The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About121217 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 12, 2017 — 3:00 PM At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. No Closed Session Next in Order: Ordinance: 17-14 Resolution: 17-82 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Maryann Edwards Prelude Music: None Invocation: To Be Announced Flag Salute: Council Member Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Edwards PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Introduction of Jessica Munoz, Riverside Vice -President of Voices for Children, the Non - Profit Training Arm of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. 1 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, 10 minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 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 the Action Minutes of November 28, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of November 28, 2017. 3 Approve the List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2017. 5 Approve the Citywide Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Goods, Supplies and Equipment Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 Per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2017-18 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council approve the purchase of miscellaneous consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment from the following vendors for Fiscal Year 2017-18: 2 Vendor FY 17-18 Estimated Amount Description of Purchases Downs Fueling $50,000 Vehicle Gasoline Hanks Hardware $85,000 Miscellaneous Hardware Items Home Depot $35,000 Miscellaneous Hardware Items Maintex $35,000 Janitorial Supplies Mission Electric $35,000 Electrical Equipment and Supplies Waxie Sanitary Supplies $40,000 Janitorial Supplies 6 Approve a Five-year Contract with MUFG Union Bank, N.A. for Banking Services RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve a Five -Year Contract with MUFG Union Bank, N.A., for banking services; 6.2 Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute all necessary agreements. 7 Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SDI Presence, LLC, for IT Inventory, Assessment, and Lifecycle Plan Consulting RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SDI Presence, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $93,325, for IT Inventory, Assessment, and Lifecycle Planning Services; 7.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Contract Change Orders up to 10% of the contract amount or $9,333; 7.3 Appropriate $102,658 from Fund 320 — Information Technology Available Fund Balance. 8 Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SoftResources, LLC, for Asset Management Consulting and Project Management Services RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SoftResources, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $283,890, for Asset Management Consulting and Project Management Services; 8.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Contract Change Orders up to 10% of the contract amount or $28,389; 8.3 Appropriate $312,279 from Fund 320 — Information Technology, funded through an interfund transfer from the Measure S Fund in the amount of $135,251, an interfund transfer from the General Fund in the amount of $77,028, and a $100,000 appropriation from Fund 320's available Fund Balance. 3 9 Approve the Amended Salary Schedule to Include Minimum Wage Adiustments Effective January 1, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the Amended Salary Schedule to be Effective January 1, 2018; 9.2 Appropriate $44,129 from the General Fund available fund balance, and $14,350 from Fund 320 - Information Technology available fund balance. 10 Approve the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Agreement for Funding Under Senate Bill 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Agreement for Funding under Senate Bill 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program for program funding for the Citywide Buffered Bike -Lane Striping project; 10.2 Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. 11 Approve Access Easement Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement with Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC, for Temecula Parkway/Wabash Lane Traffic Signal Improvements and Certain Onsite Improvements Related to the Temecula Park and Ride Project RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITALITY, LLC FOR TEMECULA PARKWAY/WABASH LANE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CERTAIN ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS; AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA 12 Approve the First Amendment to a Three -Year Agreement with Counts Unlimited, Inc. for Contractor Services for Fiscal Year 2017-18 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to a Three -Year Agreement for Contractor Services with Counts Unlimited, Inc., in the amount of $20,000, for Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for Fiscal Year 2017-18. 4 13 Amend the Capital Improvement Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22 to Add the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, PW08-04, as a Standalone Project, and Remove the Project from the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide Project Budget RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO AMEND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018-22 TO ADD THE SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT, PW08-04, AS A STANDALONE PROJECT, AND REMOVE THE PROJECT FROM THE BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM — CITYWIDE PROJECT BUDGET 14 Approve the Plans and Specifications, and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Sidewalks — Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement, PW17-16 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the Plans and Specifications, and Authorize the Department of Public Works to Solicit Construction Bids for the Sidewalks — Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement, PW17-16; 14.2 Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. 15 Establish an All -Way Stop Control at the Intersections of Temeku Drive and Pin Way/Legends Golf Club Driveway, and Temeku Drive and Gleneagles Drive RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING AN ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF TEMEKU DRIVE AND PIN WAY/LEGENDS GOLF CLUB DRIVEWAY, AND TEMEKU DRIVE AND GLENEAGLES DRIVE ******************** 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 THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ******************** 5 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: CSD 17-01 Resolution: CSD 17-05 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Temecula Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 16 Approve the Action Minutes of November 28, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of November 28, 2017. 17 Approve the Temecula Community Services District Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Goods, Supplies and Equipment Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 Per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2017-18 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 That the Board of Directors approve the purchase of miscellaneous consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment from the following vendors for Fiscal Year 2017-18: Vendor FY 17-18 Amount Description of Purchases Amazon $45,000 Library Books, Goods, Supplies and Equipment for TCSD Programs and Events Costco $45,000 Goods and Supplies for TCSD Programs and Events 6 18 Receive and File the City of Temecula Amended Salary Schedule to Include Minimum Wage Adiustments Effective January 1, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Receive and file the City of Temecula Amended Salary Schedule to be Effective January 1, 2018; 18.2 Appropriate $102,078 from the Temecula Community Services District available fund balance. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, January 9, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 7 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — No Meeting TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY — No Meeting TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING 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 the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. If the City Council does not complete its consideration of the matter by 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2017, the City Council may continue the public hearing and item to the next day, Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. in accordance with State law. 19 Consider the Altair Specific Plan Project Including a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan, a Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Plan (Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, PA14-0159, PA14-0160, and PA14-0161) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and consider the Altair Project including a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan, a Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Agreement (Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, PA14-0159, PA14-0160, and PA14-0161) and adopt related resolutions and introduce ordinance: 19.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310- 048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 8 19.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO REVISE THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED WESTERN BYPASS, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPOSED LAND USES IDENTIFIED IN THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN BY REPLACING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP), OPEN SPACE (OS), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (H), AND HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) WITH SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (SPI) ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 19.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310- 048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 19.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36959 TO SUBDIVIDE 270 ACRES INTO 63 NUMBERED LOTS TO DEFINE THE OPEN SPACE AND THE VILLAGE AREAS, AND 20 LETTERED LOTS TO DEFINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 9 19.5 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310- 013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 20 Adopt Ordinance Reauthorizing the Public, Educational and Government Fee for Cable Television Franchisees RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Introduce and read by title only the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REAUTHORIZING AND READOPTING THE CITY'S PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS SUPPORT FEE 20.2 Adopt by 4/5 vote the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REAUTHORIZING THE CITY'S PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS SUPPORT FEE ADJOURNMENT JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 21 Appoint the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for Calendar Year 2018 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Appoint the Mayor, effective January 1, 2018, to preside until December 31, 2018; 21.2 Appoint the Mayor Pro Tem, effective January 1, 2018, to hold this office until December 31, 2018. 10 22 Appoint the President and Vice -President of the Temecula Community Services District for Calendar Year 2018 RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Appoint the President, effective January 1, 2018, to preside until December 31, 2018; 22.2 Appoint the Vice -President, effective January 1, 2018, to hold this office until December 31, 2018. ADJOURNMENT BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, January 9, 2018, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports and public Closed Session information) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula, 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694- 6444. 11 Item No. 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSENT Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Mr- •CIal. AIL CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, 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 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 28, 2017 — 7:00 PM No Closed Session At 7:01 PM Mayor Edwards called the City Council meeting to order to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Maryann Edwards Prelude Music: Temecula Conservatory of Music Invocation: Rabbi Yonasan Abrams of Chabad of Temecula Valley Flag Salute: Council Member Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar (Absent), Rahn, Stewart, Edwards PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificates of Welcome to Dignitaries from Sister City Daisen, Japan Presentation of Proclamation to Invictus Games Participant Sarah Rudder Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Temecula Conservatory of Music Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festival Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to The Goat and Vine PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individuals addressed the City Council: • Scott Scharpen CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Nagger Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. Action Minutes 112817 1 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 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 the Action Minutes of November 14, 2017 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Nagger Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of November 14, 2017. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Naggar Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Adopt Tax -Advantaged Bonds Post -Issuance Compliance Procedures and Continuing Disclosure Compliance Procedures for Bonds Issued by City and Related Entities - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Naggar Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17-80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING TAX -ADVANTAGED BONDS POST - ISSUANCE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES AND CONTINUING DISCLOSURE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES, AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS 5 Adopt Ordinance 17-13 Allowing Private Traffic Control and Direction on Public Streets Subject to Certain Terms and Conditions (Second Reading) - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Naggar Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. Action Minutes 112817 2 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 17-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 10.48, PRIVATE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND DIRECTION, TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 6 Approve the Sixth Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with CR&R Incorporated - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Naggar Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17-81 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH CR&R, INC. FOR THE COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, RECYCLING, COMPOSTING, AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND FOR PROVIDING TEMPORARY BIN/ROLLOFF SERVICES 7 Approve an Agreement for Minor Maintenance Services with Countywide Mechanical Systems, Inc. for Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Maintenance Services for Fiscal Year 2017-18 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Naggar Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement for Minor Maintenance Services with Countywide Mechanical Systems, Inc., in the amount of $100,000, for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) maintenance services for Fiscal Year 2017-18. RECESS: At 7:30 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting. At 7:34 PM, the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. Action Minutes 112817 3 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT At 7:37 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 12, 2017, for an adjourned regular session commencing at 3:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 112817 4 Item No. 3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance December 12, 2017 Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Pascale Brown, Fiscal Services Manager Pam Espinoza, Accounting Tech I That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- 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. 17- 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 $3,308,461.43. 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 12th day of December, 2017. Maryann Edwards, 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. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, 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 11/08/2017 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 426,765.87 11/16/2017 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 1,320,271.92 11/21/2017 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 1,126,725.12 11/16/2017 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 434,698.52 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 12/12/2017 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 3,308,461.43 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 1,036,709.03 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 425.62 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3,260.18 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 260,459.85 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 73,220.35 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 1,878.48 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 14,748.16 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 15,504.51 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 1,163,550.30 300 INSURANCE FUND 18,072.16 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 1,408.21 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 107,087.80 325 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND 39,962.91 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 5,443.85 340 FACILITIES 48,380.15 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 827.96 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 27.96 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 27.96 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 27.96 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 27.96 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 27.96 478 CFD 16-01 RORIPAUGH PHASE II 139.75 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 3,008.88 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 2,120.68 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 2,602.53 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 485.18 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 2,204.97 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 1,159.43 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 1,080.52 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 5,726.89 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 188.02 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 538.12 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 146.50 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 3,424.84 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 2,201.80 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 1,071.00 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 459.45 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 1,015.92 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 149.16 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 6,722.69 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 2,984.35 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 6,209.22 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 13,851.51 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 241.18 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 434.92 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 8,217.56 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 