ; 1.03 45,000.00 i 0 ----------------------------_------------------------------_ h Turnover Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 High ----------------------- - - - - -- = - - ;------- - - - - --- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.83 36,000.00 -+ 0 + -----------------------------_------------------------------_- Hotel 50.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = - ---;-------------- - - - - - - Room ; 1.67 72,600.00 - 1 0 ------ - - - --y----------------_------------------------------_- Qualit Restaurant 8.00 + ---------------------- - - - - -- = --- ----;-------------- - - - - -- 1000sgft ; 0.18 8,000.00 -+ 0 _ --- - - - - -p--------------------_------------------------------ A Apartments Low Rise 25.00 + ----------------------------- = --- ----;------------- - - - - - - Dwelling Unit ; 1.56 25,000.00 -+ 72 ---- - - - - ---------------------_------------------------------_------------------------------= Apartments artments Mid Rise 975.00 + ----- -------- --------- -i------------------+--------------- Dwelling Unit ; 25.66 975,000.00 i 2789 ------------------------------_------------------------------_ ----------------------- - - - - -- --------------}------------------E------------- Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sgft 1.29 56,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 702.44 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses. Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths. Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition. Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips. Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood -burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces. Energy Use - Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction -related mitigation. Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures. Trips and VMT - Local hire provision Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces -----r------------------------------ FireplaceWood Mass 1,019.20 0.00 ---------------------------- tblFireplaces ------------------------------ r-------------------------------------------------------- NumberWood 1.25 0.00 -------------p-------------_------------------- tblFire laces ------------ ------------------------- NumberWood r 48.75 0.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------r----------------------------- -------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tbITripsAndVMT ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- WorkerTripLength r 14.70 10.00 ----------------------------_----------------- tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 7.16 6.17 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------r------------------------------------------------------- ST_TR 6.39 3.87 ----------------------------_-----------------------------' tblVehicleTrips --------------------------------------- ST_TR r 2.46 1.39 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips ------------------------------t------------------------------ -------------------------- ST_TR 158.37 79.82 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75 ----------------------------- tblVehicleTrips Y---------------------------- ST_TR �-----------------------------T-------------------------- } 94.36 63.99 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR } 49.97 10.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 6.07 6.16 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 5.86 4.18 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 1.05 0.69 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 131.84 78.27 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear } 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass i 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year lb/day lb/day 2021 •i 4.2621 i 46.4460 31.4068 i 0.0635 18.2032 � 2.0456 i 20.2488 9.9670 i 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 i 6,154.337 6,154.337 i 1.9472 � 0.0000 6,203.018 7 i 7 i i i 6 ------------- 2022 •i 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 i 12,035.34 12,035.34 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 i � i � � i � i � � i 40 40 i 13 2023 •i 4.3939 i 25.8648 37.5031 i 0.1162 � 7.0088 0.7598 i 7.7685 1.8799 i 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 i 11,710.40 11,710.40 i 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44 2024 •i 237.0656 i 9.5503 14.9372 i 0.0238 1.2171 � 0.4694 i 1.2875 0.3229 i 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 i 2,307.051 2,307.051 i 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962 '� i i i i i i i i • 7 i 7 i i i 7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 12,035.34 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 11 40 40 13 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year lb/day lb/day 2021 •i 4.2621 i 46.4460 31.4068 i 0.0635 18.2032 � 2.0456 i 20.2488 9.9670 i 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 i 6,154.337 6,154.337 i 1.9472 � 0.0000 6,203.018 7 i 7 i i i 6 ------------- 2022 •i 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 i 12,035.34 12,035.34 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 i � i � � i � i � � i 40 40 i 13 2023 •i 4.3939 i 25.8648 37.5031 i 0.1162 � 7.0088 0.7598 i 7.7685 1.8799 i 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 i 11,710.40 11,710.40 i 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44 2024 •i 237.0656 i 9.5503 14.9372 i 0.0238 1.2171 � 0.4694 i 1.2875 0.3229 i 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 i 2,307.051 2,307.051 i 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962 '� i i i i i i i i • 7 i 7 i i i 7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 12,035.34 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60 11 40 40 13 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 i i � � i � i i 50 50 i 92 Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 i 2 i i i 7 Mobile •i 9.5233 i 45.9914 � 110.0422 i 0.4681 � 45.9592 � 0.3373 i 46.2965 � 12.2950 i 0.3132 12.6083 i 47,917.80 � 47,917.80 i 2.1953 � � 47,972.68 '� 05 05 i 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 74,422.37 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 87 87 17 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 88.4430 i 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 i 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 �� ■ 50 50 i 92 Energy •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 4.2573 i 0.0418 0.5292 i 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 0.1532 i 8,405.638 '� i i i i i i i i i i i ■ 2 2 i 7 Mobile 9.5233 i 45.9914 110.0422 i 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 i 46.2965 12.2950 i 0.3132 12.6083 � 47,917.80 47,917.80 i 2.1953 47,972.68 i ■ 05 05 i 39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 74,422.37 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44 87 87 17 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 •Demolition !Demolition !9/1/2021 110/12/2021 5 30: i i _ 2 Site Preparation +Site Preparation !10/13/2021 i11/9/2021 5 20: i i _ 3 •Grading +Grading !11/10/2021 i1/11/2022 5 45: i i _ 4 •Building Construction +Building Construction ! 1/12/2022 :12/12/2023 5: 500: i i _ 5 :Paving +Paving ! 12/13/2023 i 1/30/2024 5: 35: + I 1 1 6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating -1/31/2024 -3/19/2024 5, 35- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non -Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non -Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ; 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- �- - -------------------------- ----------- Demolition +Excavators ; 3 8.001 158• 0.38 + _ i _ Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.001 247• 0.40 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 3 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 41 8.001 97• 0.37 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Excavators ; 2 8.001 158• 0.38 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.001 187• 0.41 -------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.001 247• 0.40 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------i ------ - - - - --------------- ----------- Grading 'Scrapers ; 21 8.001 367• 0.48 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 2 8.001 97• 0.37 ---------------------------- _ i -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 11 7.001 231, 0.29 �_ i - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction 'Forklifts ; 3 8.001 89• 0.20 + _ __ i i _ Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.001 _ 84• 0.74 �_ _ i - - - - -------------------------- ----------- Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 7.001 _ 97• 0.37 + __ i i Building Construction 'Welders ; 1 8.001 46• 0.45 �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving +Pavers ; 2 8.001 130• 0.42 --------------------------- �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Paving Equipment ; 21 8.001 132• 0.36 i �- - - - -------------------------- ----------- Paving 'Rollers ; 2 8.001 80• 0.38 ---------------------------- --------------------------*-----------------F------------ r------------- ----------- Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 • 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition A 6; 15.00" , 0.001 458.00; 10.00: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix (HHDT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Site Preparation - - - - - - - - - - - - - �_ 7; ________ __'------ -- 18.00: I - - 0.001 - - - - - - i 0.00: - - - - - - - - - ' - - 10.00: - - - - - - - - - - 6.90; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.00;LD_Mix - - - - - - - - - ;HDT_Mix - T - - - - - - - - - ;HHDT --------------- ° �- Grading -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------�- 0.00: -------------------------- 10.00: 6.90; 20.00.LD_Mix ------' iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT ----------------° �- Building Construction v -------------=---------------''''-, 9; i----------i- 801.00- I --------i 143.001 ,- 0.00: ---------' --------- �- 10.00: ------------------------�----------' 6.90, 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -------- ;HHDT ° �- Paving -------------- 6; - i------------ 15.00: --------i 0.001 ,----------4- 0.00: ---------- 10.00: 6.90; -------------' 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix -- EHHDT i f I Architectural Coating ; 1; 160.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.00, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ;1 , , , , 3.3074 , 0.0000 , 3.3074 , 0.5008 , 0.0000 ; 0.5008 � i , 0.0000 , , i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1651 , 31.4407 , 21.5650 , 0.0388 , , 1.5513 , 1.5513 , , 1.4411 ; 1.4411 i 3,747.944 , 3,747.944 , 1.0549 , i 3,774.317 9 i 9 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3:774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 1,269.855 0.0908 i 1,272.125 i i � i � i i '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i i 2 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0532 i 0.0346 i 0.3963 1.1100e- i 0.1141 9.5000e- 0.1151 i 0.0303 8.8000e- 0.0311 i 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e- i 1 110.5539 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326 1,380.326 0.0941 1,382.679 2 2 1 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 i 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.1551 i 31.4407 i 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 i 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 i i 3,774.317 '� i i i i i i i i i i i • 9 9 i 4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 3,747.944 1.0549 3,774.317 9 9 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 i 1,269.855 1,269.855 0.0908 i 1,272.125 i i � i � i • i '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i i 2 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0532 i 0.0346 i 0.3963 1.1100e- i 0.1141 9.5000e- 0.1151 i 0.0303 8.8000e- 0.0311 i 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e- i 1 110.5539 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.0941 1,382.679 f-77771,380.326 2 17,380.326 2 1 1 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 i 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 � 0.0380 i � 2.0445 � 2.0445 i � 1.8809 � 1.8809 � i 3,685.656 � 3,685.656 � 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 '� i i i i i i i i i • g 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0638 i 0.0415 i 0.4755 1.3300e- i 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 i 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- i i 132.6646 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 132.6646 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 i i i i 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 i 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 i i 3,715.457 i g 9 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0638 i 0.0415 i 0.4755 1.3300e- i 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 i 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- i i 132.6646 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e- 0.1369 1.1400e- 0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e- 0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e- 132.6646 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 � 0.0620 i � 1.9853 � 1.9853 i � 1.8265 � 1.8265 � i 6,007.043 � 6,007.043 � 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 777 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0709 i 0.0462 i 0.5284 1.4800e- i 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- i i 147.4051 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 147.4051 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 i i i 4 4 i 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0709 i 0.0462 