3,144.46 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 107.52 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 343.56 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 12,594.49 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 108.49 $ 2,873,762.91 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 265,555.91 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 413.46 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3,271.22 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 111,295.75 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 336.31 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 2,337.37 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 363.02 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 1,777.40 300 INSURANCE FUND 947.59 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 2,044.69 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 30,044.30 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 4,701.83 340 FACILITIES 9,399.97 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 45.07 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 45.07 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 45.07 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 45.07 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 45.07 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 45.07 478 CFD 16-01 RORIPAUGH PHASE II 225.35 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 28.90 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 44.88 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 38.52 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 5.65 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 64.47 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 10.29 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 11.66 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 210.46 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 2.00 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 8.97 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 3.39 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 121.91 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 26.06 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 9.50 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 7.88 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 30.53 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 1.10 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 113.15 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 60.41 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 168.66 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 277.36 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 4.25 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 7.25 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 156.08 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 50.16 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 1.44 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 7.25 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 239.05 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 2.70 434,698.52 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 3,308,461.43 apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 185850 11/08/2017 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Amount Paid Check Total 350.00 350.00 185851 11/08/2017 015217 AIRGAS, INC. GAS FOR DRY ICE 7.29 7.29 EXPERIMENTS:PPW 185852 11/08/2017 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES PIANO TUNING & MAINT: THEATER 185.00 185.00 185853 11/08/2017 006915 ALLIE'S PARTY EQUIPMENT RENTALS:VARIOUS SPECIAL EVENTS 323.09 323.09 185854 11/08/2017 017795 ALTA LANGUAGE SERVICES, LANGUAGE TESTING: HR 60.00 INC 185855 11/08/2017 018941 AZTEC LANDSCAPING, INC. OCT RESTROOMS:SHELTERS MAINT: 7,329.74 VAR PARKS 185856 11/08/2017 006254 BALLET FOLKLORICO TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 269.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 465.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 343.00 185857 11/08/2017 018101 BARN STAGE COMPANY INC, STTLMNT: CABARET AT THE MERC: 973.00 THE 10/29/17 185858 11/08/2017 018408 BOB CALLAHAN'S POOL SERVICE OCT POOLS & FOUNTAINS MAINT:VAR FACI LITI OCT POOL SVC: CRC & TESC POOL 925.00 1,050.00 185859 11/08/2017 009437 BRENNER FIELDER & ASSOC, HARVESTON LAKE PARK -WATER 1,137.74 INC PUMP VANE 185860 11/08/2017 017115 BUREAU OF OFFICE TRANSCRIPTION SVCS:TEMECULA PD 32.20 SERVICES, INC 185861 11/08/2017 003138 CAL MAT 185862 11/08/2017 004462 CDW, LLC ASPHALT PURCH: PW STREET MAINT ASPHALT PURCH: PW STREET MAINT ASPHALT PURCH: PW STREET MAINT ASPHALT PURCH: PW STREET MAINT DIRECT CONNECT CABLE: INFO TECH DIRECT CONNECT CABLE: INFO TECH MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:INFO TECF camera sury dev license:restroom areas MONITOR REPLACEMENT:TCSD 185863 11/08/2017 004412 COMPLETE TENNIS CAMP, THE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 490.13 463.37 341.44 488.65 -27.70 27.70 454.03 1,618.22 2,022.12 60.00 7,329.74 1,078.00 973.00 1,975.00 1,137.74 32.20 1,783.59 4,094.37 280.00 280.00 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 185864 11/08/2017 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS ALARM MONITORING:PD OLD TOWN OFC Amount Paid Check Total 123.50 123.50 185865 11/08/2017 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 189.88 189.88 DIST. 185866 11/08/2017 014521 COSTAR GROUP NOV 17 WEB SUBSCRIPTION:ECO DEV 453.19 453.19 INFORMATION, INC 185867 11/08/2017 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 MISC SUPPLIES - PREVENTION 235.17 185868 11/08/2017 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 OFFICE SUPPLIES:INFO TECH 49.17 284.34 building/recreation supplies:MRC 523.02 SUPPLIES & MISC. ITEMS:MPSC 185869 11/08/2017 020105 CUMBERBATCH, JAMAL TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 185870 11/08/2017 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTALS: RIVERTON LANE PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTALS: LASE PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTALS: GENE PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTALS: HARI)) 185871 11/08/2017 019720 DIVERSIFIED WATERSCAPES , OCT WATER QUALITY MAINT:DUCK INC. PON D: HARV 199.22 722.24 560.00 560.00 55.96 55.96 55.96 159.96 327.84 6,766.00 6,766.00 185872 11/08/2017 004799 E C S IMAGING INC LF QUICK FIELDS SOFTWARE:CITY 4,070.00 4,070.00 CLERK 185873 11/08/2017 004829 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY NOV STATE LOBBYING SVCS LLC 185875 11/08/2017 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. 185876 11/08/2017 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 185877 11/08/2017 003747 FINE ARTS NETWORK 185878 11/08/2017 014865 FREIZE UHLER, KIMBERLY OCT LDSCP MAINT SVCS: LEVEL C SLOPES OCTG LDSCP MAI NT SRVCS: LEVEL C SI OCT LDSCP MAINT:PARKS:MEDIANS OCT LDSCP MAINT:PARKS:MEDIANS OCT LDSCP MAINT:PARKS:MEDIANS OCT LDSCP MAINT SVCS: VAR FACILITIE 3,500.00 3,500.00 36,314.91 23,074.18 51,049.63 54,261.63 19,085.51 11,340.40 195,126.26 10/24 EXP MAIL SVCS: INFO TECH 40.86 40.86 STTLMNT: "ANNIE" 10/13-10/29/17 25,284.52 25,284.52 SUMMIT SUPPLIES: EMER MGMT 1,462.44 Annual Board & Commission Recognition 1,004.47 2,466.91 185879 11/08/2017 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. NOV INTERNET SVCS:EOC 135.80 135.80 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 185880 11/08/2017 016184 FUN EXPRESS, LLC SUPPLIES & MISC ITEMS:HUMAN SVCS 185881 11/08/2017 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: WORKFORCE DEV MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: WORKFORCE Amount Paid Check Total 169.39 169.39 29.54 146.02 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:CENTRAL SVCS 42.18 217.74 185882 11/08/2017 015451 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL OCT LEASE FOR 6 COPIERS:LIBRARY 793.89 SVCS OCT LEASE FOR COPIERS: VARI. LOCAT 291.45 1,085.34 185883 11/08/2017 020313 GUNSOLUS, MARIE REFUND:CANCELLED 65.00 65.00 RESERVATION:BUS TOUR 185884 11/08/2017 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 47.50 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 61.63 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:B&S DEPT 24.40 MAINT SUPPLIES: CRC 5.75 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 9.21 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 242.97 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 154.02 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 205.10 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 52.17 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 58.25 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 90.39 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 90.24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 2.02 MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 4.98 MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 25.51 HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STA73 24.46 HARDWARE SUPPLIES - PREVENTION 18.48 HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STA 12 9.75 MAINT. SUPPLIES: LIBRARY 3.07 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 6.51 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 16.44 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES:PW STREET C 38.05 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES:PW STREET C 28.02 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES:PW STREET C 15.81 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES:PW STREET C 204.35 1,439.08 185885 11/08/2017 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, Equiptment Storage: Sta 73-- 575.29 575.29 THE 185886 11/08/2017 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY POOL CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: VAR 476.00 476.00 INC POOLS 185887 11/08/2017 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES MEMBERSHIP MTG: EDWARDS, E. 25.00 25.00 11/13 Page :3 apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185888 11/08/2017 011145 LODATO, JILL CHRISTINE Description Amount Paid Check Total TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,070.60 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 3,276.00 5,346.60 185889 11/08/2017 020318 LONG BEACH FIRE REGIST: PYROTECHNICS CLASS: 80.00 80.00 DEPARTMENT RODRIGUEZ 185890 11/08/2017 004813 M & J PAUL ENTERPRISES INC inflatable rentals:various special 1,445.00 1,445.00 185891 11/08/2017 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING WELDING REPAIRS & SRVCS: VAR 560.00 560.00 INC. PARKS 185892 11/08/2017 017956 MONOPRICE INC. AUDIO VISUAL SUPPLIES:INFO TECH 23.33 23.33 185893 11/08/2017 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 364.00 364.00 185894 11/08/2017 020312 MYERS, MARLENE REFUND:CANCELLED 65.00 65.00 RESERVATION:BUS TOUR 185895 11/08/2017 001323 NESTLE WATERS NORTH 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: FOC 155.25 AMERICA 185896 11/08/2017 010334 OBMANN, REBECCA 185897 11/08/2017 019839 O'CONNOR, DENISE 185898 11/08/2017 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS DIV 185899 11/08/2017 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: MRC 26.36 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: OTTT 35.25 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: TVE2 47.58 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: IWTCM 30.57 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: TCC 26.03 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: AQUATIC 6.51 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: SKATE F 6.45 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: LIBRARY 67.38 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVC: CITY COU 27.32 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: CRC 121.44 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: PBSP 54.11 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: TVM 34.79 639.04 REIMB:NEOGOV CONF 10/24-27 187.68 187.68 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 105.00 105.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW TRAFFIC 254.48 254.48 CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW CI 49.95 CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW CI 775.69 825.64 185900 11/08/2017 019334 PARK CONSULTING GROUP, OCT CONSULTING & ENTERPRISE 2,567.50 2,567.50 INC SRVCS:INFO T Page4 apChkLst 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185901 11/08/2017 000249 PETTY CASH 185902 11/08/2017 006653 PLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON INC 185903 11/08/2017 014957 PRN PRODUCTIONS 185904 11/08/2017 020177 RAIN DROP PRODUCTS, LLC 185905 11/08/2017 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON 185906 11/08/2017 020226 SAITECH INC 185907 11/08/2017 020315 SANTAGUIDA, KATHRYN 185908 11/08/2017 017699 SARNOWSKI, SHAWNA, M PRESTON 185909 11/08/2017 017113 SCHOLASTIC LIBRARY PUBLISHING, 185910 11/08/2017 013376 SECURITY SIGNAL DEVICES INC 185911 11/08/2017 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Description PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PLAYSTRUCTURE PARTS:TEMEKU HILLS PARK "FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE" TICKET SALES SENSORS: MARGARITA SPLASH PAD OCT 2017 LEGAL SERVICES COMPUTER LIFECYCLE REPLACEMENT:INFO TECH REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC COUNCIL PHOTOGRAPHY SRVCS 11/2 PHOTOGRAPHER:HALLOWEEN CARNIV1 CHILDREN'S BOOKS:LIBRARY REPAIRS & MAINT OF FIRE SYSTEM:LIBRARY 8 REPAIRS & MAINT OF FIRE SYSTEM:TVE REPAIRS & MAINT OF FIRE SYSTEM:TVE REPAIRS & MAINT OF FIRE SYSTEM:LIBF Amount Paid Check Total 1,115.16 18,435.21 36.85 1,091.44 8,980.00 39,962.91 200.00 150.00 150.00 19.79 417.00 507.00 244.00 1,128.16 "LIFENOTE" TICKET SALES 10/28/17 1,595.00 JAZZ @ THE MERC 10/26/17 1,115.16 18,435.21 36.85 1,091.44 8,980.00 39,962.91 200.00 300.00 19.79 2,296.16 489.30 2,084.30 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185912 11/08/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Description OCT 2-29-953-8447:31738 WOLF VLY RD OCT 2-31-404-6020:28771 OT FRONT ST OCT 2-00-397-5042:43200 BUS PARK DR OCT 2-25-393-4681:41951 MORAGA RD OCT 2-35-664-9053:29119 MARGARITA RE OCT 2-30-220-8749:45850 N WOLF CREE OCT 2-31-936-3511:46488 PECHANGA PK OCT 2-32-903-8293:41000 MAIN ST OCT 2-29-223-8607:42035 2ND ST PED OCT 2-39-732-3171:41997 MARGARITA RI OCT 2-35-707-0010:33451 S HWY-79 PED OCT 2-29-953-8249:46497 WOLF CREEK I OCT 2-29-953-8082:31523 WOLF VLY RD OCT 2-29-657-2332:45538 REDWOOD RD OCT 2-29-295-3510:32211 WOLF VLY RD OCT 2-30-520-4414:32781 TEM PKWY LS: OCT 2-28-629-0507:30600 PAUBA RD OCT 2-02-502-8077:43210 BUS PARK DR OCT 2-35-403-6337:41375 MCCABE CT OCT 2-31-536-3226:28690 MERCEDES Si OCT 2-00-397-5067:TCSD SVC LEVEL C Amount Paid Check Total 23.36 101.54 3,845.78 647.62 740.74 343.73 46.55 16,234.27 487.73 23.21 49.07 25.64 26.61 23.48 1,170.87 1,135.24 7,207.62 383.39 856.76 1,375.85 1,865.71 36,614.77 185913 11/08/2017 013864 SO PACIFIC MASTERS ASSN 2018 CTMA MEMBERSHIP DUES 56.00 56.00 185914 11/08/2017 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST OCT PEST CONTROL SRVCS:CITY CONTROL INC FACS 890.00 890.00 185915 11/08/2017 012652 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NOV GEN USAGE:0141,0839,2593,9306 566.67 566.67 185916 11/08/2017 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC REFRESHMENTS:YOUNG 67.48 INNOVATORS 10/18 REFRESHMENTS:SKATE PARK 10/20/17 150.10 185917 11/08/2017 017295 TEMECULA PIZZA FACTORY REFRESHMENTS:SKATE PARK 250.44 10/17/17 185918 11/08/2017 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE NOV HIGH SPEED INTERNET:LIBRARY 185920 11/08/2017 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE OCT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT AUG POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT SEPT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 217.58 250.44 593.32 593.32 2,083.42 2,602.80 1,356.36 185921 11/08/2017 017579 U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 28.00 PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 6,042.58 165.00 193.00 185922 11/08/2017 020314 ULTIMATE BUILDERS INC REFUND:CANCELLED 164.80 164.80 PERMIT:B17-2860 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 185923 11/08/2017 007766 UNDERGROUND SERVICE OCT UNDERGROUND UTILITY ALERT LOCATOR ALERTS:P 185924 11/08/2017 008977 VALLEY EVENTS, INC. MISC RENTALS:SEPTEMBER 11 REMEBRANCE 185925 11/08/2017 000319 VARSITY BRANDS HOLDING REC SUPPLIES:CRC CO, INC Amount Paid Check Total 267.40 267.40 251.00 251.00 113.19 113.19 185926 11/08/2017 002658 VOLLMUTH, MARY REIMB:CITY PROCUREMENT GROUP 65.98 65.98 MTG 10/24 185927 11/08/2017 004861 VON RICHTER, POLLY REIMB:NEOGOV CONF 10/24-27 192.28 192.28 185928 11/08/2017 020178 VP IMAGING, INC GEODOCS SOFTWARE:GIS 28,350.00 28,350.00 185929 11/08/2017 007987 WALMART SUPPLIES:CULTURALARTS 103.97 103.97 185930 11/08/2017 003730 WEST COASTARBORISTS INC 9/16-30 TREE MAINT:OLD TOWN 649.00 649.00 1001905 11/02/2017 020299 IMP, ARLENE REFUND:PENCIL PORTRAIT DRAWING 40.00 40.00 1001906 11/02/2017 020316 JONES, SANDRA REFUND:TEM WINE & PAINT CLASS 10.00 10.00 1001907 11/02/2017 020297 MORALES, JOSE REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:HARVESTON 1001908 11/02/2017 020317 PARKER, JESSICA REFUND:PARENT & ME PLAYGROUP 25.60 25.60 1001909 11/02/2017 018662 SAGMAN, BETHE REFUND:BIGFOOT'S EPIC VIDEO GAME 1001910 11/02/2017 020298 STEVENS, GERALD REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CRC 10.00 10.00 200.00 200.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 426,765.87 Page:7 apChkLst 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 85 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 426,765.87 Page apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 3562 11/16/2017 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT) 3563 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 015626 EVENTBRITE.COM 006942 ONTARIO Al RPORT 006714 SHERATON HOTEL 3565 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 007898 AMERICAN FIRE SPRINKLER ASSOC. 020320 POLLARD WATER 020321 INLAND EMPIRE FIRE EXPLORER 018925 FIREHOUSE SUBS 3566 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 020322 HPN BOOKS 008956 PANERA BREAD 3567 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 006692 SAM'S CLUB 001104 ARMA 016098 CULTIVATING GOOD, INC. 001048 ROSAS CANTINA RESTAURANT 006692 SAM'S CLUB Description PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT ME REGIST: URBAN INLAND EMPIRE 10/25 ME PARKING: LEAGUE OF CA CITIES ME LODGING: LEAGUE OF CA CITIES CD MEMBERSHIP FOR CITY OF TEMECULA CD WATER GAUGE REPLACEMENT: INSP KITS CD MEMBERSHIP & LEADERSHIP CONF: DEHART CD RFRSHMNTS: TEEN CERT 9/23-9/24 AA SPONSORSHIP WITH TEMECULA VALLEY AA RFSHMNTS: MTG WITH CITY ATTORNEY 9/26 RO SUPPLIES FOR COLLEGE FAIR - VOTER RO ESSENTIALS RECORDS & INFO MGMT: RO RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL CLOSED SESSION RO RFSHMNT: CITY CNCL CLOSED SESSION RO RFSHMNT: CITY CNCL CLOSED SESSION Amount Paid Check Total 94,814.67 110.00 54.00 428.92 100.00 244.04 185.40 875.12 1,500.00 86.87 67.96 1,299.00 225.01 146.70 50.14 94,814.67 592.92 1,404.56 1,586.87 1,788.81 Pagel apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 3568 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 002377 BEST BUY COMPANY INC 002377 BEST BUY COMPANY INC 020277 NETGEAR INC 013851 STORM SOURCE, LLC 001060 HYATT 020278 SIFT CO. 016542 DOTGOV 3569 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS 015626 EVENTBRITE.COM 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS 000154 CSMFO 000154 CSMFO 000795 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS-CAREERTRAC 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 006952 PAY PAL 019159 CALPERS EDUCATION FORUM 2016 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & WHITMORE (Continued) Description MH NETGEAR \IFI RANGE EXTENDER: CAMERAS MH ARLO CAMERAS: HICKS PARK & THEATER MH CAMERA SUPPORT: HICKS PARK & THEATER MH APPOINTMENT PLUS:IT MH LODGING: MISAC CONFERENCE: HESLIN MH MEETING COLLABORATION SVCS MH DOMAIN NAME FOR TEMECULA.GOV JH WEBINAR: 2ND ANNUAL BETTER BUDGETING JH TRAINING REGISTRATION: HENNESSY JH APPLICATION: BUDGET PRESENTATION PRGM JH ENTRY FEE: OPERATING BUDGET AWARD JH ENTRY FEE: CAPITAL BUDGET AWARD JH REGIST: WEBINAR: VOLLMUTH, M. JH RFSHMNTS: TEEN CERT TRAINING JH VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANSACTION JH REGIST: CALPERS EDUCATION FORUM 10/23 JH REGIST:COMPENSATION WEBINAR: WARD Amount Paid Check Total 311.00 543.73 129.00 40.00 724.62 149.00 400.00 180.00 110.