i 0.5284 1.4800e- i 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- i i 147.4051 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e- 0.1521 1.2700e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e- 0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e- 147.4051 003 003 003 003 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 � 0.0621 i � 1.6349 � 1.6349 i � 1.5041 1.5041 � i 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 � 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 i i i 5 5 i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0665 i 0.0416 i 0.4861 1.4300e- i 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.000Oe- i i 142.2207 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.000Oe- 142.2207 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 8.6733 i 0.0000 8.6733 i 3.5965 i 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 3.6248 i 38.8435 i 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 i 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 i i 6,060.015 i i i 5 5 i 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0665 i 0.0416 i 0.4861 1.4300e- i 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 i 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.00OOe- i i 142.2207 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e- 0.1521 1.2300e- 0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e- 0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.00OOe- 142.2207 003 003 003 003 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 i 0.0269 0.8090 i 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.4284 i 13.1673 i 3.8005 � 0.0354 i 0.9155 � 0.0256 0.9412 i 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 3,789.075 0.2381 i i 3,795.028 0 i 0 i i i 3 Worker •i 2.6620 i 1.6677 i 19.4699 0.0571 i 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 i 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 i 5,691.935 5,691.935 0.1602 i i 5,695.940 4 i 4 i i i 8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 9,481.010 0.3984 9,490.969 4 4 1 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 i 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 6 i 6 i i i 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.4284 i 13.1673 i 3.8005 � 0.0354 i 0.9155 � 0.0256 0.9412 i 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 3,789.075 0.2381 i i 3,795.028 0 i 0 i i i 3 Worker •i 2.6620 i 1.6677 i 19.4699 0.0571 i 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 i 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 i 5,691.935 5,691.935 0.1602 i i 5,695.940 4 i 4 i i i 8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 9,481.010 0.3984 9,490.969 4 4 1 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 � i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 i i i i i i i i 9 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.658T 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 j j j j j j 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.3183 i 9.9726 i 3.3771 0.0343 i 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 i 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 i 3,671.400 3,671.400 0.2096 i i 3,676.641 7 i 7 i i i 7 Worker •i 2.5029 i 1.5073 i 17.8820 0.0550 i 6.0932 0.0479 � 6.1411 i 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 5,483.797 0.1442 i i 5,487.402 4 i 4 i i i 0 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 777 9,155.198 9,155.198 0.3538 9,164.043 1 1 7 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.5728 i 14.3849 i 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 i 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 i i 2,570.406 9 i 9 i 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 11 9 9 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.3183 i 9.9726 i 3.3771 0.0343 i 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 i 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 i 3,671.400 3,671.400 0.2096 i i 3,676.641 '� i i i i i i i i • 7 i 7 i i i 7 Worker •i 2.5029 i 1.5073 i 17.8820 0.0550 i 6.0932 0.0479 � 6.1411 i 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 5,483.797 0.1442 i i 5,487.402 '� i i i i i i i i • 4 i 4 i i i 0 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 777 9,155.198 9,155.198 0.3538 9,164.043 1 1 7 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 i 10.1917 i 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i i 2,225.433 '� i i i i i i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 • Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0469 i 0.0282 i 0.3349 1.0300e- i 0.1141 9.000Oe- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- i i 102.7603 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 0.1141 9.000Oe- 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 102.7603 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.0327 i 10.1917 i 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 i 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 i i 2,225.433 '� i i i i i i i i 1 i 1 i i i 6 • Paving •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0469 i 0.0282 i 0.3349 1.0300e- i 0.1141 9.00OOe- 0.1150 i 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- i i 102.7603 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e- 0.1141 9.00OOe- 0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e- 0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e- 102.7603 003 004 004 003 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 14.6258 i 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.000Oe- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- i 99.5663 i i i i i 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.000Oe- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 99.5663 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 i 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 2 i 2 i i i 3 Paving •i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 11 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.00OOe- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- i 99.5663 i i i i i 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.00OOe- 0.1141 8.8000e- 0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e- 0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e- 99.5663 003 004 004 003 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 236.4115 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 i 2.9700e- i i 0.0609 i 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 i 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ��--------------------------------------------'----------------------- --+ ------� -------------'--------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4734 i 0.2743 i 3.3220 0.0107 i 1.2171 � 9.4300e- 1.2266 i 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,061.381 � 1,061.381 0.0264 i i 1,062.041 003 003 8 8 i 0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,061.381 1,061.381 0.0264 1,062.041 003 003 8 8 0 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I Off -Road •i 0.1808 i 1.2188 i 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 i i 281.8443 003 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e- 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 � ---------------------------------------------'------------------------ --+ ------� -------------'--------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.4734 i 0.2743 i 3.3220 0.0107 i 1.2171 � 9.4300e- 1.2266 i 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,061.381 � 1,061.381 0.0264 i i 1,062.041 003 003 8 8 i 0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e- 1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e- 0.3315 1,061.381 1,061.381 0.0264 1,062.041 003 003 8 8 0 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 9.5233 i 45.9914 i 110.0422 i 0.4681 45.9592 i 0.3373 , 46.2965 i 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 i 47,917.80 47,917.80 2.1953 i : 47,972.68 •� . 05 05 i 39 Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 - 47,917.80 47,917.80 • 2.1953 - 47,972.68 05 05 39 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 145.75 ; 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 ......................................-------------------------------- -----------------------:------------------------ Apartments Mid Rise ; 4,026.75 ; 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 ------------T-----------Y------------------------:-------------------------- ......................................----------- General Office Building ; 288.45 ; 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 ......................................--- ----- ------------ - ---- - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -r - High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) ; 2,368.80 ; 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 .................................................. ---------- - ------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -r - Ho.............�---.----192.00 1--T----------- y-------------------------- 445,703 .. Quality Restaurant + 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 ......................................-------------------------- - - - - -- -----------------------:------------------------ Regional Shopping Center ; 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Miles I Trip % I Trip Purpose % I Land Use I H-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW IH-W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass -by I Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 Y 40.20 : 1 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 ........................------------------__ __ __ ? _ T _ -------- ---- ------------- General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 ; 19 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down ; 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 8.50 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 72.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 37 - - - - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43 .......:......r........�------------------ -- ... ? r--------------.... T.. -------- .r.. -------- ---- r... ------------- Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 ; 58 ; 38 ; 4 .......................• - - - - - - - - - - Quality Restaurant 16.60 - - - - - - - - - 8.40 T - - - - - - - - - . 6.90 - - - - - - - - 12.00 i' - - - - - - - - T 1 69.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.00 - - - - - - - - - 38 - - - - - - - - - - 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088} 0.044216; 0.209971; 0.116369; 0.014033; 0.006332; 0.021166; 0.033577; 0.002613; 0.001817; 0.005285; 0.0007121 0.000821 r Apartments Mid Rise 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 r General Office Building 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712: 0.000821 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;--------------- ;----------------+ - - - - - - - - High Turnover (Sit Down 0.5430881 0.044216: 0.209971: 0.116369: 0.014033: 0.006332: 0.021166: 0.033577: 0.002613: 0.001817: 0.005285: 0.000712: 0.000821 Restaurant) ....................... f........*-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------T-------� _ ..... _ . -0.002613 -0.001817 -0.005285 Hotel 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.014033, 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.000712 0.000821 -----------------------_----------------------- Quality Restaurant 0.5430881 0.0442161 0.2099711 0.1163691 0.0140331 0.0063321 0.0211661 0.0335771 0.0026131 0.0018171 0.0052851 0.000712. 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088. 0.044216' 0.209971' 0.116369' 0.014033' 0.006332' 0.021166' 0.033577' 0.002613' 0.001817' 0.005285' 0.000712' 0.000821 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas •i 0.7660 i 6.7462 i 4.2573 0.0418 i i 0.5292 0.5292 i i 0.5292 0.5292 + i 8,355.983 8,355.983 i 0.1602 i 0.1532 1 8,405.638 Mitigated ;i . i 2 2 i 7 NaturalGas 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 • 8,355.983 • 0.1602 0.1532 • 8,405.638 Unmitigated 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low i 1119.16 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�---------------------- Apartments Mid 35784.3 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1------------------------------------------�-------�--------------- ------1------- --------------------- r------ � � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1283.42 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 ------7------- '1------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- � 1 ---------------------1 r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22759.9 •1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r-------1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4769.72 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 1 1 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 Quality 1 5057.75 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --r------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � v 1 1 1 1 T""--- 251.616 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total I I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Apartments Low i 1.11916 4 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e- 8.3400e- i 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 8.3400e- 1 131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e- 2.4100e- 1 132.4486 Rise i '1 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 ----------- 1 i 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 1----------------------- �-------------------------------I-------------- 1-------�-------�---------------------- Apartments Mid i 35.7843 .1 0.3859 1 3.2978 1 1.4033 1 0.0211 1 1 0.2666 1 0.2666 1 1 0.2666 0.2666 1 4,209.916 1 4,209.916 1 0.0807 1 0.0772 i 4,234.933 1 Rise ---------- _ ; 1 I 1 I I I I 1 . 