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 199.00 575.54 51.60 399.00 2,297.35 100.00 2,465.14 Page2 apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 3570 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 019302 MR. WORLDWIDE CATERING 009414 KARL STRAUSS CARLSBAD 000795 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS-CAREERTRAC 008668 WES FLOWERS 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC 019159 CALPERS EDUCATION FORUM 2016 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 3571 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 017583 ASSOCIATION OF AQUATIC 017583 ASSOCIATION OF AQUATIC 019825 GETTY IMAGES 019751 STRYDER TRANSPORTATION 001365 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF 001365 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF 002377 BEST BUY COMPANY INC 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 017038 CPS HR CONSULTING 017038 CPS HR CONSULTING 017038 CPS HR CONSULTING 020250 GARDENS ALIVE.COM 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE, LLC 006952 PAY PAL 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC 020323 PEACEFUL VALLEY FARM SUPPLY Description IG RFRSHMNTS:EMP RECOGNITION PGRM IG RFSHMNTS: RECOGNITION MTG 9/14 IG EDUCATION: EXCEL CLASSES: GINA IG SUNSHINE FUND IG EOC SUMMIT SUPPLIES IG EQUIPMENT FOR EMPLOYEE GYM IG CALPERS EDUCATION FORUM: GARIBAY, I. IG RFRSHMNTS: EM SUMMIT 10/12 KH REGIST: 2018 CONFERENCE: WILLCOX KH REGIST: 2018 CONFERENCE: DAVIS KH IMAGES FOR PROMOTIONAL FLYERS KH TRANSP: SENIOR EXCURSION: PAM SPRINGS KH SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT: HALLOWEEN KH SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT: HALLOWEEN KH RETURN OF RING DOORBELL KH RFRSHMNTS: POOL TOURNAMENT MPSC KH REGIST: DIST 11 REC UNIVERSITY: NIETO KH REGIST: DIST 11 REC UNIVERSITY: HUHTA KH REGIST: DIST 11 REC UNIVERSITY: KH SUPPLIES FOR HORTICULTURE PROGRAM KH RFRSHMNTS: HEALTH FAIR KH VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANSACTION KH RFSHMNTS:HOMELESS OUTREACH DAY Amount Paid Check Total 520.00 212.43 128.00 61.43 172.18 22.78 399.00 1,321.38 324.00 324.00 149.00 1,485.00 196.00 4.65 -217.49 120.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 24.99 349.91 184.50 204.93 2,837.20 KH SUPPLIES FOR HORTICULTURE 19.96 3,244.45 PROGRAM Page3 apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 3573 11/16/2017 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT 3574 11/16/2017 000194 I CMA RETIREMENT -PLAN 303355 3575 11/16/2017 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 3576 11/16/2017 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 3577 11/16/2017 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3578 11/16/2017 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3579 11/16/2017 019088 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3580 11/16/2017 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT) 3581 11/15/2017 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF 185931 11/16/2017 016466 3M COMPANY 185932 11/16/2017 020247 ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SERVICES 185933 11/16/2017 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES 185934 11/16/2017 010905 ALLIED TRAFFIC & EQUIPMENT 185935 11/16/2017 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW 185936 11/16/2017 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES (AFN) 185937 11/16/2017 011752 ASAN SOCIETY GROUP - Description SUPPORT PAYMENT I CMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 PAYMENT STATE TAXES PAYMENT FEDERAL TAXES PAYMENT OBRA- PROJECT RETIREMENT PAYMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT NATIONWIDE LOAN REPAYMENT PAYMENT PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT OCT 17 TUMF PAYMENT EQUIP REPAIR & MAINT:NOISE METERS COLLECTION FEE PER AGREEMENT PIANO TUNING & MAINT: THEATER Misc supplies:various special events BACKFLOW TESTS & REPAIRS: VAR PARKS BACKFLOW TESTS & REPAIRS: VAR PAR REPLACE BACKFLOW - TEMEKU HILLS F Replace backflows & regulator- Wolf PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA POLICE PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA POLIC REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CRC Amount Paid Check Total 1,008.45 8,279.76 22,652.04 85,351.08 2,486.82 9,958.54 442.44 94,049.55 176,240.99 394.30 59.85 185.00 570.00 1,350.00 1,685.00 4,230.00 3,450.00 645.00 270.00 200.00 1,008.45 8,279.76 22,652.04 85,351.08 2,486.82 9,958.54 442.44 94,049.55 176,240.99 394.30 59.85 185.00 570.00 10, 715.00 915.00 200.00 Page4 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 185938 11/16/2017 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 10.53 BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 101.28 185939 11/16/2017 018101 BARN STAGE COMPANY INC, STTLMNT: MAGIC AT THE MERC: 11/12 504.00 THE 111.81 504.00 185940 11/16/2017 014284 BLAKELY'S TRUCK SERVICE VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW ST MAINT. 109.02 VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW ST MAINT. 128.70 VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW ST MAINT. 310.50 VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW ST MAINT. 292.04 840.26 185941 11/16/2017 009640 CERTIFION CORPORATION NOV ONLINE DATABASE 155.98 155.98 SUBSCRIPTION: PD 185942 11/16/2017 018719 CM SCHOOL SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES:PPW 82.64 82.64 185943 11/16/2017 017429 COBRAADVANTAGE INC., DBA: OCT 17 COBRAADMINISTRATION: HR 529.00 529.00 FLEX ADVANTAGE 185944 11/16/2017 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 24.00 24.00 CHARITIES, C/O WELLS FARGO PAYMENT BANK 185945 11/16/2017 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: TVM 114.19 DIST. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 252.30 366.49 185946 11/16/2017 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 THEATER HOSPITALITY & OFFICE 288.54 288.54 SUPPLIES 185947 11/16/2017 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & PLUMBING SRVCS & REPAIRS: VAR 554.00 HVAC INC PARKS PLUMBING SRVCS & REPAIRS: VAR PAR 260.00 814.00 185948 11/16/2017 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTALS: 55.96 55.96 SRVCS GREAT OAK HS 185949 11/16/2017 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& LUBRICANTS 185950 11/16/2017 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD 510.12 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PW: LAND DE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC DIV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PLAN & BLD( FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPEI OCT WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD BLDG OCT WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD D OCT WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD L 119.51 368.74 95.00 191.95 1,042.03 818.50 193.82 316.53 115.20 48.21 3,656.20 379.00 542.41 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 185951 11/16/2017 011292 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE JUL SEIR:PROPOSED OT BOUTIQUE 1,622.50 1,622.50 ASSOC. HOTEL 185952 11/16/2017 019469 FALCON ENGINEERING OCT CONST. MGMNTSVCS: PW04-08 130,568.58 130,568.58 SERVICES 185953 11/16/2017 009953 FEDERAL CLEANING NOV JANITORIAL SRVCS:POLICE MALL 922.50 922.50 CONTRACTORS OFFICE 185954 11/16/2017 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 10/19-10/24 EXP MAIL SVCS: CLERK& 75.12 75.12 PD 185955 11/16/2017 020331 FERNANDEZ, JENNY REFUND:CREDITONACCT:TCSD 139.50 139.50 185956 11/16/2017 001511 FIELDMAN ROLAPP & ADVISORY SVC: CIVIC CTR PRIVATE 6,511.50 6,511.50 ASSOCIATES 185957 11/16/2017 016436 FRICK, TRACY REIMB:HALLOWEEN CARNIVAL DECOR 185958 11/16/2017 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. 185959 11/16/2017 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC NOV INTERNET SVCS:SKATE PARK NOV INTERNET SVCS:LIBRARY NOV INTERNET SVCS:LIBRARY NOV INTERNET SVCS:FIRE STN 95 NOV INTERNET SVCS:C. MUSEUM, GIFT NOV INTERNET SVCS:EXT DMV INET LIN MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - PREVENTION MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - STA 73 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - STA 73 Office Supplies: Planning 185960 11/16/2017 015451 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL OCT LEASE FOR COPIERS: VARI. SVCS LOCATIONS 97.77 97.77 41.94 7.42 7.42 122.18 126.98 107.84 413.78 15.64 13.90 4.63 702.45 736.62 1,351.02 1,351.02 185961 11/16/2017 000863 I PMA AGENCY MEMBERSHIP 397.00 397.00 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185963 11/16/2017 005579 INLAND EMPIRE PROPERTY Description WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFORCE WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI Amount Paid Check Total 720.00 565.00 367.50 390.00 400.00 565.00 565.00 235.00 235.00 455.00 345.00 405.00 565.00 790.00 680.00 655.00 1,120.00 835.00 1,200.00 367.50 470.00 1,017.50 2,505.00 545.00 790.00 675.00 680.00 565.00 635.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 284.00 367.50 270.00 270.00 145.00 270.00 305.00 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI Amount Paid Check Total 305.00 455.00 810.00 675.00 235.00 170.00 170.00 390.00 477.50 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 170.00 145.00 480.00 235.00 145.00 158.75 257.50 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 525.00 390.00 170.00 170.00 280.00 145.00 170.00 1,530.00 490.00 270.00 270.00 435.00 725.00 477.50 587.50 477.50 815.00 37,505.25 185964 11/16/2017 010766 INLAND VALLEY SYMPHONY SYMPHONY 11,500.00 11,500.00 PERFORMANCES:CULTURAL ARTS Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 185965 11/16/2017 020245 INNOVATIVE DSGN & SHEET MOTOR REPAIR: TEM POLICE METAL 185966 11/16/2017 015358 KELLY PAPER COMPANY, INC. PAPER/BINDING/PCKG SUPP:CENTRAL SVC 185967 11/16/2017 017118 KRACH, BREE B. AWARDS ETC:CULTURALARTS 185968 11/16/2017 011321 LABOR LAW CENTER INC Labor Law Posters: HR 185969 11/16/2017 014432 LANAIR GROUP, LLC SHORETEL BACKUP & DISASTER RECOVERY SHORTEL: INFRASTRUCTURE MONITOR SHORETEL ANNUAL SUPPORT:IT Amount Paid Check Total 337.21 337.21 436.36 436.36 2.99 2.99 882.31 882.31 600.00 1,188.00 14,877.00 16,665.00 185970 11/16/2017 011920 MASTER CONCEPTS LLC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 588.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,102.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 588.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 882.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,176.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 735.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,176.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 441.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 882.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 661.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 441.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 882.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 882.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 367.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 808.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 220.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 441.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,610.00 13,884.50 185971 11/16/2017 018675 MDG ASSOCIATES, INC. CDBG 2017-2021 CONSOLIDATED 21,000.00 21,000.00 PLAN 185972 11/16/2017 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. ENG SUPPORT SVC: PW04-08 6,557.31 6/1-8/31 CEQA INITIAL STUDY: ART GAIT/ 6,637.49 13,194.80 185973 11/16/2017 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 144.93 144.93 185974 11/16/2017 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION NICOLAS PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIP: -61,595.14 EQUIPMENT PW17-10 NICOLAS PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIP: P 246,380.57 184,785.43 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185975 11/16/2017 016445 MKB PRINTING & PROMOTIONAL INC Description Amount Paid Check Total BUSINESS CARDS:TEMECULA POLICE 160.29 Envelopes, #10 Window and Pink Return 680.66 Envelopes, #10 Window and Pink Return 690.97 1,531.92 185976 11/16/2017 019733 MULLEN COUGHLIN, LLC RETAINER: ATTORNEY 3,728.50 3,728.50 185977 11/16/2017 019019 MUSIC CONNECTION LLC STTLMNT: SPEAKEASY AT THE MERC 453.60 453.60 11/11 185978 11/16/2017 017861 MYTHOS TECHNOLOGY INC NOV IT MONITORING SRVCS: TVE2 100.00 100.00 185979 11/16/2017 000727 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION NFPATRAINING: PREV 1,079.10 1,079.10 ASSN 185980 11/16/2017 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW LAND DEV 17.44 DIV 185981 11/16/2017 013198 ORTENZO-HAYES, KRISTINE OFFICE SUPPLIES:EMERGENCY MGMT 61.98 OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW TRAFFIC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 55.34 134.76 369.60 369.60 323.40 369.60 693.00 784.00 784.00 3,693.20 185982 11/16/2017 010338 POOL& ELECTRICAL CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES: T.E.S. 32.15 PRODUCTS INC POOL CHEMICAL SUPPLIES:SPLASH PAD 181.57 CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES: VAR.POOL: 403.63 CREDIT:POOL CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: VAF -403.63 213.72 185983 11/16/2017 012904 PRO ACTIVE FIRE DESIGN OCT PLN CK REVIEW 13,450.80 13,450.80 SRVCS:PREVENTION 185984 11/16/2017 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE BANNER PROGRAM: ECON DEV 249.04 249.04 ADVERTISI NG 185985 11/16/2017 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL OCT UNIFORMS/FLR MATS:PARKS 557.93 557.93 SUPPLY MAINT/CIVIC Page:10 apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185986 11/16/2017 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 185987 11/16/2017 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 185988 11/16/2017 020330 ROMAN, RACHEL 185989 11/16/2017 013375 RUSSO, ERICA 185990 11/16/2017 004274 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH 185991 11/16/2017 009980 SANBORN, GWYNETHA. 185992 11/16/2017 017699 SARNOWSKI, SHAWNA, M PRESTON 185993 11/16/2017 017464 SCRUBS AC INC 185994 11/16/2017 015364 SEASIDE ICE, LLC 185995 11/16/2017 013376 SECURITY SIGNAL DEVICES INC 185996 11/16/2017 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL 185997 11/16/2017 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Description OCT COMM WATER METER:28640 PUJOL ST OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW MAINT OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW FAC OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW CI OCT VAR WATER METERS:PWJRC OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW OLD TOW OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW VAR SITE OCT VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC LE OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW CI OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW MAINT OCT VAR WATER METERS:FIRE STNS ARREST, SEARCH & SEIZURE TRNG 11/27-12/1 REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC RENTAL:HARVESTON REIMB:CPRSAWARD SUBMITTAL:SKY VIEW KEYS: CRC FACILITY LOCKSMITH SRVCS:CIVIC CENTER COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 11/4/17 PHOTOGRAPHY SRVCS:HALLOWEEN 2017 LAB COATS:CHILDREN'S MUSEUM SUPPLIES:ICE RINK REPAIR & MAINT OF SECURITY SYS:CIVIC CEN WAGE GARNISHMENT PAYMENT WAGE GARNISHMENT PAYMENT JAZZ @ THE MERC 11/2/17 JAZZ @ THE MERC 11/3/17 JAZZ @ THE MERC 11/9/17 Amount Paid Check Total 10.81 238.81 4,164.79 467.03 175.94 1,076.40 809.28 34,453.38 62.02 177.11 759.79 42,395.36 357.00 357.00 200.00 200.00 70.00 70.00 224.98 33.94 258.92 606.00 606.00 150.00 150.00 500.60 500.60 475.00 475.00 338.00 338.00 50.00 50.00 100.00 507.00 304.50 609.00 1,420.50 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 12 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185998 11/16/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Description OCT 2-29-458-7548:32000 RANCHO CAL OCT 2-36-122-7820:31777 DEPORTOLA R OCT 2-25-350-5119:45602 REDHAWK PKV OCT 2-30-066-2889:30051 RANCHO VISD OCT 2-02-351-5281:30875 RANCHO VISI/ OCT 2-20-798-3248:42081 MAIN ST OCT 2-10-331-2153:28816 PUJOL ST OCT 2-39-737-1063:42061 MAIN ST OCT 2-35-421-1260:41955 4TH ST LS3 OCT 2-36-531-7916:44205 MAIN ST PED OCT 2-39-043-8521:29028 OT FRONT ST OCT 2-27-805-3194:42051 MAIN ST OCT 2-29-657-2563:42902 BUTTERFIELD OCT 2-31-031-2590:28301 RANCHO CAL OCT 2-01-202-7330:VARIOUS LS -1-E UTI L OCT 2-36-171-5626:BUTTERFIELD/LA SEI OCT 2-29-479-2981:31454 TEM PKWY TC' OCT 2-29-974-7899:26953 Y N EZ RD LS3 OCT 2-05-791-8807:31587 TEM PKWY LS: 185999 11/16/2017 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY OCT 091-085-1632-0:41951 MORAGA/POOL 186000 11/16/2017 005786 SPRINT SEP 26 - OCT 25 CELLULAR USAGE/EQUIP Amount Paid Check Total 251.66 23.33 25.49 23.48 5,225.52 1,482.12 843.22 26.75 15.60 109.09 22.80 3,336.97 187.21 18.18 72,955.77 24,250.07 100.61 162.56 8,240.28 117, 300.71 262.07 262.07 4,591.56 4,591.56 186001 11/16/2017 003599 TY LIN INTERNATIONAL 8/26/17-9/30/17 SRVCS:F.V./I-15 124,826.45 124,826.45 OVRCRSS 186002 11/16/2017 010061 TEMECULA OLIVE OIL RECOGNITION -YOUTH WOMEN COMPANY LEADERS 186003 11/16/2017 008894 TIDWELL, RODNEY 186004 11/16/2017 016311 TIERCE, NICHOLAS 186005 11/16/2017 018569 TYLER BUSINESS FORMS 130.50 130.50 COMPUTER PURCHASE PRGM 2,000.00 2,000.00 GRAPHIC DESIGN SRVCS:THEATER 2,790.00 2,790.00 HEALTH COVERAGE FORM:HR 30.13 HEALTH COVERAGE FORMS:HR 52.43 82.56 186006 11/16/2017 017579 U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 110.00 PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 186007 11/16/2017 002185 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE POSTAL SVCS:WNTR/SPRG '18 ACTIVITY GUIDE 186008 11/16/2017 002185 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE PO BOX SERVICE FEE:POLICE 55.00 165.00 8,212.05 8,212.05 452.00 452.00 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 13 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 186009 11/16/2017 008977 VALLEY EVENTS, INC. MISC RENTALS:HALLOWEEN CARNIVAL 10/27 Amount Paid Check Total 3,137.00 3,137.00 186010 11/16/2017 009101 VISION ONE, INC. OCT SHOWARE TICKETING 2,694.00 2,694.00 SRVCS:THEATER 186011 11/16/2017 013286 WEST SAFETY SERVICES, INC. NOV ENTERPRISE 911 SVCS: IT 300.00 300.00 186012 11/16/2017 004567 WITCHER ELECTRIC INSTALL EQUIPMENT: EOC 3,800.00 3,800.00 186013 11/16/2017 016305 YONKER, JOHN REIMB:INSPECTOR UNIFORM SHIRTS 149.92 149.92 1001911 11/08/2017 020325 BEACON RETIREMENT REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 PLANNING 1001912 11/08/2017 020326 BROWN, PATRICE REFUND:HAWAIIAN TAHITIAN DANCE 24.80 24.80 BEG. 1001913 11/08/2017 020308 FREGOSO, JORILYNN REFUND:BEG GYMNASTICS & 37.60 37.60 TUMBLING 1001914 11/08/2017 020327 JONES, MARLESHA REFUND:SEC DEP:GYMNASIUM:CRC 200.00 200.00 1001915 11/08/2017 018703 RHEMA WORD MINISTRIES 1001916 11/08/2017 013175 RIVER SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOL 1001917 11/08/2017 013175 RIVER SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOL 1001918 11/08/2017 020328 SANDOVAL, JASMIN REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF 200.00 200.00 CTR A/B REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 1001919 11/08/2017 019553 WARREN, DOUGLAS REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF CTR A/B 1001920 11/08/2017 018456 WILKESON, SHERYL REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF CTR A/B 150.00 150.00 200.00 200.00 1001921 11/09/2017 019326 WEBSTORYTELLERS REFUND:LATE FEE:BUS LIC #035948 15.00 15.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 1,320,271.92 Page:13 apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 14 111 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,320,271.92 Page:14 apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 3572 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 020344 MURRI ETA V.I.P. FLORIST 006714 SHERATON HOTEL 017033 MURRAY, MELISSA 004434 GRANNYS ATTIC 018583 WHICH WICH 018583 WHICH \ICH 018583 WHICH WICH 016261 AFTERSHOCK BREWING CO. 