4 I 4 1 I 1 9 1 ; 1 1 1------- ----------------------------- -------�-------�--------------- ------1------- --------------------- r------71_----__ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T General Office 1.28342 .1 0.0138 1 0.1258 1 0.1057 1 7.5000e- 1 1 9.5600e- 1 9.5600e- 1 1 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 1 150.9911 1 150.9911 1 2.8900e- 1 2.7700e- i 151.8884 Building i 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 003 1 003 1 -----------1 ------7------- '1------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------- � 1 ---------------------1 r11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �I1 1 1 T'------ High Turnover (Sit 22.7599 .1 0.2455 1 2.2314 1 1.8743 1 0.0134 1 1 0.1696 1 0.1696 1 1 0.1696 0.1696 1 2,677.634 1 2,677.634 1 0.0513 1 0.0491 i 2,693.546 Down Restaurant) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 ---1 ' 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 r------�1------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � T Hotel i 4.76972 .1 0.0514 1 0.4676 1 0.3928 1 2.8100e- 1 1 0.0355 1 0.0355 1 1 0.0355 0.0355 1 561.1436 1 561.1436 1 0.0108 1 0.0103 i 564.4782 1 1 I I 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -r------71 j i 1 I I I I I I I , 1 I I I 1 ------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �-------I-------1 1 1 T'------ Quality 5.05775 •1 0.0545 1 0.4959 1 0.4165 1 2.9800e- 1 1 0.0377 1 0.0377 1 1 0.0377 0.0377 1 595.0298 1 595.0298 1 0.0114 1 0.0109 1 598.5658 Restaurant ; 1 I 1 003 1 --r------71-------1 Regional 1 , I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 T""--- 0.251616 •1 2.7100e- 0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1.8700e- 1 29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e- 5.4000e- 29.7778 Shopping Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ; 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 1 003 003 . 1 1 004 1 004 1 Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 077 8,355.983 8,355.983 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638 2 2 7 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 30.5020 i 15.0496 � 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 i 1.5974 i i 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 i 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 i 18,259.11 50 50 92 -------------i i Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 • 18,148.59 - 0.4874 • 0.3300 • 18,259.11 50 50 92 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 2.2670 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating•' ' i %i- ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------*------- Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products •' . ' i Hearth •i 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 18,000.00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96 i i i i i i i Landscaping •i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 i 152.1542 003 i i i i i i i i i • Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 50 50 92 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 2.2670 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 24.1085 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth •i 1.6500 i 14.1000 6.0000 i 0.0900 1.1400 i 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 i 18,000.00 18,000.00 i 0.3450 1 0.3300 1 18,106.96 ---- -- - - - ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --- - -- ------------------------------ Landscaping i 2.4766 i 0.9496 82.4430 i 4.3600e- i 0.4574 i 0.4574 i 0.4574 0.4574 i 148.5950 148.5950 i 0.1424 152.1542 003 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 18,148.59 18,148.59 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11 j j F-777000 50 50 j 92 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter Fire Pumos and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation Attachment C Local Hire Provision Net Change Without Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 3,623 120.77 With Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Amortized (MT CO2e/year) % Decrease in Construction -related GHG Emissions 3,024 100.80 17% EXHIBIT B S WA P E Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Principal Environmental Chemist Education SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld(i�swauexom Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years' experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 — 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 — 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113-125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019 Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor -Quality -Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS-6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 231 Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium -Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23' Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 231 Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 — 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOWN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey's C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey's Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round -up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS "Conti Perdido' Defendant. Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112' Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. Oi9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warm Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial, March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action NO. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17' Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant. Case 3: 1 0-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013 In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019 EXHIBIT C IS p C Technical ConsuRation. DataAnalysis and G LiligakionSupportfor the Enxiroment Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 — present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 — 2014; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001- 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 - 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 - 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990-1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986-1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984-1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed -scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high -levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi -Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy -making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: Supervised year -long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. Conducted aquifer tests. Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 0 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011. E Notice of Public Hearin THE CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No.: LR18-1620 Applicant: City of Temecula Location: Citywide Proposal: The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian as the State's major housing goal. Recognizing the important role of local planning programs in the pursuit of this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a housing element as part of their comprehensive General Plans. Cities and counties are required to update their Housing Elements at least every eight years to reflect the community's changing needs. This citywide update covers the 2021-2029 planning period, pursuant to the sixth update cycle for jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. The City's existing General Plan can accommodate the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as required by the Southern California Association of Governments and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Changes to the Housing Element include updated goals and policies in compliance with State law. The proposed update to the recently adopted Housing Element provides additional clarity, further compliance with State law, and additional programs/modifications as required by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Environmental Action: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the General Plan certified by the City Council on April 12, 2005 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003061041), including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Staff has also reviewed the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019070974), Altair Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013061012). In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590, City of Temecula, Council Chambers DATE OF HEARING: February 8, 2022 TIME OF HEARING: 7:00 PM Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. The proposed project application may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Community Development Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Brandon Rabidou, City of Temecula Community Development Department, (951) 694-6400. Item No. 18 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Review Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget Policies and Priorities RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget Policies and priorities and provide feedback on Fiscal Policy Metrics. BACKGROUND: The Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA), which serves as the oversight agency of the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award program, recently updated its award criteria, and recommended best practices to include increased public and policy maker engagement in the budget process. As such, staff has incorporated a policy and priority review by the Council into the annual budget process. Council is asked to review and update (if desired) existing Budget Policies, Fiscal Policy Metrics and the Budget Priorities used in the current year's Annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget. The updated policies and priorities will serve as the foundation upon which the subsequent fiscal year's annual budget will be developed. Additionally, staff has scheduled the following outreach meetings with the City's Boards & Commissions to the budget development process, to gain feedback from each Board/Commission that may impact the upcoming Operating Budget or CIP: 2/24/22 Budget Engagement Session with the Public/Traffic Safety Commission 3/2/22 Budget Engagement Session with the Planning Commission 3/10/22 Budget Engagement Session with the Race, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (REDI) Commission 3/14/22 Budget Engagement Session with the Old Town Local Review Board 3/14/22 Budget Engagement Session with the Community Services Commission FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 19 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: February 8, 2022 SUBJECT: Consider Term Limits for City Council Members (At the Request of Council Member Jessica Alexander) PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider term limits for City Council Members and provide general direction regarding the same. BACKGROUND: At the January 18, 2022 meeting, the City Council unanimously approved the placement of the subject of term limits on a future agenda at the request of Council Member Alexander. California Government Code Government Code Section 36502 (b) specifically states that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the city council of a general law or charter city may adopt, or the residents of the city may propose, by initiative, a proposal to limit or repeal a limit on the number of terms a member of the city council may serve on the city council, or the number of terms an elected mayor may serve. Any proposal to limit the number of terms a member of the city council may serve on the city council, or the number of terms an elected mayor may serve, shall apply prospectively only and shall not become operative unless it is submitted to the electors of the city at a regularly scheduled election and a majority of the votes cast on the question favor the adoption of the proposal. " State Term Limits In 1990, voters in California imposed term limits on the state legislature. Senators could not serve more than two four-year terms (total of eight years) and assembly members could not serve more than three two-year terms (total of six years). In 2012, voters modified these limits to allow legislators to serve a total of 12 years in either chamber. Other State offices are limited to two four-year terms (i.e., Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General). https://ballot2edia.org/Califomia State_ Legislature County Term Limits With respect to term limits for board of supervisors in California, 7 of the 58 counties (12%) limit the terms of county supervisors. In Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties, supervisors are limited to three four-year terms. In El Dorado, Orange, San Francisco, and San Joaquin counties, supervisors are limited to two four-year terms. https://ballotpedia.or_ Term_limits_in California City Term Limits Aggregated data on term limits for cities in the State of California and/or County of Riverside is not readily available. As such, staff aggregated current data on Riverside County cities from scratch polling the cities via email and/or telephone to verify the information. The information was also cross-checked with each cities' municipal code to ensure accuracy. It is important to note that the information included references only those cities that have term limits for their City Council members collectively (i.e., does not include cities with term limits for boards and commissions and/or for directly elected mayor only). The preliminary information regarding term limits for council members for Riverside County cities is as follows: CITY: TERM LIMITS? DETAILS: MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION: Banning N Beaumont N Blythe N Calimesa N Canyon Lake N Cathedral City N Coachella N Corona Y 3 Term Limit Lifetime 2.08.180 Desert Hot Springs N Eastvale N Hemet Y 3 Term Limit (Lifetime) Article II, Sec 2-37 Indian Wells Y 2 Term Limit (Lifetime) 2.08.045 Indio N Jurupa Valley N Lake Elsinore N La Quinta N Menifee Y 2 Successive Term Limit (2 Year Break) 2.04.080 Moreno Valley Y 3 Successive Term Limit (2 Year Break) 2.04.025 Murrieta Y 2 Consecutive Term Limit (4 Year Break) 1.20.020 Norco N Palm Desert N Palm Springs N Perris Y 3 Term Limit (Lifetime) 2.05.010 Rancho Mirage N Riverside N San Jacinto N Temecula N Wildomar N ADDITIONAL DETAILS Corona: "Pursuant to Government Code § 36502(b), term limits are imposed upon persons serving on the City Council as follows: (A) As further provided in section (B) below, no person shall be eligible for nomination and/or election to more than three (3) terms of office as a City Council Member, whether by election or appointment and whether served consecutively or not. (B) As used herein, a term of office shall include any term as City Council Member which commences on or after November 3, 2020, whether by election or appointment, and which lasts for two (2) years and one (1) day or more. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person who resigns their office as a City Council Member shall be deemed to have served a full term of office regardless of when during their term of office their resignation becomes effective." Hemet: "During their lifetime no person shall serve, whether by means of election or appointment, more than three terms of office as a city councilmember, as the treasurer, or as any other elected city official. This term limit shall be applied separately to each different type of elected office held." Indian Wells: "No person shall be eligible for nomination and/or election to the office of Member of the City Council for more than two (2) four (4) year terms during his or her lifetime, including, without limitation, terms to which the person was nominated and appointed to office by the City Council in lieu of a General Municipal Election pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10229." Menifee: "Any person who has served two successive terms or eight consecutive years as a councilmember shall be ineligible to serve again in that office until an intervening period of two years has elapsed." Moreno Valley: "Any person who shall have served three successive terms as a member of the city council shall be ineligible to serve again in the office until an intervening period of two years has elapsed." Murrieta: "In order to broaden the opportunities for public service and to assure that elected officials of government are responsive to the citizens of the government, no elected official of the City of Murrieta or any other political subdivision of the City of Murrieta shall serve more than two (2) consecutive terms in office." Perris: "No person shall be elected or appointed to more than three terms as an elected official in the City of Perris. For the purposes of calculating the number of terms in the limitation on terms of office, the terms served by a person elected or appointed to one elected office in the City of Perris shall not be aggregated with terms served by that person in another elected office in the City of Perris. For example, a single person may serve three terms as mayor, three terms as a city council member, and three terms as city clerk." SUMMARY As of January 31, 2022, 7 out of 28 cities (25%) in Riverside County have adopted some form of term limits for City Council members collectively. The method by which the term limits came to be in each city varies and could include measures initiated by both residents and council members. It is therefore recommended that the City Council consider the matter of term limits and, if desired, provide staff general direction regarding the same. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS, ELECTRONIC COMMENTS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 1989 Public Comment: Agenda Item No. Non-Agendized Item:fi For ❑ REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Agendized Item: ❑ Against ❑ Date: ? f� Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the recor . Name: V�i r \ / Phone Number: Z Address: Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. Public Comment Agenda Item No. Non-Agendized Item: For : REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Agendized Item: : Against : Date: TJ''_) b glI X Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: 1iit��rtJ Phone Number: Address: Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. - It�I-� _ Z�k- \ REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: Public Comment: Non-Agend ized Ite A endized Item: ❑ Agenda Item No. For AgainstEl Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: Phone Number: Address Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. `OV IVAIF REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: -4 Public Comment: Non-Agendized Item: Agendized Item: ET Agenda Item No. I, C�% For Er Against ❑ # ► -1 - VF-c2 Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: J� ( Phone Number: Address: � Email address: -� If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. YCM, Public Comment: Non-Agendized Item: Agenda Item No. F REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Agendized Item: 9 For Against Date: e�lj 0\� "� Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: 14 /U Phone Number: Address: ,/�� /' �� Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. From: Council Comments Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 5:10 PM To: 'Nemeth Family' Subject: RE: Public Comment re: 2/8/22 City Council Agenda Item #19 Thank you for your email. It was received and will be read into the record at the next meeting pursuant to Council policy. If you do not wish for your email to be read into the record, please advise. Randi Johl, JD, MMC Legislative Director / City Clerk randi.iohlna.temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 x Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Nemeth Family < Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 5:56 PM To: Council Comments<CouncilComments@TemeculaCA.gov> Subject: Public Comment re: 2/8/22 City Council Agenda Item #19 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I cannot attend the City Council meeting on 2/8/22 in order to share my comment publicly, so I ask that my thoughts below be shared for consideration if possible: My recommendation to the City Council is to be cautious about setting term limits for City Council members. Starting in a new role, whether for employment or civic engagement, requires a number of business cycles, if not multiple years, to fully understand