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 020249 LAUND3R.COM LLC 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 016098 CULTIVATING GOOD, INC. 014885 TEMECULA CATERING 019321 VISIT TEMECULA VALLEY 014885 TEMECULA CATERING 020342 CRAZY CAKE POP LADY 020343 CAFETERIA 15L 186014 11/21/2017 001517 AETNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC 186015 11/21/2017 001916 ALBERTA WEBB ASSOCIATES 186016 11/21/2017 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 186017 11/21/2017 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW 186018 11/21/2017 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES (AFN) Description GB CENTERPIECES: AUTO DEALERS GB LODGING:LEAGUE OF CA CITIES CONF 9/13 GB RFSHMNTS: COLLEGE FAIR/CSU CONF GB CENTERPIECES: AUTO DEALER GB RFHSHMNTS: PIO REGIONAL MTG GB RFHSHMNTS: PIO REGIONAL MTG GB RFHSHMNTS: PIO REGIONAL MTG GB AUTO DEALERSHIP SPONSORSHIP GB SUPPLIES FOR COLLEGE FAIR GB RFHSMNTS: COLLEGE FAIR GB LAUNDER TABLE LINENS GB RFHSMNTS: COLLEGE FAIR GB RFSHMNTS: CITY ATTORNEY MEETING 10/10 GB RFSHMNTS: BROKERS APPRECIATION MTG GB REGISTRATION: '17 BRANDING SUMMIT RFSHMNTS: AUTO DEALER APPRECIATION GB RFSHMNTS: AUTO DEALER APPRECIATION GB RFRSHMNTS: LEAGUE CA CITIES CONF 9/13 DEC EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PRGM DEBIT: ADDITION OF 4 MEMBERS FOR D PROF SVCS: CFD 01-02 BIER! PREPAY CREDIT BILLING ADJ: EXTRA WORK NOT SEP PAVEMENT REHAB:MARGARITA : P1d Replace valve bypass - Fire Station #92 DEC STAND BY FEE: POLICE DEPT Amount Paid Check Total 177.79 428.92 180.00 49.48 452.50 207.00 69.75 196.92 427.17 1,417.00 53.50 1,410.00 158.50 1,344.00 40.00 1,003.00 59.00 74.00 655.60 4.40 800.00 -243,446.35 759,302.81 454.00 7,748.53 660.00 800.00 515,856.46 454.00 1,248.00 1,248.00 Pagel apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186019 11/21/2017 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEYS 186020 11/21/2017 016504 ARBY'S 186021 11/21/2017 017149 B G P RECREATION, INC. 186022 11/21/2017 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC 186023 11/21/2017 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS, INC 186024 11/21/2017 010350 BANNER MATTRESS, INC. 186025 11/21/2017 014284 BLAKELY'S TRUCK SERVICE 186026 11/21/2017 020345 BOLDUC, WENDY 186027 11/21/2017 015834 BOYER, WAYNE E. 186028 11/21/2017 017428 BSSAT CORPORATION 186029 11/21/2017 013318 CARDENAS, ROBERT 186030 11/21/2017 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY INC 186031 11/21/2017 019468 CHS EDUCATION FOUNDATION 186032 11/21/2017 005447 CLEMENTS, BRIAN 186033 11/21/2017 012413 COLORADO WEST CONSTRUCTION 186034 11/21/2017 004412 COMPLETE TENNIS CAMP, THE Description SEP ANIMAL CONTROL SRVCS:CITY OF TEMECUL RFSHMNTS:VOLUNTEERS: SANTA'S ELECTRIC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY UNIFORM SHIRTS:INFO TECH MATTRESSES: FIRE STA. 95 PARKS - EQUIPMENT REPAIR REFUND:BALADJ:VIOL DISMISSAL:322476 MOTOR UNIFORM:TEMECULA POLICE RFRSHMNTS: CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING REIMB: RFSHMNTS: EMERGENCY MGMT SUMMIT OCT LIABILITY INSURANCE: RISK MGMT REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC REIMB: UNIFORM SHIRTS REFUND:CANCELLED PERMIT:PA17-1528 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Amount Paid Check Total 10,000.00 344.86 2,639.50 2,560.25 3,591.00 4.00 912.62 1,227.20 383.09 35.00 2,511.44 372.60 129.01 4,448.00 200.00 162.96 300.00 369.60 10,000.00 344.86 8,790.75 4.00 912.62 1,227.20 383.09 35.00 2,511.44 372.60 129.01 4,448.00 200.00 162.96 300.00 369.60 186035 11/21/2017 012353 CONSTRUCTION TESTING SEP INSP SVCS: MARGARITA RD: 9,476.00 9,476.00 PW12-11 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 186036 11/21/2017 011922 CORELOGIC, INC. OCT PROP ID SFTWR: CODE ENFORCEMENT Amount Paid Check Total 328.50 328.50 186037 11/21/2017 013379 COSSOU, CELINE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 495.60 495.60 186038 11/21/2017 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES MISC SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT:LIBRARY SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES 186039 11/21/2017 002631 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC Traffic count data collection srvcs: pw 186040 11/21/2017 020341 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STTLMNT CLAIM: 17-50 - COUNTY OF RIV 147.14 253.56 79.16 479.86 1,000.00 1,000.00 429.31 429.31 186041 11/21/2017 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & AC REPAIR & MAINTENANCE: CIVIC 227.60 HVAC INC CTR HVAC REPAIR: RON ROBERTS LIBRARY 192.00 186042 11/21/2017 011870 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN, BIO WASTE STORAGE 350.00 LLC BIN/DELIVERY:CRC 186043 11/21/2017 018491 CRONBERG PHOTOGRAPHY TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 280.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 419.60 350.00 336.00 616.00 186044 11/21/2017 003272 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON CO.,INC PLOTTER PAPER & INK:GIS 359.04 359.04 DBA 186045 11/21/2017 020347 DELOYEE, HERMAN REFUND:BALADJ:VIOL 330.00 330.00 DISMISSAL:322251 186046 11/21/2017 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& LUBRICANTS 186047 11/21/2017 019293 E&F PET SUPPLIES, INC. 186048 11/21/2017 002939 ENVI RONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH 186049 11/21/2017 000164 ESGILCORPORATION 186050 11/21/2017 005901 EXHIBIT ENVOY FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PW: 99.75 TRAFFIC DIV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD 29.58 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD 364.83 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF 495.91 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFOI 151.66 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPEE 189.45 1,331.18 k-9 food & supplies: tem police 95.75 95.75 ARCGIS SOFTWARE RENEWAL:GIS 18,300.00 18,300.00 SEP PLAN CHECK SVCS: BLDG 11,023.58 11,023.58 EXHIBIT:TVM 1/21/18-4/1/18 375.00 375.00 Page .3 apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186051 11/21/2017 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. 186052 11/21/2017 013912 FUN ZONE BOAT COMPANY 186053 11/21/2017 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC 186054 11/21/2017 016552 GONZALES, MARK ALLEN 186055 11/21/2017 014405 GORM INCORPORATED 186056 11/21/2017 020235 H2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 186057 11/21/2017 004672 HAGBERG, PHILLIP K. 186058 11/21/2017 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 186059 11/21/2017 013749 HELIXSTORM INC. 186060 11/21/2017 002126 HILLYARD FLOOR CARE SUPPLY 186061 11/21/2017 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE Description NOV INTERNET SVCS:SR CTR, SKATE PARK NOV INTERNET SVCS:CITY HALL NOV INTERNET SVCS:TCC SISTER CITY TRIP:BEACH HARBOR SEA LION T OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY RETURN MATERIALS: CITY CLERK MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: INCUBATOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: CITY FACILITIES ASBESTOS & LEAD SURVEY: PW16-06 ASBESTOS & LEAD SURVEY: PW16-06 REFUND:BALADJ:VIOL DISMISSAL:322312 MAINT SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR MAINT SUPPLIES: IWTCM MAINT SUPPLIES: IWTCM MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: TCC MAINT SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR MAINT SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR MAINT SUPPLIES: IWTCM MAINT SUPPLIES: IWTCM MAINT SUPPLIES: IWTCM IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT:INFO TECH MATERIALS & MAINT SUPPLIES: CRC GYM MISC SUPPLIES:VARIOUS SPECIAL EVENTS MISC SUPPLIES:VARIOUS SPECIAL EVEI 186062 11/21/2017 017334 HOUSE OF AUTOMATION INC. PREV MAINT:GATE AT CIVIC CENTER Amount Paid Check Total 202.82 291.98 146.98 70.00 40.01 103.26 51.83 46.79 -26.06 44.13 360.00 1,770.46 3,000.00 2,415.00 305.00 108.74 50.16 65.65 34.73 30.83 30.50 28.71 12.33 51.10 13.04 3,431.25 4,100.90 521.35 78.00 298.00 641.78 70.00 259.96 360.00 1,770.46 5,415.00 305.00 425.79 3,431.25 4,100.90 599.35 298.00 Page4 apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186063 11/21/2017 014062 ID CARD GROUP 186064 11/21/2017 009135 IMPACT MARKETING & DESIGN INC 186065 11/21/2017 016564 IMPACT TELECOM 186066 11/21/2017 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY INC 186067 11/21/2017 019085 INTERPRETERS UNLIMITED, INC. 186068 11/21/2017 000198 INTL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING 186069 11/21/2017 011020 JACKRAGLANDATELIER 186070 11/21/2017 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC 186071 11/21/2017 019122 L.A. TRAFFIC SIGNAL 186072 11/21/2017 020340 LARUE, JESSE 186073 11/21/2017 002634 LITELINES INC 186074 11/21/2017 011145 LODATO, JILL CHRISTINE 186075 11/21/2017 020336 LUSPIAN, JOCY 186076 11/21/2017 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 186077 11/21/2017 004141 MAINTEX INC 186078 11/21/2017 014392 MC COLLOUGH, JILL DENISE 186079 11/21/2017 020335 MC HOMES & INVESTMENTS INC Description PROXIMITY CARD SUPPLIES:HELP DESK THEATER PROMOTIONAL ITEMS OCT 800 SERVICES:CIVIC CENTER POOL CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: VAR POOLS INTERPRETER SERVICE: TEM POLICE MBRSHP RENEWAL:COMERCHERO, J 3 YR MBRSHP RENEWAL:BUTLER, G. Recognition:Plein Air Competition PUMP REPLACEMENT PARTS: CRC POOL REPAIR:CRC POOL HANDICAP LIFT RET RELEASE: MOD TRAFFIC SIGNAL: PW15-03 MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL: PV\ REIMB: UNIFORM SHIRTS LIGHT POLE ASSEMBLIES:OLD TOWN REHAB TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS REFUND:BEAR CUB UNIV 4010.203 SIGNS AND SUPPLIES: RIGHT-OF-WAYS SIGNS: VARIOUS PARKS CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES: VAR PARK SITES NOV PLANTSCAPE SRVCS:LIBRARY NOV PLANTSCAPE SRVCS:CIVIC CTR REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF CTR A/B Amount Paid Check Total 238.14 313.25 61.95 419.56 102.00 50.00 135.00 250.00 249.05 2,858.03 5,897.37 25,778.58 163.07 3,522.96 2,142.00 3,213.00 209.00 954.13 499.54 108.53 200.00 500.00 238.14 313.25 61.95 419.56 102.00 185.00 250.00 3,107.08 31,675.95 163.07 3,522.96 5,355.00 209.00 1,453.67 108.53 700.00 150.00 150.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 186080 11/21/2017 019823 MERCHANTS BLDG. MAI NT. OCT JANITORIAL SVCS: VARI LLC FACILITIES 186081 11/21/2017 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. Amount Paid Check Total 20,665.99 20,665.99 07/03-10/01 DESIGN SVCS: PW17-04 5,984.47 7/03-10/01 DSGN & ENVIRON SVCS:PW1' 6,300.63 12,285.10 186082 11/21/2017 020346 MICHELENE, THEODORE REFUND:BALADJ:VIOL 305.00 305.00 DISMISSAL:322477 186083 11/21/2017 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 35.99 35.99 186084 11/21/2017 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING Repair Srvcs: Main Street Lot INC. 186085 11/21/2017 012264 MIRANDA, JULIO C. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 400.00 400.00 963.90 785.40 264.60 2,013.90 186086 11/21/2017 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY, ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: VAR 1,134.25 INC FACILITIES Replacement light bulbs:Library & CRC 184.66 Replacement light bulbs:Library & CRC 217.50 LIGHT POLE LED CONVERSION:PALA PA 3,954.59 5,491.00 186087 11/21/2017 016445 MKB PRINTING & BUSINESS CARDS: HOWE, HUNTER: 47.86 47.86 PROMOTIONAL INC INFO TECH 186088 11/21/2017 000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES MEMBERSHIP: JOHL-OLSON, RAND! 8,743.00 8,743.00 186089 11/21/2017 019331 NELSON, BARBARA 186090 11/21/2017 018402 NEWSMINDED, INC RECOGNITION:PLEI N AIR 600.00 600.00 COMPETITION newspaper subscription:MPSC 125.00 125.00 186091 11/21/2017 019699 NU -WAY CHRISTIAN REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC 200.00 200.00 MINISTRIES RENTAL:RRSP 186092 11/21/2017 013127 ON STAGE MUSICALS STTLMNT: SHERRY SWING TEMECULA 5,195.00 5,195.00 11/5/17 186093 11/21/2017 014583 PALUMBO'S RISTORANTE, LLC RFRSHMNTS:VIPTENTSANTA'S 1,303.70 1,303.70 ELECTRIC 186094 11/21/2017 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE ADVERTISING BANNER PROGRAM: ECON DEV 5,111.25 5,111.25 Pages apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186095 11/21/2017 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 186096 11/21/2017 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR 186097 11/21/2017 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 186098 11/21/2017 017446 ROSE AGAIN FOUNDATION 186099 11/21/2017 018012 SAUNDERS, CATHY 186100 11/21/2017 015364 SEASIDE ICE, LLC 186101 11/21/2017 020348 SHENKMAN & HUGHES 186102 11/21/2017 013695 SHRED -IT US JV, LLC 186103 11/21/2017 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW 186104 11/21/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 186105 11/21/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 186106 11/21/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Description OCT LNDSCP WATER METER:CALLE ELENITA OCT LNDSCP WATER METER:41951 MOF NOV VAR WATER METERS:PW VAR SITE NOV VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC LE OCT '17 PRKG CITATION ASSESSMENTS OCT RTA HARVESTON SHUTTLE: ECON DEV FY 17/18 (ME) COUNCIL CSF AWARD TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS DEPOSIT:ICE RINK SET UP:'17 WNTR SEASON CVRA DISTRICT TRANSITION SVCS FEE DOC COLLECTION & SHRED SRVCS:CITY DEPTS misc signage:events Canopy:Human Services ELECTRICAL SVC: PW15-11 BUTTERFIELD STG ELECTRICAL SVC: PW15-11 BUTTERFIELD STG ELECTRICAL SVC: PW15-11 BUTTERFIELD STG Amount Paid Check Total 116.36 1,573.79 350.55 19,970.59 3,791.50 1,660.00 1,250.00 302.40 302.40 128.10 302.40 302.40 302.40 15,000.00 30,000.00 253.00 111.87 1,061.34 47, 520.10 46,261.94 22,011.29 3,791.50 1,660.00 1,250.00 1,640.10 15,000.00 30,000.00 253.00 1,173.21 47, 520.10 46,261.94 13,551 59 13, 551.59 Page:7 apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186107 11/21/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 186108 11/21/2017 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 186109 11/21/2017 007341 SOUTH COAST WINERY, INC. 186110 11/21/2017 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 186111 11/21/2017 018844 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 186112 11/21/2017 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 186113 11/21/2017 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CLEANING 186114 11/21/2017 010046 TEMECULA VALLEY CONVENTION & Description OCT 2-29-223-9571:30395 MURR HOT SPRI NGS OCT 2-30-608-9384:28582 HARVESTON OCT 2-26-887-0789:40233 VILLAGE RD OCT 2-00-397-5059:33340 CAMINO PIEDF NOV 2-31-693-9784:26036 YNEZ RD TC1 OCT 2-33-237-4818:30499 RANCHO CAL OCT 2-31-419-2659:26706 YNEZ RD TC1 OCT 2-29-974-7568:26953 YNEZ RD TC1 OCT 015-575-0195-2:32211 WOLF VLY RD OCT 055-475-6169-5:32380 DEERHOLLOI, Sister City visit:winery tour and PEST CONTROL SERVICE: STA73 PEST CONTROL SERVICES: STA 95 PEST CONTROL SERVICES: STA 84 DESIGN & ENG SRVCS: PW15-11 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW CIP OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW CIP OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW CIP CREDIT:OFFICE SUPPLIES/PW CIP OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW TRAFFIC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW CIP OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES: THEATER OFFICE SUPPLIES: THEATER OFFICE SUPPLIES: TCC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW TRAFFIC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW LAND DEV OFFICE SUPPLIES: THEATER OFFICE SUPPLIES: TCC OFFICE SUPPLIES: TCC OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE CARPET CLEANING: HISTORY MUSEUM SEP 17 BUS. IMPRV DISTRICTASMNTS Amount Paid Check Total 50.08 442.43 1,456.89 10,203.45 334.41 102.03 133.60 114.77 83.84 208.18 108.00 68.00 80.00 80.00 2,028.00 6.36 -6.36 161.16 -54.42 76.76 19.90 10.48 48.27 57.57 252.32 161.16 70.00 57.57 9.02 219.65 48.93 1,200.00 145,920.55 12,837.66 292.02 108.00 228.00 2,028.00 1,138.37 1,200.00 145,920.55 186115 11/21/2017 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE NOV HIGH SPEED INTERNET:32364 54.99 54.99 OVERLND Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 186116 11/21/2017 019100 TNT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP SOUND SRVCS:VETERANS DAY LLC SYMPHONY 186117 11/21/2017 011285 USS MIDWAY MUSEUM Tourtickets:Sister City visit 186118 11/21/2017 014850 VALLEY PRINTING SERVICES, DELIVERY OF NEWSLETTER FOR INC. MAILING:COUNC 186119 11/21/2017 011114 VERBANIC, CARL REFRESHMENTS:VETERANS DAY EVENT 11/11 186120 11/21/2017 007987 WALMART Amount Paid Check Total 4,665.00 4,665.00 100.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 2,925.00 2,925.00 SUPPLIES:PPW 125.48 REC SUPPLIES: CRC 16.31 REC SUPPLIES:CRC 173.61 SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK 76.11 REC SUPPLIES: CRC 45.07 REC SUPPLIES: CRC 51.72 488.30 186121 11/21/2017 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR -233.11 CLEANING SUPPLIES CIVIC CTR 1,731.90 CLEANING SUPPLIES CIVIC CTR 61.86 1,560.65 186122 11/21/2017 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIDE SEPT 17 MSHCP PAYMENT 37,819.68 37,819.68 COUNTY 186123 11/21/2017 020339 WHITE, CHRIS REIMB:RESIDENT ENG TRAINING 270.79 270.79 10/30-11/2 1001922 11/16/2017 020159 DEAN, KELLY REFUND:BEG GYMNASTICS & 75.20 75.20 TUMBLING 1001923 11/16/2017 020332 SULLIVAN, SCARLETT REFUND:BEAR CUB UNIV 4005.203 167.20 167.20 Grand total for UNION BANK: 1,126,725.12 Page9 apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 113 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,126, 725.12 Pagel 0 Item No. 4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2017 PREPARED BY: Rudy J. Graciano, Fiscal Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2017. BACKGROUND: Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City for the next six months. Current market values are derived from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) reports, Union Bank of California trust and custody statements, and from US Bank trust statements. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy and Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of October 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2017 Investments City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary October 31, 2017 Par Market Book % of Value Value Value Portfolio Term City of Temecula 41000 Main Street P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92590 (951)694-6430 Days to YTM YTM Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts 48,042,705.55 48,042,705.55 48,042,705.55 42.77 1 1 0.925 0.938 Retention Escrow Account 601,022.26 601,022.26 601,022.26 0.54 1 1 0.148 0.150 Letter of Credit 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 1 0.000 0.000 Local Agency Investment Funds 32,686,034.96 32,654,724.06 32,686,034.96 29.10 1 1 1.099 1.114 Federal Agency Callable Securities 22,000,000.00 21,875,810.00 22,000,000.00 19.59 1,300 905 1.503 1.524 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 9,000,000.00 8,962,150.00 9,000,000.00 8.01 1,020 425 1.272 1.290 Investments 112,329,763.77 112,136,412.87 112,329,763.77 100.00% 337 212 1.113 1.128 Cash Passbook/Checking 3,835,026.61 3,835,026.61 3,835,026.61 1 1 0.000 0.000 (not included in yield calculations) Total Cash and Investments 116,164,790.38 115,971,439.48 116,164,790.38 337 212 1.113 1.128 Total Earnings October 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year Average Daily Balance Effective Rate of Return 110,219.22 117,523,368.24 1.10% Reporting period 10/01/2017-10/31/2017 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 425,415.14 121,604,416.70 1.04% Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2017 Page 1 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 233358006-6 01-2 REF RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 505,836.64 505,836.64 505,836.64 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 233358000-6 01-2 REF ST First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 69,146.45 69,146.45 69,146.45 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213009-6 03-02 COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 276213008-6 03-02 IMPR First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 1,138,442.17 1,138,442.17 1,138,442.17 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213006-6 03-02 RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 742,829.89 742,829.89 742,829.89 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 164741008-6 03-03IMP First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 298,258.80 298,258.80 298,258.80 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 164741006-6 03-03RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 391.67 391.67 391.67 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 164741000-6 03-03SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 194,109.99 194,109.99 194,109.99 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 164742000-6 03-06SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 13,844.83 13,844.83 13,844.83 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 229462007-6 03-1 2012 RF First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 41.42 41.42 41.42 0.890 0.878 0.890 1 229462009-6 03-1 COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/31/2017 13,549.46 13,549.46 13,549.46 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 229462006-6 03-1 RESERV First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/31/2017 17,249.52 17,249.52 17,249.52 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 229462000-6 03-1 SPECF First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/31/2017 22,273.78 22,273.78 22,273.78 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94669921-6 03-1ACQ11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.870 0.858 0.870 1 94669911-6 03-1ACQA11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669917-6 03-1 RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669916-6 03-1 RESB11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669000-6 03-1SPTAX11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 276213002-6 03-2 REFU First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2017 2,779.42 2,779.42 2,779.42 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213000-6 03-2 SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 4,989.32 4,989.32 4,989.32 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94686001-6 03-4ADMIN11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 511.22 511.22 511.22 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94686005-6 03-4PREP11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 13.07 13.07 13.07 0.920 0.907 0.920 1 94686000-6 03-4RED11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 31,846.82 31,846.82 31,846.82 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94686006-6 03-4RES11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 34,050.07 34,050.07 34,050.07 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213022-6 16-01 BOND F First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2017 12,593.31 12,593.31 12,593.31 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213023-6 16-01 CAPINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.870 0.858 0.870 1 276213029-6 16-01 COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 276213028-6 16-01 IMP First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 6,436,180.03 6,436,180.03 6,436,180.03 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213026-6 16-01 RESERV First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 3,157,685.03 3,157,685.03 3,157,685.03 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213020-6 16-01 SPECF First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 2,331.46 2,331.46 2,331.46 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 233358009-6 233358009-6 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434160-6 RDA-02INT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 116.59 116.59 116.59 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94434161-6 RDA-02PRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 79.41 79.41 79.41 0.910 0.898 0.910 1 107886000-6 RDA-06AINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 68.85 68.85 68.85 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 107886001-6 RDA06APRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 40.55 40.55 40.55 0.910 0.898 0.910 1 107886010-6 RDA06BINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 221.77 221.77 221.77 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2017 Page 2 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 107886011-6 RDA06BPRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 1.46 1.46 1.46 0.680 0.671 0.680 1 107886016-6 RDA06BRES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 202,686.64 202,686.64 202,686.64 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 107886020-6 RDA07INT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 1,212.99 1,212.99 1,212.99 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 107886021-6 RDA07PRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 7.55 7.55 7.55 0.930 0.917 0.930 1 107886028-6 RDA07PROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 210,971.51 210,971.51 210,971.51 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 107886026-6 RDAO7RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 1,107,203.94 1,107,203.94 1,107,203.94 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 136343008-6 RDA10APROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 20,073.62 20,073.62 20,073.62 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 136343018-6 RDA10BPROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 5,218,637.03 5,218,637.03 5,218,637.03 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 136343000-6 RDA1OINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 157,316.04 157,316.04 157,316.04 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 136343001-6 RDA1OPRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 36.29 36.29 36.29 0.910 0.898 0.910 1 136343006-6 RDA1ORSRV First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 1,265,779.02 1,265,779.02 1,265,779.02 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 146161000-6 RDA11AINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 111.01 111.01 111.01 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 146161001-6 RDA11APRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 36.47 36.47 36.47 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94669902-3 03-1 BOND3 First American Treasury 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434160-1 RDA 02 INT1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94434161-2 RDA 02 PRIN2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 136343018-2 RDA 10B CIP2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 146161008-3 RDA11APROJ Federated Institutional Tax Fr 7,327,000.81 7,327,000.81 7,327,000.81 0.760 0.750 0.760 1 146161006-3 RDA11ARSRV Federated Institutional Tax Fr 1,314,308.70 1,314,308.70 1,314,308.70 0.760 0.750 0.760 1 94669921-5 03-01 ACQ11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669911-5 03-01 ACQA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669917-5 03-01 RES Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669906-5 03-01 RESA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 94669916-5 03-01 RESB11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669000-5 03-01 SPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 164742006-5 03-06 RES Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 164742000-5 03-06 SPEC Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669902-5 03-lbond fd Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686001-5 03-4 ADMIN11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94686005-5 03-4 PREP11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686006-5 03-4 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669917-1 03-01-1 RES CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 276213008-1 03-02 IMP CA Local Agency Investment Fun 15,103,984.21 15,103,984.21 15,103,984.21 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 164742006-1 03-06 RES -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 312,548.22 312,548.22 312,548.22 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 229462007-1 03-1 2012 RE CA Local Agency Investment Fun 07/01/2017 781,370.56 781,370.56 781,370.56 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 94669911-1 03-1 ACQ A2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2017 Page 3 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 94669921-1 03-1 ACQ B2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 744727011-1 03-3 ACQ 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 164741006-1 0303-1 RES CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,448,344.37 1,448,344.37 1,448,344.37 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 107886028-1 RDA 07 PRO -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 107886026-1 RDA 07 RES -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 136343018-1 RDA 10B CIP1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 107886006 RDA 06 RES A MBIA Surety Bond 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434166 RDA TABs RES MBIA Surety Bond 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 229462020-0 03-01 CASH USBANK 07/01/2017 794.68 794.68 794.68 0.000 0.000 1 233358050-1 01-2 SPECESC U.S. Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.360 0.355 0.360 1 229462020-2 03-01 TREASB U.S. Treasury 07/31/2017 870,796.89 870,796.89 870,796.89 0.063 0.062 0.063 1 Subtotal and Average 48,018,654.75 48,042,705.55 48,042,705.55 48,042,705.55 0.925 0.938 1 Retention Escrow Account ARMY CORPS Army Corps Union Bank Subtotal and Average 601,022.26 601,022.26 600,950.55 601,022.26 601,022.26 0.150 0.148 0.150 1 601,022.26 601,022.26 0.148 0.150 1 Letter of Credit 233358006-1 01-2 REFRESI ASSURANCE CO BOND INSURANCE 07/01/2017 1.00 1.00 1.00 Subtotal and Average 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 Local Agency Investment Funds SYSCITY CITY CA Local Agency Investment Fun 8,203,700.21 8,195,841.65 8,203,700.21 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 SYSRDA RDA CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,777.91 1,776.21 1,777.91 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 SYSTCSD TCSD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 24,480,556.84 24,457,106.20 24,480,556.84 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 Subtotal and Average 32,645,739.92 32,686,034.96 32,654,724.06 32,686,034.96 1.099 1.114 1 Federal Agency Callable Securities 3130A4G89 01207 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/24/2015 1,000,000.00 997,530.00 1,000,000.00 1.650 1.627 1.650 692 09/24/2019 3130AAME5 01226 Federal Home Loan Bank 01/30/2017 1,000,000.00 993,280.00 1,000,000.00 2.020 1.948 1.975 1,546 01/25/2022 3130AANA2 01227 Federal Home Loan Bank 01/30/2017 1,000,000.00 997,200.00 1,000,000.00 1.750 1.726 1.750 1,002 07/30/2020 3130AAW38 01228 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/22/2017 1,000,000.00 994,490.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 1.479 1.500 1,602 03/22/2022 3130AB3N4 01231 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/28/2017 1,000,000.00 994,550.00 1,000,000.00 1.550 1.529 1.550 727 10/29/2019 3130ABYY6 01235 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/24/2017 1,000,000.00 992,760.00 1,000,000.00 1.750 1.726 1.750 1,211 02/24/2021 3130ACN83 01238 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/30/2017 1,000,000.00 997,590.00 1,000,000.00 1.700 1.677 1.700 926 05/15/2020 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2017 Page 4 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Federal Agency Callable Securities 3134G67C1 01210 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 06/22/2015 1,000,000.00 998,580.00 1,000,000.00 1.200 1.184 1.200 233 06/22/2018 3134G8QB8 01219 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 03/29/2016 1,000,000.00 994,640.00 1,000,000.00 1.270 1.253 1.270 513 03/29/2019 3134G8PP8 01220 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 03/30/2016 1,000,000.00 991,600.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 1.661 1.684 1,064 09/30/2020 3134GAXX7 01224 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 11/30/2016 1,000,000.00 993,360.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 394 11/30/2018 3134GBAB8 01229 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 03/27/2017 1,000,000.00 995,090.00 1,000,000.00 1.670 1.647 1.670 877 03/27/2020 3134GBGZ9 01232 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 04/27/2017 1,000,000.00 995,860.00 1,000,000.00 2.000 1.964 1.991 1,548 01/27/2022 3134GBNK4 01234 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 05/30/2017 1,000,000.00 995,970.00 1,000,000.00 1.625 1.603 1.625 940 05/29/2020 3134GBL42 01237 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 09/28/2017 1,000,000.00 995,310.00 1,000,000.00 1.670 1.647 1.670 1,062 09/28/2020 3134GBR95 01239 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 10/30/2017 1,000,000.00 998,530.00 1,000,000.00 1.625 1.603 1.625 728 10/30/2019 3136G2EC7 01205 Federal National Mtg Assn 02/27/2015 1,000,000.00 996,690.00 1,000,000.00 1.300 1.282 1.300 483 02/27/2019 3136G2WT0 01216 Federal National Mtg Assn 01/27/2016 1,000,000.00 993,390.00 1,000,000.00 1.450 1.430 1.450 817 01/27/2020 3136G2XH5 01217 Federal National Mtg Assn 02/24/2016 1,000,000.00 991,930.00 1,000,000.00 1.400 1.381 1.400 845 02/24/2020 3136G3CL7 01218 Federal National Mtg Assn 03/24/2016 1,000,000.00 990,000.00 1,000,000.00 1.420 1.401 1.420 1,058 09/24/2020 3136G3TE5 01221 Federal National Mtg Assn 06/29/2016 1,000,000.00 987,260.00 1,000,000.00 1.250 1.233 1.250 971 06/29/2020 3136G3X59 01222 Federal National Mtg Assn 08/23/2016 1,000,000.00 990,200.00 1,000,000.00 1.100 1.085 1.100 660 08/23/2019 Subtotal and Average 20,129,032.26 22,000,000.00 21,875,810.00 22,000,000.00 1.503 1.524 905 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 3133EDND0 01196 Federal Farm Credit Bank 06/11/2014 1,000,000.00 999,960.00 1,000,000.00 1.200 1.179 1.195 71 01/11/2018 3133EEHU7 01202 Federal Farm Credit Bank 01/14/2015 1,000,000.00 998,720.00 1,000,000.00 1.410 1.391 1.410 439 01/14/2019 3133EGJ30 01225 Federal Farm Credit Bank 11/18/2016 1,000,000.00 987,970.00 1,000,000.00 1.100 1.085 1.100 747 11/18/2019 3130A4AJ1 01206 Federal Home Loan Bank 02/27/2015 1,000,000.00 999,450.00 1,000,000.00 1.140 1.124 1.140 118 02/27/2018 3130A5MH9 01211 Federal Home Loan Bank 06/26/2015 1,000,000.00 998,280.00 1,000,000.00 1.360 1.341 1.360 420 12/26/2018 3130A8ZV8 01223 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/23/2016 1,000,000.00 986,040.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 660 08/23/2019 3130AAYM4 01230 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/14/2017 1,000,000.00 999,500.00 1,000,000.00 1.125 1.110 1.125 133 03/14/2018 3130ABDX1 01233 Federal Home Loan Bank 05/24/2017 1,000,000.00 996,110.00 1,000,000.00 1.400 1.381 1.400 569 05/24/2019 3130AC3F9 01236 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/10/2017 1,000,000.00 996,120.00 1,000,000.00 1.420 1.853 1.878 665 08/28/2019 Subtotal and Average 9,801,354.84 9,000,000.00 8,962,150.00 9,000,000.00 1.272 1.290 425 Total and Average 117,523,368.24 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 112,329,763.77 112,136,412.87 112,329,763.77 1.113 1.128 212 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Cash October 31, 2017 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Page 5 Passbook/Checking Accounts 1453718479 WORKERS COMP BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNC 07/01/2017 17,463.79 17,463.79 17,463.79 0.000 0.000 1 SYSPetty Cash Petty Cash City of Temecula 07/01/2017 3,261.00 3,261.00 3,261.00 0.000 0.000 1 SYSGen Ck Acct Gen Ck Acct Union Bank of California 3,806,998.82 3,806,998.82 3,806,998.82 0.000 0.000 1 SYSParking Ck PARKING CITA Union Bank of California 07/01/2017 7,303.00 7,303.00 7,303.00 0.000 0.000 1 Average Balance 0.00 1 Total Cash and Investments 117,523,368.24 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 116,164,790.38 115,971,439.48 116,164,790.38 1.113 1.128 212 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Cash and Investments Report CITY OF TEMECULA Through October 2017 Fund # Fund Name Beginning Balance Receipts Disbursements Fund Total 001 GENERAL FUND 002 MEASURES FUND 100 STATE GAS TAX FUND 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 125 PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 145 TEMECULA ENERGY EFFICIENCY ASSET TEAM 150 AB 2766 FUND 160 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES 161 LARRY ROBINSON REWARD 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 170 MEASURE A FUND 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD MAINT 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 198 PUBLIC ART 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 275 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK IMPROVEMENT FUND 277 CFD-RORIPAUGH 278 CFD-RORIPAUGH II 300 INSURANCE FUND 305 WORKERS COMPENSATION 310 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FUND 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 325 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 380 SARDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 474 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 475 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 478 CFD-RORIPAUGH II 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 530 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 30 FUTURE ZONES $ 33,573,689.86 $ 7,491,930.88 $ 8,146,964.73 $ 32,918,656.01 2,183,173.81 1,949,130.60 2,183,176.69 1,949,127.72 402,519.26 434,382.51 402,519.90 434,381.87 5,573,880.52 469,778.68 8.94 6,043,650.26 276,292.64 871.95 0.41 277,164.18 131,603.37 535.80 199.50 131,939.67 197,418.40 665.58 0.29 198,083.69 135, 763.80 287.47 10, 000.19 126, 051.08 92,995.65 74,579.84 92,995.76 74,579.73 25,631.05 78.66 0.04 25,709.67 766,335.56 31,380.41 28,735.48 768,980.49 6,585,652.21 232,130.96 238,566.94 6,579,216.23 637,230.07 970,255.42 599,635.22 1,007,850.27 19,743.34 93,488.08 74,801.85 38,429.57 337,401.84 49,147.41 12,005.54 374,543.71 23,375.30 362.35 0.04 23,737.61 339, 023.74 1,820.19 18, 347.13 322, 496.80 211,887.78 126,777.93 85,039.08 253,626.63 89,913.65 6,993.37 0.14 96,906.88 12,016,258.41 278,108.05 2,974,555.55 9,319,810.91 298,042.52 216.28 - 298,258.80 16,325,901.19 42,044.74 0.19 16,367,945.74 6,431,512.83 4,667.20 - 6,436,180.03 149,110.15 288,287.58 121,976.09 315,421.64 836,585.34 202,847.42 41,408.79 998,023.97 1, 603, 289.00 183, 941.05 2.64 1, 787, 227.41 73,434.80 354,748.40 227,262.47 200,920.73 455, 054.33 418, 915.32 17, 618.21 856, 351.44 393,403.94 83,720.58 36,282.46 440,842.06 300,390.55 337,632.54 111,431.11 526,591.98 16,810,112.69 11,968.55 15,239.50 16,806,841.74 90,092.31 163.17 0.13 90,255.35 611,515.08 557.64 2,366.74 609,705.98 1,773,129.57 2,548.74 6,631.00 1,769,047.31 72,619.49 275.00 1,466.70 71,427.79 1,990,236.15 6,011.43 2,537.21 1,993,710.37 363,297.76 1,242.37 2,511.74 362,028.39 809,950.58 1,004.76 2,666.78 808,288.56 3,204,427.49 2,347.81 3,427.58 3,203,347.72 2,625.36 597.35 3,222.71 - 73,752.45 112.83 6,779.92 67,085.36 10,120.31 24.52 6,384.96 3,759.87 2,250.77 4.30 533.36 1,721.71 10,970.89 22.55 2,839.51 8,153.93 21,418.63 51.45 1,313.95 20,156.13 60,108.49 108.11 11, 641.63 48, 574.97 21,891.57 64.51 246.53 21,709.55 8,031.08 13.75 617.00 7,427.83 2,066.47 3.28 439.01 1,630.74 65,288.99 116.22 8,743.65 56,661.56 10,348.43 19.93 2,835.33 7,533.03 2,981.62 6.80 1,158.90 1,829.52 1,829.23 3.90 601.27 1,231.86 37,240.00 62.52 2,150.51 35,152.01 640.16 1.21 160.05 481.32 24,120.79 48.54 7,164.21 17,005.12 77,812.78 119.92 3,287.22 74,645.48 117, 018.41 196.86 12, 461.61 104, 753.66 145,118.65 242.37 17, 014.63 128, 346.39 4,473.70 7.14 261.64 4,219.20 12,217.85 20.28 458.40 11,779.73 52,903.41 106.28 29,919.28 23,090.41 39,358.25 62.67 3,418.25 36,002.67 537.25 1.13 188.99 349.39 6,500.41 10.42 1,241.90 5,268.93 355, 714.22 554.44 15, 069.11 341,199.55 34,204.64 104.98 0.05 34,309.57 Grand Total: $ 117,413,440.84 $ 14,158,534.98 $ 15,600,536.34 $ 115,971,439.48 Journal Entries completed after September's Treasurer's Report was issued are reflected in the Receipts / Disbursements columns. Item No. 5 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Citywide Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Goods, Supplies and Equipment Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 Per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2017-18 PREPARED BY: Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the purchase of miscellaneous consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment from the following vendors for Fiscal Year 2017-18: Vendor FY 17-18 Estimated Amount Description of Purchases Downs Fueling $50,000 Vehicle Gasoline Hanks Hardware $85,000 Miscellaneous Hardware Items Home Depot $35,000 Miscellaneous Hardware Items Maintex $35,000 Janitorial Supplies Mission Electric $35,000 Electrical Equipment and Supplies Waxie Sanitary Supplies $40,000 Janitorial Supplies BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Resolution No. 15-28, any purchase of consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment in excess of $30,000 requires City Council action. Throughout each year, multiple City departments purchase goods, supplies and equipment from the same vendors. While no single department purchases over $30,000, the cumulative purchases citywide from the vendors noted above may exceed this threshold. Therefore, staff is requesting that the City Council authorize the miscellaneous cumulative purchase of goods, supplies and equipment for Fiscal Year 2017-18 from the vendors as indicated above. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are programmed in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 operating budgets for affected departments. ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve a Five-year Contract with MUFG Union Bank, N.A. for Banking Services PREPARED BY: Rudy J. Graciano, Fiscal Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve a Five -Year Contract with MUFG Union Bank, N.A., for banking services; 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute all necessary agreements. BACKGROUND: On September 24, 1996, the City Council awarded a professional services contract for banking services to MUFG Union Bank N.A., formerly Union Bank. This contract was awarded after an extensive request for proposal and interview process. On September 23, 2003, the City Council awarded a four-year extension of the City's contract through December 31, 2007, and on December 11, 2007, the City Council awarded a five-year extension of the contract through December 2012. The most recent contract was a five extension and was approved by the City Council on December 12, 2012. This contract expires on December 31, 2017. MUFG Union Bank is one of the largest commercial banks in the United States. It has 398 domestic branches, the majority of which are in San Diego, Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The bank also has facilities in Arizona, Calgary, the Cayman Islands, Illinois, Nevada, New York, Texas, the District of Columbia, Oregon, and Washington, and two offices outside the United States. MUFG Union Bank has a very strong Government Services Department that exclusively handles public entities, ensuring that individuals experienced in meeting the needs of governmental entities service the City's accounts. City continues to be extremely satisfied with the service and cash management products that MUFG Union Bank has provided over the past twenty one years. Over the past contract periods, staff implemented a variety of cash management systems. These systems include Union Bank Online Business Center, which is used daily to download account balance and transaction detail information, to perform inquiries into the status of checks issued by the City, to perform stop payments and to transfer funds between City accounts when required. The City also uses the Union Bank Online Business Center to transmit direct deposit of payroll and benefit reimbursements to employees, as well as to transmit accounts payable information electronically to the bank's positive pay system to shield the City from potential fraud or defalcations on the City's account. The City also receives electronic fund transfers, generates wire transfers and Automated Clearing House (ACH) payments for items such as payroll taxes, accept credit cards, and to automate portions of the reconciliation of bank accounts. The City has also implemented various fraud protection services, such as ACH filters, IP restrictions, and Positive Payee Validation. Most recently, the City has began utilizing the MUFG Union Bank's Cash Letter system to remotely deposit its checks received into the bank. Based upon staff's satisfaction with the services provided by MUFG Union Bank, as well as the amount of effort that has been invested over the past and current years to implement and enhance various banking and cash management systems, staff is recommending an extension of the City's professional services agreement for banking services with MUFG Union Bank. If the City were to change banking relationships at this time, considerable time, effort and cost would be required to implement a new set of banking systems, and staff would require any bank selected to have strong presence servicing other governmental entities. MUFG Union Bank has proposed enhancements to our agreement if the City were to agree, at this time, to extend the current five year extension contract (originally set to expire December 31, 2017) for another five years. As such, MUFG Union Bank will be increasing the earnings credit rate for compensating balances from 0.40% to a managed Government fixed rate of 0.55%, which may be adjusted based on market conditions. This increased earnings credit is expected to provide an annual credit of $8,100 to be applied towards banking fees. Further, MUFG will be reducing an Unencoded Courier Deposit fee, which is expected to increase bank fee savings an additional $720. In accordance with California Government Code, the contract may be terminated with 30 days written notice by either party. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of banking services will be offset against the interest earnings credit generated on the City's account balance. The net annual cost for banking services is expected to be approximately $40,000 per year. With the lower unit cost for banking services offered by MUFG Union Bank, the City will save approximately $8,820 per year, or approximately $44,100 over the entire five year recommended contract period. ATTACHMENT: Contract for Banking Services Contract for Banking Services Between City of Temecula and MUFG UNION BANK, N.A. This CONTRACT FOR BANKING SERVICES (hereinafter "Contract"), effective January 1, 2018 by and between MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (hereinafter "Bank"), and the CITY OF TEMECULA (hereinafter "CITY"), is in accordance with California Government Code 53682. Whereas, in the judgment of the Treasurer this Contract is to public advantage; and Whereas, the CITY desires to secure a wide range of banking services to be provided by a single financial institution pursuant to a Contract; and, Whereas, Bank represents to the CITY that it meets the requisite legal and other qualifications and possesses sufficient financial strength and capacity to render the banking services sought by the CITY. Now, therefore, in consideration of mutual covenants, it is agreed that the Bank will service the CITY's banking needs for a contract period of five (5) years with an expiration date of December 31, 2023. Bank will guarantee fixed unit pricing for the banking services set forth on Exhibit A- Government Services Pricing Scenario -Price Schedule 03, All About Business Accounts and Services and Transaction Banking Services disclosure and agreement, and Government Fee Schedule per attached hereto and incorporated herein for the entire contract period. CITY will be sole selector of services to be utilized. All other standard Bank terms and conditions apply, including standard pricing, except as set forth herein. Any mutual amendments to this contract will be an addendum to this contract. This Contract may be terminated on thirty (30) days written notice by either party disclosed in the Contract for Deposit of Moneys as required by the California Government Code. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA City Manager - Aaron Adams Dated: Dated: 12/1/2018 MUFG Union Bank, N.A. e /).21 Vice President — Eileen L. Perez Attest: City Clerk - Randi Johl Dated: Approved as to form: City Attorney - Peter Thorson Dated: PO BOX 513909 LOS ANGELES ACCOUNT OFFICER: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL ACCOUNT 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA CA 92590 EXHIBIT A - GOVERNMENT SERVICES PRICING - PRICE SCHEDULE 03 PAGE: 1 E -STATEMENT 0274-03 CA 90051-3909 0000 TITO D IBARROLA (213) 236-4243 0000 0000 MASTER ACCOUNT SETTLEMENT PERIOD: 10/01/17 - 12/31/17 DATE PREPARED: NOVEMBER 10, 2017 UNION BANK ACCOUNT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2017 AFFILIATION NET ACCOUNT POSITION SUMMARY AMOUNT DUE - CURRENT SETTLEMENT PERIOD $0.00 AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT $0.00 PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY FOR COMPLETE DETAILS H PAGE: 2 PO BOX 513909 0274-03 LOS ANGELES CA 90051-3909 ACCOUNT OFFICER: TITO D IBARROLA TELEPHONE NUMBER: (213) 236-4243 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL ACCOUNT 0000 0000 0000 MASTER ACCOUNT SETTLEMENT PERIOD: 10/01/17 - 12/31/17 DATE PREPARED: NOVEMBER 10, 2017 UNION BANK ACCOUNT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2017 AFFILIATION BALANCE SUMMARY AVERAGE BUSINESS CHECKING LEDGER BALANCE TOTAL AVERAGE LEDGER BALANCE AVERAGE ADJUSTED LEDGER BALANCE LESS: AVERAGE UNCOLLECTED FUNDS AVERAGE COLLECTED BALANCE LESS: RESERVE REQUIREMENT BALANCE AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT ACTIVITY ACCOUNT POSITION EARNINGS CREDIT RATE OF 0.4000% Increase ECR from 0.40 to 0.55% NET EARNINGS ALLOWANCE - THIS MONTH LESS: CHARGES FOR BALANCE COMPENSATED SERVICES NET EARNINGS DEFICIT - SETTLEMENT PERIOD TO DATE ACCOUNT POSITION SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, YOUR ACCOUNT(S) RECEIVED A $3,230.02 BENEFIT FROM STANDARD RATES AND PRICING. COLLECTED BALANCE REQUIRED PER $1.00 OF SERVICE CHARGE IS $3,270.61 CLIENTS AND ACCOUNTS INCLUDED IN THIS ANALYSIS 2740014458 CITY OF TEMECULA-PAR 2740020830 CITY OF TEMECULA 2740020849 CITY OF TEMECULA 2740033983 CITY OF TEMECULA SERVICES PROVIDED - BALANCE COMPENSATION ACCOUNT ANALYSIS ACCT MAINTENANCE - WEB ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION FULL RECON MONTHLY MAINT POS PAY MONTHLY MAINT SERVICE DETAIL $5,883,693.04 $5,883,693.04 $5,883,693.04 145,515.62 $5,738,177.42 573,817.73 $5,164,359.69 $1,754.47 1,754.47 3,909.65 $2,155.18 BALANCE VOLUME UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE REQUIRED 4.00 $5.00/ACCOUNT 2.00 $35/ACCT/MONTH 1.00 $00/ACCT/MONTH 20.00 65,412.19 70.00 0.00 228,942.65 0.00 H PAGE: 3 PO BOX 513909 0274-03 LOS ANGELES ACCOUNT OFFICER: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL ACCOUNT ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION CHECK PAID TRUNCATED DAILY PAID REPORT OUTSTANDING ONLY REPORT OUTSTANDING CHECK REGISTR-ITEM OTHER REPORTS TRANSMISSION OUTPUT- PER TX TRANSMISSION OUTPUT - PER ITEM WEB POS PAY -ACCOUNT BASE WEB POS PAY -MANUAL ISSUE WEB POS PAY -IMPORTED ISSUE PAYEE POS PAY ACCT BASE PAYEE NAME VALIDATION TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ARMORED CAR SERVICES BUSINESS CHECKING BRANCH DEPOSIT ELECTRONIC CREDIT ELECTRONIC DEBIT BANK STATEMENT WEB DEPOSIT ADMIN FEE CHECK PROCESSING UNENCODED COURIER DEPOSIT UB CHECKS - BRANCH DEPOSIT LOCAL CLR.HSE./BRANCH DEP. LOCAL FED DIST 12 - BRANCH DEP OTHER FED - BRANCH DEPOSIT UB CHECKS SERV. CTR DEPOSIT LOCAL CLR. HSE./SER. CTR LOCAL FED DIST 12 -SERV CTR DEP ENCODING FEE - SERV. CTR. DEP. OTHER FED - SERV CTR DEPOSIT WEEKEND PROCESSING DEBIT ERROR NOTICE CORPORATE TRUST CORPORATE TRUST - TRUSTEE FEES ACH SERVICES ACH WEB MONTHLY BASE FEE ACH WEB CREDIT TRANSACTION CA 90051-3909 TITO D IBARROLA (213) 236-4243 MASTER ACCOUNT DATE PREPARED: UNION BANK ACCOUNT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2017 AFFILIATION SERVICE DETAIL VOLUME UNIT PRICE 565.00 2.00 1.00 396.00 1.00 1.00 482.00 2.00 25.00 508.00 1.00 26.00 17.00 34.00 37.00 4.00 5,883.68 $.115 EACH $0.00/RPT $10.00/RPT $0.00 $10.00/REPORT $12.50/TRANS $.025/ITEM $00.00/ACCOUNT $0.25/ISSUE $0.18/ISSUE $0.00 $.025/ITEM $2.00/DEPOSIT $.15/EACH $.15/EACH $5.00/EACH $0.0894/1000 15.00 $8.00/DEPOSIT 1.00 $0.09/ITEM 16.00 $0.10/ITEM 27.00 $.14/ITEM 17.00 $.15/ITEM 6.00 $.05/ITEM 38.00 $.08/ITEM 50.00 $.08/ITEM 101.00 $.0325/ITEM 7.00 $.10/ITEM 3.00 1.00 $8.50/ITEM 875.00 2.00 $75.00/SET UP 100.00 $0.00 0000 0000 0000 NOVEMBER 10, 2017 TOTAL PRICE BALANCE REQUIRED 64.98 212,524.19 0.00 0.00 10.00 32,706.09 0.00 0.00 10.00 32,706.09 12.50 40,882.62 12.05 39,410.84 0.00 0.00 6.25 20,441.31 91.44 299,064.52 0.00 0.00 0.65 2,125.90 439.12 1,436,189.96 34.00 111,200.72 5.10 16,680.11 5.55 18,151.88 20.00 65,412.19 526.00 1,720,340.50 120.00 392,473.12 0.09 294.35 1.60 5,232.97 3.78 12,362.90 2.55 8,340.05 0.30 981.18 3.04 9,942.65 4.00 13,082.44 3.28 10,727.60 0.70 2,289.43 0.00 0.00 8.50 27,800.18 875.00 2,861,783.15 150.00 490,591.40 0.00 0.00 H Reduce unencoded courier deposit from $8.00/deposit to $4.00/deposit PO BOX 513909 LOS ANGELES ACCOUNT OFFICER: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL ACCOUNT ACH SERVICES ACH WEB CREDIT TRANSACTION ACH WEB BATCH RELEASE CASH VAULT SERVICES DEPOSIT -MIXED CASH CHECK DEPOSIT - CASH OR COIN ONLY CURRENCY DEPOSITED -UNSTRAPPED DEPOSIT ADJUSTMENT COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER SERVICE IMAGE OF DEP ITEM <30DAYS IMAGE OF DEP ITEM 31-60DAYS ELECTRONIC PAYMENT AUTHORIZAT EPA MONTHLY MAINTENANCE EPA MONTHLY MAINTENANCE ELECTRONIC TAX DEPOSIT WEB WEB IMAGE ICL ICL ICL ICL CHECK IOD INSTATAX MONTHLY MAINT INSTATAX PAYMENT CHECK MAINTENANCE - DIRECT SEND PER ITEM - DIRECT SEND FILE TRANSMISSION PER DEPOSIT - DIRECT SEND IMAGE MONTHLY MAINTENANCE FEE IOD PER ITEM FEE INFORMATION REPORTING WEB WEB WEB WEB WEB WEB WEB WEB PRIOR DAY REPORT ACCOUNT PRIOR DAY REPORT ACCOUNT PD BAL/SUM UPDATED PD TRANSACTIONS UPDATED CD BAL/SUM UPDATED CD TRANSACTIONS UPDATED CURRENT DAY REPT ACCOUNT CURRENT DAY REPT ACCOUNT DEPOSITED ITEMS RETURNED DEPOSITD ITEMS RETURND-CHRGBK WEB RI - MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OFFICE CASH SERVICES CURRENCY FURNISHED PAGE: 4 0274-03 CA 90051-3909 TITO D IBARROLA (213) 236-4243 MASTER ACCOUNT DATE PREPARED: UNION BANK ACCOUNT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2017 AFFILIATION SERVICE DETAIL VOLUME UNIT PRICE 1,009.00 $o.25 6.00 $5.00/TRANSMIS 45.00 101.00 29,746.00 4.00 $3.00/DEPOSIT $1.45/DEPOSIT $1.20/$1000 $7.00/ADJ. 2.00 $.50/ITEM 1.00 $.75/ITEM 1.00 1ST ACCOUNT 2.00 ACCOUNTS 2-10 2.00 $5.00/EACH 7.00 $1.50/EACH 1.00 414.00 19.00 36.00 $50/MONTH $0.06/ITEM $1.00/FILE $2.50 1.00 $5.00 PER MONT 1.00 $0.00 PER ITEM 1.00 2.00 788.00 450.00 263.00 182.00 1.00 2.00 $35.00/ACCOUNT $35.00/ACCOUNT $0.08/ITEM UPD $0.08/ITEM UPD $0.08/ITEM UPD $0.08/ITEM UPD $50.00/ACCOUNT $50.00/ACCOUNT 2.00 $6.25/ITEM 1.00 $5.00 PER MONT 3,423.13 $1.30/$1000 0000 0000 0000 NOVEMBER 10, 2017 TOTAL PRICE BALANCE REQUIRED 252.25 825,011.20 30.00 98,118.28 135.00 441,532.26 146.45 478,980.73 35.70 116,760.75 28.00 91,577.06 1.00 3,270.61 0.75 2,452.96 10.00 32,706.09 20.00 65,412.19 10.00 32,706.09 10.50 34,341.40 50.00 163,530.47 24.84 81,241.94 19.00 62,141.58 90.00 294,354.84 5.00 16,353.05 0.00 0.00 35.00 114,471.33 70.00 228,942.65 63.04 206,179.21 36.00 117,741.94 21.04 68,813.62 14.56 47,620.07 50.00 163,530.47 100.00 327,060.93 12.50 40,882.62 5.00 16,353.05 4.45 14,554.21 H PO BOX 513909 LOS ANGELES ACCOUNT OFFICER: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL ACCOUNT OFFICE CASH SERVICES DEPOSITED CURRENCY TEAM STOP PAYMENTS WEB ACCT RECON STOP PMT WEB STOP PAYMENT RENEWAL WEB STOP SINGLE INQUIRY WEB NUMBER STOP ACCOUNTS ELECTRONIC WIRE TRANSFER ACCT TRANSFER END-OF-DAY/WEB WIRE TRANSFER MONTHLY FEE/WEB OUTGOING DOMESTIC WIRE/WEB ZERO BALANCE ACCOUNTS CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT SUB LEVEL 1 PAGE: 5 0274-03 CA 90051-3909 TITO D IBARROLA (213) 236-4243 MASTER ACCOUNT DATE PREPARED: UNION BANK ACCOUNT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2017 AFFILIATION SERVICE DETAIL TOTAL CHARGES: BALANCE COMPENSATED SERVICES SERVICES PROVIDED - FEES WAIVED CUSTOMER SERVICE ACTIVITIES NON -CUSTOMER CASH PAID ON -US VOLUME UNIT PRICE 60.00 $1.50/$1000 1.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 $10.00/STOP PA $00.00/RENEWAL $2.00/INQUIRY STOP ACCOUNT $2.50/EACH $25.00/EACH $8.00/EACH 1.00 $35.00/EACH 1.00 $20.00/MONTH 5.00 $5.00/PER CHEC 0000 0000 0000 NOVEMBER 10, 2017 TOTAL PRICE 0.09 10.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 5.00 25.00 24.00 35.00 20.00 3,909.65 25.00 TOTAL CHARGES: WAIVED SERVICES 25.00 BALANCE REQUIRED 294.35 32,706.09 0.00 32,706.09 0.00 16,353.05 81,765.23 78,494.62 114,471.33 65,412.19 12,786,937.73 H EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2017 Government Services Fee Schedule MUFG 1) UnionBanke Look for these convenient online services. Many products and services are available online through the Financial Center. Conducting your transactions online can help provide convenience, cost savings, and efficiencies for your business. With a single sign -on through one point of entry, you can collect or disburse funds; obtain account information; view paid checks, deposit tickets, and statements; initiate wire transfers; and more. ACH 10-12 Commercial Deposit Supplies 2 Deposited Items Returned 4, 8 Electronic Receivables 10 Image on Demand 8, 13, 25 Information Reporting 14-15 Lockbox 16-19 Online Statements 7 Positive Pay 22-23 Remote Deposit 25-26 Stop Payments 9, 25 Tax Payment with InstaTax° 26 Trade Services 30-32 Wire Transfers 28-29 See our All About Business Accounts & Services and Transaction Banking Services Disclosure and Agreement for additional details of terms and conditions governing your accounts and services. All pricing subject to change without notice, except as otherwise provided by applicable law. Not all fees and charges are eligible for offset through your earnings allowance. These ineligible fees and charges will be directly charged to your account. TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL SERVICES 1 Basic Account Services 1 Check Processing Services 3 Commercial Cash Services (Centralized Cash Vaults) 5 Contractor Retention Funds Service 6 Corporate Trust Services 6 Custody Services 6 Foreign Exchange Services 7 Government Customer Service 7 Training and Implementation Services 9 Transportation Services 9 Zero Balance Account (ZBA) Service 9 TRANSACTION BANKING SERVICES 10 Automated Clearing House (ACH) Origination Services 10 ACH Receipt Services 11 E -Lockbox Service 12 Controlled Disbursement Service 13 Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Services 14 Information Reporting Service 14 International Request for Transfer Service 15 Investment Services 16 Lockbox Services 16 Online Banking Services 19 Online Services @ unionbank.com 19 Integrated Payables Services 20 Payroll Services 21 Positive Pay Services 22 Property Tax Payments Via Electronic Funds Transfer Services 23 Receivables Straight Through Processing Services 23 Reconcilement Services 24 Remote Deposit Services 25 Sweep Service 26 Tax Payment with InstaTax° Service 26 Total Biller Solution Service 26 Wire Transfer Services 28 TRADE SERVICES 30 Collections—Incoming and Outgoing 30 Export Letters of Credit 30 Import Letters of Credit 31 Standby Letters of Credit 31 Other Trade Services 32 The lowest -priced option for each service or channel is highlighted for your convenience. GENERAL SERVICES BASIC ACCOUNT SERVICES Account Analysis Monthly Maintenance and Statement Delivery Web Mail Both 75.00 per account $ 25.00 50.00 Statements (822 Format) Monthly Maintenance per relationship $ 30.00 Transmission Output each $ 20.00 Secure Message Setup $ 100.00 Secure Message per diskette $ 30.00 Account Analysis Earnings Allowance The rate is set each month based on current market conditions and is subject to change without prior notice. Charges for some services are offset by collected balances, and some may be subject to direct charges. Account Analysis Late Fee Earnings deficits remaining unpaid by the date specified on the Account Analysis statement will be assessed a late fee (compounded monthly). Deficit and late assessment amounts are subject to direct debit to the account. Late Fee per month 4% Deposit Administration Fee The Deposit Administration Fee may include FDIC assessment charges, financing corporation (FICO) charges, and other charges provided by law and may also include administrative expense incurred by the Bank in providing depository services. The FDIC charges member Insured Depository Institutions risk- based assessments to cover the costs associated with providing deposit insurance under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as well as FICO assessments to cover the financing costs associated with the Federal Savings and Loan Crisis of 1987 The Deposit Administration Fee will be assessed monthly at a rate per $1,000 of average monthly adjusted ledger balance. The charge is variable and is subject to change by the Bank at any time without notice. Bank Account Services Bank Statements Web Mail Both Paper Statements (Without Check Images) each $ 5.00 35.00 40.00 Paper Statements (With Check Images)— Mailed Front Image each $ 27.00 Front and Back Images each $ 32.00 CD of Check Images CD each $ 50.00 Image Transmission Monthly Maintenance $ 20.00 Per Transmission each $ 10.00 Per Item each $ .05 ATM Deposit per deposit $ 2.00 Branch/Mail Deposits per deposit $ 8.00 Night Drop Deposits per deposit $ 16.00 1 Checks Paid Against Account Per Month each $ .20 Vendor Services consult account manager Vendor Bill Processing Fee $ 7.50 Night Depository Rental per month $ 2.00 Foreign Currency Demand Account (FCDA) Monthly Maintenance per account $ 50.00 Third -Party Control Account Setup per account $ 600.