the nature of the role. It is also difficult for a City Council to function well when there are a number of new members on a regular rotation, where institutional memory can be lost. I wholly support community outreach and having succession plans or leadership development plans in place to allow for new City Council members to vie for seats and once nominated to quickly get up to speed. But even with this, limiting a member's term to anything less than two 4-year terms, or blocking them for a lifetime after completing a set number of terms, would result in an immature City Council too often unsure of their decisions, or naively confident in them, and the potential for city business to halt if positions on the council cannot be filled. It also opens the possibility for corporations or lobbies, which often hire their employees for much longer spans of time than 2-4 years, to negatively influence new council members who do not have the benefit of the wisdom of more senior members in the council. If term limits are set, I would ask that lifetime blocks upon term completions not be codified at this time. Or alternately, to move into a rotational term system, in which no more than 1/2 of the council "age out" of their terms at a single given time. Thank you for your time and consideration, Julia Nemeth Temecula CA 92592 Julia & Laszlo Nemeth From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 5:04 PM To: 'TVIHA President' Subject: RE: Statement to be read on the record at 2/8 Council Meeting Thank you for your email. It was received and will be read into the record at the next meeting pursuant to Council policy. If you do not wish for your email to be read into the record, please advise. Randi Johl, JD, MMC Legislative Director / City Clerk randi.iohl(a)temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 x Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: TVIHA President < Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 3:54 PM To: Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Statement to be read on the record at 2/8 Council Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Johl, My name is Tom Bilek. I was hoping you could read the following statement on behalf of TVIHA. I am sorry I cannot make it to the meeting Tuesday night. "Hello my name is Tom Bilek and I am the President of the Temecula Valley Inline Hockey Association. I am sorry that I am not able to be there in person but on behalf of TVIHA I wanted to pass along our support for the Capital Improvement Projects which would include the renovation of the Ronald Reagan Hockey Rink. I have not been at Margarita or Ronald Reagan one day this season without someone asking me what is the latest on the rink. Our organization is very passionate about each other and our sport. We feel a covered rink at Ronald Reagan with a Sport Court surface would be another incredible upgrade to one of our City parks. Just last week Prescott Valley in Arizona shared pictures of their new facility on social media and I had multiple people text me that we need something like this in Temecula. Please make this happen for our kids who love this sport so much. It will only help raise interest in hockey throughout the Temecula Valley. I cannot tell you how happy this new rink would make so many of us. Thank You! Tom Bilek, President TVIHA" Tom Bilek, President Temecula Valley Inline Hockey Association ( From: Council Comments Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 1:40 PM To: 'Cindy Kennedy' Subject: RE: Public comment for tonights city council meeting - RE: term limits Thank you for your email. It was received and will be read into the record at the next meeting pursuant to Council policy. If you do not wish for your email to be read into the record, please advise. Randi Johl, JD, MMC Legislative Director / City Clerk randi.johl c(Dtemeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 x Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Cindy Kennedy < Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 1:18 PM To: Council Comments<CouncilComments@TemeculaCA.gov> Subject: Public comment for tonights city council meeting - RE: term limits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I would like to see term limits for all politicians .... including our city council. We all know what happens when people stay in office too long ... just look at at DC. I also would like to be able to elect our mayor. The current rotation lacks accountability. We the people should decide who leads our city. I would also like to commend Council member Jessica Alexander for having the courage to stand up for her constituents. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 3:47 PM To: 'Tish B' Subject: RE: Term Limits Thank you for your email. It was received and will be read into the record at the next meeting pursuant to Council policy. If you do not wish for your email to be read into the record, please advise. Randi Johl, JD, MMC Legislative Director / City Clerk randi.johl(o)temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 x Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Tish B < Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 3:44 PM To: Council Comments<CouncilComments@TemeculaCA.gov> Subject: Term Limits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Temecula City Council Members. I have Lived in the Temecula Valley for 32 years with my family, and now my children and raising their family's here as well. We have not been to happy in some of the things we've seen going on here in Temecula lately, and we all feel that it's time to mandate Term limits. It's been far to long with self appointed Mayor's, and not Mayor's who's voted in. It's pretty much just like the Democrats, they make sure whoever they want to run a city, state or Presidency makes sure that their appointee is fixed in place. I'd also like to commend Jessica for doing what she was voted in to do to represent her constituent, not the big developers and hospitals execs etc. Jessica has the best interests in mind for Temecula, not her best interests. Thank you, Tisha Barela Temecula, Ca American Heart Association ROCK YOUR RED e.d,.. Dr. Andrew Ho For Heart & Stroke Disease 2022 Monteleone Meadows 35245 Briggs Rd Murrieta, CA *Encourage, Educate, Empower* Friday, February 25th 11:00am-2:00pm Event for both Men and Women Fashion Show Shopping Inspiration Lunch * Raffles * F u n r; Katie Baca, MSN, RN Kimberle Smith -Austin Life & Health Coach Admission $35 $45 at the Door Table of "8" $280 Includes: Lunch, Mimosas and Desserts Register at: bit.ly/RYR2022 Sponsorship Levels $1,500, $1,000, $500 Vendor Space: $130 includes Lunch bit.ly/DonateRYR For Sponsorships & Vendor Tables Availability: Contact Denyse Wilson at Heart2Heart282020@gmail.com 909-224-3984 HomeBridge' FINANCIAL SFP 11 SR.C.AR 1 z PATRIOT PACIFIC MADE F I T Women's C%RS' REA Southwest Riverside County fCORINTHIAN .TITLE & ESCROW