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 75.00 Non -Standard Bank Agreement each $ 600.00 Excess Activity Charge For each limited transaction in excess of six each monthly statement cycle (money market accounts) or calendar month (savings accounts and money market accounts where the statement cycle date was requested to be on a specific day); includes telephone, online, and overdraft transfers. Savings per excess activity $ 15.00 Money Market per excess activity $ 15.00 Checks/Deposit Slips Printed/Barcode Labels consult account manager Rejects of > 2% of Checks Written and Deposit Slips as the Result of Non -Standard MICR per item $ .25 Deposit Receipt Mailed each $ 2.00 Nonsufficient Available or Uncollected Funds (NSFs/UCFs) Nonsufficient Available Funds (NSFs) Item Charges Checks or other transactions presented against nonsufficient available funds, whether paid or unpaid: Nonsufficient Funds per item $ 35.00 Daily Maximum 10 items Overdraft Balance Charges Overdraft balances and related fees are charged the Union Bank® Reference Rate plus 4.0% per annum, computed daily, with a minimum daily charge of $10.00, assessed from the time such overdraft balances are created and related fees are incurred. The minimum daily charge and accrued interest are then added to the overdraft balance. Uncollected Funds (UCFs) Customer usage of UCFs is charged the Union Bank Reference Rate plus 4.0% per annum (10% minimum), computed on the average daily usage of uncollected funds for the month in question. Other Services ACH Blocked Account Monthly Maintenance ACH Blocked Debit/Credit First Account $ 30.00 Accounts 2+ each $ 10.00 ACH Debits and Credits per item $ .20 Account Notifications $ FREE Transmission Notifications $ FREE Check Cashing per item $ 2.75 Clerical Work (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Commercial Deposit Supplies... refer to unionbank.com/supply Foreign Drafts Purchase each $ 45.00 Money Order Purchase each $ 5.00 Official Check Purchase (Cashier's Check) each $ 7.00 2 Financial Center Security Tokens each $ FREE Special Handling and Special Processing Options consult account manager Training and Implementation Services see page 9 CHECK PROCESSING SERVICES Our Check Processing services provide flexible options and convenience for improved cash flow and easier transaction reporting. The prices for all of the following customer service options are in addition to the basic returned item fee. Check Processing Check -Only Deposits Service Center -Un -Encoded per deposit $ 8.00 Service Center -Pre -Encoded per deposit $ 8.00 ATM per deposit $ 2.00 Branch/Night Depository/Mail Depositper deposit $ 2.00 Checks Deposited Branch ATM Service Center Union Bank Items per item $ Local Clearing House per item $ Local Fed, District 12 per item $ Other Fed per item $ Canadian Checks in USD per item $ Encoding Fee per item $ .18 .20 .20 .20 3.00 N/A .18 .20 .20 .20 3.00 N/A 18 .20 .20 .20 4.50 .20 Subventions (Customer) each $ 5.00 Subventions (Non -Customer) each $ 35.00 Pre-Sort/Co-Endorsed Service Per Deposit -Equity Participant per bank, per day $ 9.50 Per Deposit -Regular Participant per bank, per day $ 25.00 Exception Processing Reject Processing Check Processing Rejects > .7% per item $ .65 Non -Machinable Deposit per deposit $ 2.00 Non -Machinable Items per item $ .60 Reject Reporting Daily Faxed Report per month/per acct $ 75.00 Daily Reject Reporting Mail per month/per acct $ 125.00 Monthly Faxed Report per month/per acct $ 60.00 Monthly Mailed Report per month/per acct $ 110.00 Deposit Corrections Deposit Correction Notice per item $ 8.50 Documentation for Deposit Corrections Less Than $50 per document $ 8.00 Deposit Correction Reporting -Fax Daily Reconcilement per month/per acct $ 75.00 Daily Reconcilement Summary per month/per acct $ 25.00 Daily Location Detail per month/per acct $ 50.00 3 Adjustments Pre -Encoded Errors per adjustment $ 3.50 Pre -Sort Encoding Errors per adjustment $ 18.00 Check Sent for Collection $ 30.00 Deposited Items Returned Deposited Items Returned Returned Item -Charge Back to Accountper item $ Re -Cleared Item -Re -Deposited per item $ Charge Back and Re -Clear Reporting Copy/Image or Deposited Items Returned on the Web Items Made Available for Inquiry each $ Items Made Available for Decisioning each $ Monthly Maintenance $ Daily Data Transmission per transmission $ per item $ Fax -Image Image Fax Notification per item $ 10.00 Duplicate Advice per item $ 10.50 12.00 6.00 1.50 2.50 5.00 20.00 .25 Returned Item Large Dollar Early Warning Report Warnings Reported per item $ *Additional fees may apply. Please see Information Reporting Service. Web 5.00 Info Reporting* 7.00 Custom Instruction Options Alternate Account Number per account $ 5.00 Alternate Mailing Address $ FREE Data Entry for Custom Fields per keystroke $ .01 Disposition Change per item $ 7.50 Endorsement Guaranteed per item $ 5.00 Alternate Bank of First Deposit Monthly Maintenance per account $ 35.00 Requalified Returned Item per item $ 7.00 State of California -Any Authorized Vendor WIC Reporting Data File Transmission (Maximum $275) each S 25.00 WIC Item Reported each $ .01 Deposited Foreign Checks Returned each $ 5.00 Endpoint Analysis Reports These reports provide deposit profile information based on an individual deposit or a daily or cycle summary. Each report contains the item count and dollar value associated with each endpoint, indicates the percentage breakdown of item and dollar amount by Federal Reserve District, and provides the receipt time by deposit and availability assigned by item. Float Analysis Relationship Account Location Individual Deposits per report $ Single Day Report per report $ Multiple Day Report (Up to One (1) Month) per report $ File Output per report $ N/A 300.00 500.00 500.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 500.00 N/A N/A 150.00 500.00 4 COMMERCIAL CASH SERVICES (CENTRALIZED CASH VAULTS) Union Bank offers Commercial Cash services with state-of- the-art high-speed currency verification systems for your cash deposits and cash order needs. Commercial cash vaults are located in major cities throughout the United States. Deposit Services Cash Vault Deposits Cash and Coin Only per deposit $ 1.50 Mixed Deposits (Cash and Checks Combined) per deposit $ 3.00 Envelope Deposits per envelope $ 1.75 Currency Deposited -Strapped (Per $1,000) $ .95 Currency Deposited -Unstrapped (Per $1,000) $ 1.20 Coin Deposited Standard Bag/Bulk Coin (FRB Specifications)...each $ 2.75 Non -Standard per bag $ 4.00 Rolled Coin in Bag Surcharge per bag $ 5.00 Deposit Adjustments each $ 7.50 Cash Order Services Cash Vault Orders Prearranged Standing Orders each $ 3.00 Batch Cash Order each $ 3.00 Touchtone Cash Orders each $ 3.25 Cash Order -Web each $ 2.50 Telephone/Customer Service Associate Orders each $ 12.00 Late Order (After 11:00 a.m. PT) each $ 14.50 Emergency Order each $ 50.00 Currency Orders (Per $1,000) $ 1.00 New Currency (When Available, Per $1,000) $ 1.20 Coin Orders Per Box $ 5.00 Per Half -Box ($.05, $.25, and $1) $ 2.50 Per Roll (Individual Rolls) $ .15 Per Bag (Bulk) $ 2.00 Changed/Cancelled Cash Order $ 8.00 Daily Cash Order Report per month $ 100.00 Cash Vault Reporting per location/month $ 5.00 Partial Strap Surcharge per strap $ 2.00 Branch Office Cash Services -Night Depository/ATM/Branch Cash Deposit Verified (Per 81,000) $ 1.40 Coin Deposited Standard Bags (FRB Specifications) per bag $ 10.00 Loose Coin Bagged per bag $ 7.00 Cash Orders (Per $1,000) $ 1.30 Coin Orders per roll $ .25 per box $ 5.00 5 CONTRACTOR RETENTION FUNDS SERVICE Union Bank's contractor retention escrow focuses exclusively on helping contractors keep their retention funds working for them. Retention funds can be a source of revenue for your business. Setup Interest -Earning Retention Accounts (One Time) $ FREE Setup Pledged Securities Escrow and Standby Letters of Credit (One Time) per account S 1,250.00 Disbursement Fee for Pledged Securities Escrow and Standby Letters of Credit Accounts Only each $ 125.00 CORPORATE TRUST SERVICES Acceptance Fee consult account manager Annual Administration consult account manager Service to Holders Original Issuance of Bonds Transfers Between Holders $ 5.00 Preparation and Reporting Payment to Holders on Form 1099 and Form 599 (Minimum $150) $ 1.50 Calls/Redemptions (Minimum $350) $ 5.00 Transaction Charges Investment Agreements (Purchase and Setup) $ 500.00 Dissemination Agent (If Applicable) per event $ 225.00 Disbursement $ 35.00 Investment $ 60.00 Check or Wire Transfer $ 35.00 Charges for out-of-pocket expenses such as stationery, postage, insurance, telecommunication, and publication of notices and fees of such outside professionals as attorneys, accountants, or other agents will be billed at 6% of the annual administration fee. CUSTODY SERVICES Union Bank provides a comprehensive range of custody and securities lending services for public and nonprofit agencies, including asset safekeeping, trade settlement, principal and income collection, daily cash management, monthly cash and asset statements, and Internet account access. Depending on unique portfolio holdings, transaction activities, and reporting requirements, customized fee schedules will typically include the following components: Monthly Administration Fees Transactions consult account manager Holdings consult account manager Disbursements consult account manager Pay Downs consult account manager Minimum Annual Aggregated Fee consult account manager 6 FOREIGN EXCHANGE SERVICES Improve international trade profitability using Union Bank's competitively priced Foreign Exchange services—from basic spot purchases to hedging strategies, and from wire payment services to foreign currency demand accounts and foreign currency time deposits. In addition to the wire fees* the Bank charges an exchange rate markup, subject to transaction size, market conditions, and other factors. A monthly account fee is charged for foreign currency demand accounts. For additional information, contact Investment Banking and Markets Foreign Exchange at (800) 325-9422. *Please see Wire Transfer Services. GOVERNMENT CUSTOMER SERVICE Receive fast, efficient service from the convenience of your computer or telephone. Government customer service offers online and touchtone access, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Customer service associates are available between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday. Information Services Provides ledger balance and status of checks and deposits and account activity. Inquiries Inquiry each $ Cust. Touchtone Service 7.00 35.00 Retrieval Services Provides images and copies of checks, deposit slips, deposited items, and statements. Also available through Information Reporting Service. View Image of Check and Deposit Slip Online Statements Touchtone* Mail or Fax Up to 120 Days .50 N/A 35.00 Images 1-20 each $ FREE 7.00 35.00 Images 21-50 each $ .10 7.00 35.00 Images 51+ each $ .25 7.00 35.00 *Not available for deposit slips. View Image of Deposited Items (Non -Union Bank Item) Online Statements Touchtone Mail or Fax Less Than 30 Days per item $ .50 N/A 35.00 31-60 Days per item $ .75 N/A 35.00 61-90 Days per item $ 1.00 N/A 35.00 91-120 Days per item $ 1.25 N/A 35.00 121+ Days per item $ 2.00 N/A 35.00 7 Image on Demand Web Image Inquiry for Checks, Deposit Slips, and Deposited Items Monthly Maintenance $ 5.00 Per -Image Fee Images 0-100 $ FREE Images 101+ per image $ .25 Image Transmission Monthly Maintenance $ Per Transmission each $ Per Item each $ View Image of Deposited Items Returned Web Touchtone Mail Fax Items Made Available for Inquiry per item $ 33.00 Items Made Available for Decisioning per item $ 33.00 Monthly Maintenance $ N/A 20.00 10.00 .05 1.50 N/A 30.00 2.50 5.00 N/A N/A 30.00 N/A Copy of Statement* Web Touchtone Mail Fax Previous Month(s) per copy $ per page $ Snapshot per copy $ per page $ 5.00 N/A N/A N/A 5.00 N/A 12.00 N/A 35.00 N/A 35.00 N/A N/A 35.00 N/A 35.00 *Statement copies do not include checks or images of checks. Deposit Reconstruction- Per Occurrence Customer Service Associate (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Internal Bank Activity Web Touch- tone Branch/ Direct Access Cust. Service Book Transfer per transfer $ Account Transfer per transfer $ Mailed Confirmation of Transfer each $ 5.00 2.50 N/A N/A 5.00 2.00 N/A 6.00 5.00 30.00 30.00 5.00 Miscellaneous Services -Customer Service Associate Non -Customer Check Cashing Fee each $ 10.00 Endorsement Verification per inquiry $ 15.00 Account Notifications $ FREE Transmission Notifications $ FREE Wire Transfer Research per inquiry $ 6.00 Standard Bank Confirmations each $ 15.00 Miscellaneous Special Handling (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Legal Processing Fee per item $ 50.00 LAIF Activity LAIF (Customer) each $ LAIF (Non -Customer) each $ Research Services Research (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 20.00 25.00 8 Cust. Stop Payments* Web Touchtone Serv. Stop Payment each $ 15.00 12.00 32.00 Automatic 6 -Month Renewal each $ 10.00 10.00 10.00 Range Stop each $ 15.00 N/A 26.00 *Stop payment orders for bank accounts and Full and Partial Reconcilement plans. Official Check (Cashier's Check) each $ 10.00 Money Orders each $ 30.00 TRAINING AND IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES Union Bank offers convenient and cost-effective Web -based training sessions several times per week for many of our products. Telephone and on-site training are also available. Web -Based Training per hour $ FREE Telephone Training (Minimum $25) per 30 -minute increment $ 25.00 On -Site Training (Including Travel Time) per hour $ 100.00 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Our Transportation Services Group coordinates the safe, convenient, and efficient transportation of banking materials between Union Bank and its customers using armored car and courier services. Armored car and courier services are the direct agents of the customer; however, Union Bank will recommend the service that best satisfies customer needs and requirements. Negotiable items (currency, coin, bearer bonds, etc.) are transported in dual custody by armored cars, while courier services accommodate checks, bookkeeping material, and other non-negotiable items. Armored Car and/or Courier Services cost + 50% ZERO BALANCE ACCOUNT (ZBA) SERVICE The Zero Balance Account (ZBA) service provides consolidation of funds within Union Bank into one concentration account in order to reduce borrowing, maximize cash control, and reduce the costs of multiple account transfers. Account balances are automatically offset on a daily basis from the concentration account, thereby maintaining a constant balance of zero. Monthly Maintenance Concentration Account $ 35.00 Accounts 1-10 each $ 25.00 Accounts 11+ each $ 15.00 9 TRANSACTION BANKING SERVICES AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE (ACH) ORIGINATION SERVICES ACH Origination services provide a variety of payment services that electronically make and collect payments. Funds disbursement facilitates direct deposit and vendor payments. Funds collections, such as loan payments, dues, and contributions, can be made using a variety of electronic payment options, such as recurring payments, Web- or telephone -initiated payments, and business payments with remittance information. ACH Origination services also enable collection of truncated checks. Web Delivery Provides complete ACH file formatting, database management, and transmission capabilities. Setup (One Time) per service $ 200.00 Monthly Maintenance Per Account $ 100.00 Transaction Fees (Debit and/or Credit) Items 1-100 $ FREE Items 101+ each $ .25 Same Day ACH Origination Transaction Fees (Debit and/or Credit) each $ .45 Internet Batch Release (Maximum $70) each $ 7.00 Electronic Receivables Services Provides Online Bill Pay and Telephone Pay services. Setup (One Time) per setup Monthly Maintenance (Per Service) First Account 300.00 125.00 Additional Accounts (Maximum $400) each $ 75.00 Transaction Fees (ACH Debit) All Consumer -Authorized Transactions each $ 1.00 All Corporate Credit Card or Debit (CCD) Transactions each $ 1.00 Credit Card Authorization each $ .75 Standard ACH Return/File each $ 2.00 Batch Release each $ 3.00 Direct Send and Vendor Delivery Customers can automate disbursements and collections by using ACH to electronically originate direct deposits and payments. Setup (One Time) per setup $ 250.00 Monthly Maintenance $ 125.00 Transaction Fees (Debit and/or Credit) All Volume up to 500 Transactions each $ .12 All Volume from 501 to 5,000 Transactions each $ .11 All Volume from 5,001 to 10,000 Transactions each $ .10 All Volume Greater Than 10,000 Transactions each $ .09 10 Same Day ACH Origination Transaction Fees (Debit and/or Credit) All Volume up to 500 Transactions each $ .30 All Volume from 501 to 5,000 Transactions each $ .25 All Volume from 5,001 to 10,000 Transactions each $ .20 All Volume Greater Than 10,000 Transactions each $ .15 Transmissions (Maximum $220) each $ 20.00 Vendor (ADP and/or Ceridian) each $ 10.00 ACH Standard Charges ACH Suspended File each $ 75.00 ACH Over the Limit per batch/file S 50.00 Addenda Records each $ .05 Additional Testing per test $ 100.00 Composite File per month $ 20.00 Dishonored/Disputed Entries each $ 15.00 Manual Maintenance per account $ 75.00 NACHA Rule Book each $ 45.00 Web/ Notification of Change/Return Transmission* Fax Mail per item 7.00 10.00 15.00 *Transmission fees apply. Unauthorized ACH Return each $ 10.00 Premium Window Surcharge per item $ .10 Redistribution each $ .40 Rejects/Reversals/Deletions per item/batch $ 35.00 Tracers each $ 25.00 Optional Output Reports per month $ 125.00 per item $ .15 ACH Acknowledgment Report (Via Web and Email) each $ 6.00 ACH File Acknowledgment Transmission (Maximum $250) each $ 25.00 Custom Reports/Programming (Minimum S150) per hour $ 150.00 Automatic 2 -Day Account Prefunding....per month $ 25.00 Automatic 2 -Day Account Prefunding NSF per month $ 50.00 Manual Account Prefunding per batch/file S 125.00 Fines cost + 35% Research (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 ACH International Credit (North America) each $ 5.00 Return/Notification of Change (North America) each $ 10.00 Credit (Europe) each $ 5.00 Return/Notification of Change (Europe) each $ 10.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 ACH RECEIPT SERVICES ACH Receipt services facilitate the secure receipt of payments and remittance data while protecting your accounts against fraud. 11 Electronic Payment Authorization Our Electronic Payment Authorization service allows you to restrict incoming ACH activity, which safeguards your accounts against the posting of unauthorized ACH transactions. Setup (One Time) per account $ 50.00 Monthly Maintenance First Account $ 20.00 Accounts 2-10 each $ 15.00 Accounts 11+ each $ 10.00 Manual Maintenance per account $ 75.00 Trading Partner Setup (Account Filters) Partner and Instruction each $ 15.00 Change to Existing Authorization (Purge, Revoke, Reset) each $ 5.00 Tracers each $ 20.00 Reporting and Decisioning per month $ 10.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 Government Electronic Payments Setup (One Time) per setup $ 200.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 125.00 Transaction Fees (Debit and/or Credit) per item $ .15 Universal Payment Identification Code (UPIC) Universal Payment Identification Codes (UPICs) are permanent and secure bank account identifiers that allow companies to receive electronic credit payments without divulging sensitive bank information. UPICs enable you to openly share your account information (e.g., print on invoices) to promote the receipt of electronic payments. Debits initiated with UPICs are blocked, reducing the risk of unauthorized debits to your accounts. Setup (One Time) per setup $ 25.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 15.00 E -LOCKBOX SERVICE Our E -Lockbox service expedites the receipt and reporting of payments from electronic bill payment services such as online banking and consumer payments originated online. The biller electronically receives a concentrated lump sum credit to a designated checking account. Remittance detail is transmitted in standard or custom format to be uploaded to the biller's accounts receivable system. Setup (One Time) per setup $ 150.00 Custom Programming (Optional)— Minimum S150 per hour $ 150.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 150.00 Transmissions per file S 10.00 Items 1-250 each $ .10 Items 251-1,000 each $ .09 Items 1,001+ each $ .08 Returned Items Manual Fax per item $ 25.00 Reversals per item $ 15.00 Remake of Transmission each $ 20.00 Tracers each $ 20.00 12 Research (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 CONTROLLED DISBURSEMENT SERVICE The Controlled Disbursement service provides early -morning dollar totals of checks presented for payment at the disbursing bank. Daily presentments are funded from your Union Bank accounts. The service provides maximum control over daily disbursements and eliminates the uncertainty of when checks will be presented for payment. Monthly Maintenance 1 Account $ 225.00 2 Accounts each $ 150.00 3 Accounts each $ 125.00 4 Accounts each $ 100.00 5-9 Accounts each $ 85.00 10+ Accounts each $ 75.00 Zero Balance Accounts $ FREE Account Analysis $ FREE Statements $ FREE Paid Checks Items 1-5,000 each $ .18 Items 5,001-10,000 each $ .17 Items 10,001+ each $ .16 Check Verification—Missing Signatures per check $ 50.00 Check Processing Rejects > 2% per item $ .75 Returned Items per check $ 12.50 Copy/Image Services Web Image Inquiry/Copy of Checks Monthly Maintenance per account $ FREE Image on Demand Web Image Inquiry for Checks, Deposit Slips, and Deposited Items Monthly Maintenance $ 5.00 Per -Image Fee Images 0-100 $ FREE Images 101+ per image $ 0.25 Fax of Non -Check Items per item $ 12.00 Image Transmission Monthly Maintenance $ 20.00 Per Transmission each $ 10.00 Per Item each $ .05 CD each $ 50.00 per image $ .05 Reproduced CD each $ 35.00 Fees supersede Analyzed Checking Account and Account Reconcilement per -item charges. Activity Notification Using Information Reporting Service* *Additional fees may apply. Please see Information Reporting Service. Training and Implementation Services see page 9 13 ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE (EDI) SERVICES EDI services include Origination and Receipt capabilities. EDI Origination provides the ability to collect and disburse funds with associated payment information. Funds can be disbursed by ACH or check. EDI Receipt provides access to electronic payments with remittance information in electronic or paper format. We offer a variety of formats, such as 820— Payment, 827—Return, 824—Acknowledgment Detail, 997— Acknowledgment Summary, 823—Lockbox, and 822—Account Analysis. Origination Setup per account $ 150.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 150.00 Transactions each $ .10 Addendum Addenda 1-1,000 each $ Addenda 1,001-5,000 each $ Addenda 5,001+ each $ Balancing per transaction $ RDFI Account Validation per transaction $ Transmissions (Maximum $220 Per Month) each $ Transmission Remake each $ Custom Programming (Minimum $150) per hour $ Research (Minimum $50) per hour $ Return — File per item $ Return—Transmission (Maximum $220) each $ Receipt Setup per account $ 150.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 70.00 Transactions Transactions 1-4 each $ 5.00 Transactions 5+ Paper Format each $ .40 Electronic each $ .10 Addendum Paper Format each $ Electronic each $ Transmissions (Maximum $220 Per Month) each $ File Remake each $ Custom Programming (Minimum $150) per hour $ Fax Retransmittal each $ Research (Minimum $50) per hour $ Training and Implementation Services see page 9 .10 .05 .04 .01 .01 20.00 20.00 150.00 50.00 2.00 20.00 .12 .07 20.00 25.00 150.00 5.00 50.00 INFORMATION REPORTING SERVICE Our Information Reporting service is designed to assist you in the management of cash by providing information on activity posted to accounts at Union Bank and on accounts maintained at other institutions. Consolidated reports provide details of transaction activity across all bank accounts, enabling you to monitor your overall cash position. Previous Day Reporting Includes Positive Pay transactions in Summary/Detail, Controlled Disbursement posted transactions, and incoming domestic and international data exchange transactions. 14 Balance Summary/Detail Reports Web (Includes U.S. Dollar and Foreign Currency Accounts) First Account per month $ 90.00 Additional Accounts each $ 80.00 Transaction Charge per item reported $ .15 Consolidation Account per month $ 100.00 Automated Report of Deposit Per Month per account $ 60.00 Transaction Charge per deposit reported $ .20 Consolidated Receivables Report per month $ 50.00 EDI Receipt Report per month $ 60.00 Entry Collection Details (ACH) per month $ 100.00 Transaction Charge per detail item $ .15 Sweep Account Report per month $ 20.00 Intra -Day Reporting Includes Controlled Disbursement transactions in Summary/ Detail, Float Adjustments, and Same Day Positive Pay Exceptions. Consolidated Summary/Detail Reports Web (Includes U.S. Dollar and Foreign Currency Accounts) First Account per month $ 75.00 Additional Accounts each $ 65.00 Transaction Charge per item reported $ .20 Consolidated Payables Report per month $ 50.00 Wholesale Lockbox Detail Reports First Account per month $ 65.00 Additional Accounts each $ 45.00 Transaction Charge per deposit $ .20 Pooling Report Setup $ 250.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 50.00 Returned Item Large Dollar Early Warning Report per month $ 20.00 Data Exchange -Outgoing Balance Reporting Domestic Monthly Maintenance per account $ 120.00 Domestic Transaction Charge per item reported $ .25 SWIFT940 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 120.00 per line item $ .50 SWIFT942 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 120.00 per line item $ .50 View Image of Check or Deposit Slip up to 120 Days Images 1-20 each $ FREE Images 21-50 each $ .10 Images 51+ each $ .25 Transmissions each $ 10.00 per item $ .18 Research/Handling (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Custom Programming (Minimum $150) per hour $ 150.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 INTERNATIONAL REQUEST FOR TRANSFER SERVICE Initiate transfer requests for your accounts overseas through Union Bank's Financial Center. Using our Wire and Internal Transfer application, send transfer instructions to your foreign 15 bank and conveniently repatriate funds, make local and/or third - party payments, or concentrate funds from multiple accounts. Setup Fees—One-Time Only Setup (Existing Partner Bank) $ 50.00 Setup (New Partner Bank) $ 500.00 Maintenance Fee Monthly Maintenance $ 25.00 Payment Fees Local Currency—Payment each $ 7.50 Cross Border Currency—Payment each $ 10.00 Local Currency—Transmission File per file S 7.50 Cross Border Currency—Transmission Fileper file S 10.00 Cross Border Currency—SCORE File .per file S 10.00 Per File (via Transmission) per file S 10.00 Per File (SCORE) per file S 10.00 Returns/Rejects/Repairs MT101 Returned—Union Bank Fee each $ 50.00 MT101 Returned—Foreign Bank Fee each $ 5.00 MT101 Rejected—Union Bank Fee each $ 10.00 MT101 Rejected—Foreign Bank Fee each $ 5.00 MT101 Repaired—Union Bank Fee each $ 35.00 MT101 Repaired—Foreign Bank Fee each $ 5.00 Your foreign bank will charge fees in addition to the fees listed above. INVESTMENT SERVICES Investments available through UnionBanc Investment Services LLC (UBIS), a registered broker-dealer, investment advisor, member FINRA/SIPC, and subsidiary of MUFG Union Bank, N.A.: Are NOT insured by the FDIC or by any other federal government agency • Are NOT Bank deposits • Are NOT guaranteed by the Bank or any Bank Affiliate • MAY lose value LOCKBOX SERVICES Lockbox services provide the ability to speed collections, streamline remittance processing, and improve audit trails. You can view images of checks and correspondence online, providing convenience and potential savings for your business. Wholesale Lockbox Wholesale Lockbox service automates the collection and reporting of low-volume/high-dollar payments by mail. Remittance processing is performed according to customized instructions. Checks are deposited directly into your checking account for same-day ledger credit. The service provides several options, including specialized processing, reporting, data entry, and data transmissions. 16 Forwarding Address Notification Account Maintenance First Account/Deposit Group $ FREE Accounts 2-10/Deposit Group each $ 15.00 Accounts 11-25/Deposit Group each $ 20.00 Accounts 26+/Deposit Group consult account manager Wholesale Lockbox Deposit $ 3.00 Payee Verification Payees1-10 $ FREE Payees 11-20 per item $ .08 Payees 21-30 per item $ .12 Payees 31+ per item $ .15 Postal Box Rental cost New Client Setup $ 125.00 Sorting Options Group Sort (2 Batches) per item $ .10 Fine Sort (3+ Batches) per item $ .22 Invoice Sort per item $ .22 Reporting Options Data Entry per keystroke $ .02 Data Transmission per month $ 210.00 Data Transmission/Media per item $ .02 Deposit Notification Summary per month $ 125.00 With Subtotals per month $ 200.00 With Detail per month $ 175.00 Out -of -State additional per month $ 30.00 Returned Items per call $ 5.00 cost + 20% 17 Web Paper Both Monthly Maintenance per box $ 160.00 160.00 160.00 Image Delivery Monthly Maintenance per box $ 100.00 N/A N/A Item Processed each $ .38 .48 .48 CD Produced each $ 35.00 N/A N/A Web Access per image $ .03 N/A N/A Check Image (Black/White) each $ .05 N/A N/A Document Image (Black/White) each $ .10 N/A N/A Document Image (Color) each $ .12 N/A N/A Exception Decisioning per item $ 1.00 N/A N/A Image Transmission per image $ .03 N/A N/A Rejects/Correspondence... per item $ .25 .50 .50 Photocopies per copy $ N/A .144 N/A Copy Request - Customer Service Associate per item $ 11.50 11.50 11.50 Reassociate Invoice/Copies per item $ N/A .15 N/A Image System Reports per month $ N/A 50.00 N/A Custom System Reports per month $ N/A 200.00 N/A Special Stapling per item $ N/A .06 N/A Additional Mailing per month $ N/A 50.00 N/A Shipping/Handling per month $ N/A 100.00 N/A Forwarding Address Notification Account Maintenance First Account/Deposit Group $ FREE Accounts 2-10/Deposit Group each $ 15.00 Accounts 11-25/Deposit Group each $ 20.00 Accounts 26+/Deposit Group consult account manager Wholesale Lockbox Deposit $ 3.00 Payee Verification Payees1-10 $ FREE Payees 11-20 per item $ .08 Payees 21-30 per item $ .12 Payees 31+ per item $ .15 Postal Box Rental cost New Client Setup $ 125.00 Sorting Options Group Sort (2 Batches) per item $ .10 Fine Sort (3+ Batches) per item $ .22 Invoice Sort per item $ .22 Reporting Options Data Entry per keystroke $ .02 Data Transmission per month $ 210.00 Data Transmission/Media per item $ .02 Deposit Notification Summary per month $ 125.00 With Subtotals per month $ 200.00 With Detail per month $ 175.00 Out -of -State additional per month $ 30.00 Returned Items per call $ 5.00 cost + 20% 17 Additional Service Options Early -Morning Release per month $ 55.00 Multiple Daily Deposits per month $ 55.00 Stamping Invoice per item $ .10 Written Notation per item $ .12 Date Lookup per item S .10 Stop List per month $ 150.00 per item $ .25 Payment Reversal per item $ 10.00 Balance Invoice(s) to Check per item $ .05 Open Envelope by Hand per item $ .20 Foreign Item Processing* per item $ 10.00 *Additional fees may apply. Please see Foreign Exchange Services. Cash Item Telephone Inquiry Unidentifiable Item Fax per envelope $ per call S per item S per page $ 12.50 10.00 5.00 7.00 Custom Programming (Minimum $150) per hour $ 150.00 Special Handling (Minimum $100) per hour $ 50.00 Batch Preparation per batch $ 1.25 Incoming Certified/Express Mail per envelope $ 5.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 Wholetail Lockbox Wholetail Lockbox service automates the collection and reporting of high-volume/moderate-dollar payments by mail. Optical Character Recognition (OCR) scanlines containing remitter account number and payment due are read from the remittance coupons, compared to the actual payment amounts, and transmitted to you. Select from a wide range of processing options to customize processing instructions, view images of checks and scanned documents, and make online annotations to payments. Checks are deposited directly into your Union Bank account for same-day ledger credit. Specialized options, such as custom reports, data transmissions, check -only payments with copies, and other popular service options are available. New Client Setup per box $ 350.00 Monthly Maintenance per box $ 175.00 Account Maintenance Maximum of One Account Per Deposit Group $ FREE Wholetail Lockbox Deposit $ 3.00 Image Delivery Image Delivery Monthly Maintenance Web Access CD Produced Check Image (Black/White) Document Image (Black/White) Image Transmission per box $ 100.00 per image $ .03 each $ 35.00 each $ .05 each $ .10 each $ .03 Items Processed Items 5,000-25,000 per item $ .265 Items 25,001-40,000 per item $ .242 Items 40,001+ per item $ .215 Check -Only Remittances additional per check $ .21 Low -Volume Surcharge (< 5,000 Items Per Month) per item $ .13 Payee Verification (Simple Names) Up to 5 Payees Only per item $ .50 Rejects/Correspondence per item $ .25 18 Non -Matched Items per item $ .35 OCR Scanline Repair per keystroke $ .02 Item Options Coupon Copy/Image per copy $ .1377 Check Copy/Image per item $ .1377 Postal Box Rental cost Manual Sort (Up to (4) Batches Only) per item $ .20 Reporting Options Data Entry per keystroke $ .02 Summary System Report per month $ FREE Custom System Reports per month $ 200.00 Data Transmission per month $ 200.00 Magnetic Media per month $ 250.00 Data Transmission/Media per item $ .02 Additional Transmissions each $ 25.00 Deposit Notification Summary per month $ 125.00 Out -of -State additional per month $ 30.00 Additional Service Options Multiple Daily Deposits per month $ 55.00 Stop List per month $ 150.00 per item $ .25 10.00 10.00 Payment Reversal per item $ Foreign Item Processing* per item $ *Additional fees may apply. Please see Foreign Exchange Services. Cash Item per envelope $ 12.50 Telephone Inquiry per call $ 10.00 Fax per page $ 7.00 Additional Mailing per month $ 50.00 Shipping/Handling per month $ 100.00 Custom Programming (Minimum $150) per hour $ 150.00 Special Handling (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Copy Request—Customer Service Associate per item $ 11.50 Remittance Designated Deposit Distribution per month $ 600.00 Incoming Certified/Express Mail per envelope $ 5.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 ONLINE BANKING SERVICES Financial Center Add/Change/Delete a User ID Self -Service each $ FREE Bank each $ 5.00 ONLINE SERVICES @ UNIONBANK.COM Access many products and services online through the Financial Center. Conducting your transactions online can help provide convenience, cost savings, and efficiencies for your business. With a single sign -on through one point of entry, you can collect or disburse funds; obtain account information; view paid checks, deposit tickets, and statements; initiate wire transfers; and more. 19 These services are now available online (see pages below): • ACH 10-12 • Commercial Deposit Supplies 2 • Deposited Items Returned 4, 8 • Electronic Receivables 10 • Image on Demand 8, 13, 25 • Information Reporting ...14-15 • Lockbox 16-19 • Online Statements 7 • Positive Pay 22-23 • Remote Deposit 25-26 • Stop Payments 9, 25 • Tax Payment with InstaTax° 26 • Trade Services 30-32 • Wire Transfers 28-29 INTEGRATED PAYABLES SERVICES Outsourcing your payment processing allows you to streamline operations and reduce the cost and security risks associated with account payables -related payments. Monthly Maintenance per payment type $ 150.00 Payroll Site Monthly Maintenance per site $ 300.00 Customer Setup ACH, Check, VCard, and/or Wires* 1 Service $ 2,000.00 2 Services $ 3,500.00 3 Services $ 5,000.00 4 Services $ 6,000.00 5+ Services $ 7,000.00 *Any new setup with significant addenda/rollover pages will have a minimum charge noted above and may require additional hourly charges because of its complexity. Online Payroll Access, Payroll 1099, Payroll W2, and/or Payroll 1042S 1 Service $ 2,000.00 2 Services $ 3,500.00 3 Services $ 5,000.00 4 Services $ 6,200.00 5+ Services $ 7,800.00 Complex Customer Setup ACH, Check, VCard, and/or Wires* 1 Service 2 Services 3 Services 4 Services 5+ Services $ 5,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 11,000.00 *Any new setup with significant addenda/rollover pages will have a minimum charge noted above and may require additional hourly charges because of its complexity. Document Print, Convert Paper to Electronic Per Account consult account manager Check Printing Domestic Checks Canadian Checks Overflow Pages Items 1-9,999 each $ .45 .60 .12 Items 10,000-49,999each $ .35 .53 .09 Items 50,000-99,999each $ .30 .48 .08 Items 100,000+ each $ .25 .42 .07 20 Check Reprinting each $ 4.00 Manual Check Pull Items 1-100 each $ 2.75 Items 101+ each $ 2.50 Check Extra Logo or Signature each $ 250.00 ACH and Paper to Electronic ACH Converted Check each $ .35 ACH Converted Check Overflow Page each $ .08 ACH Reformatted Transactions and Canada EFT Items 1-9,999 each $ .20 Items 10,000-49,999 each $ .15 Items 50,000-99,999 each $ .14 Items 100,000+ each $ .13 ACH Overflow Addenda Line per page $ .007 Wires each $ 10.00 Virtual Card Payments each $ .25 Set Up or Remove Customer Account per account $ 115.00 Other Print Charges Invoice Printing Items 1-9,999 each $ .40 Items 10,000-49,999 each $ .35 Items 50,000-99,999 each $ .30 Items 100,000+ each $ .25 Oversized Mailing each $ 1.75 Payroll Mailing of 1099, W2, 1042S Forms Items 1-20,000 each $ .50 Items 20,001+ each $ .44 Mail Advices Items 1-1,000 each $ .15 Items 1,001-2,500 each $ .14 Items 2,501-5,000 each $ .13 Items 5,001-10,000 each $ .11 Items 10,001+ each $ .10 Conversion Inserts (Our Custom) with Checkeach $ .13 Conversion Inserts (Customer Doc) with Check each $ .06 Conversion Inserts (Our Custom) Exclusive Mailing, Postage Extra each $ .13 Conversion Inserts (Customer Doc) Exclusive Mailing, Postage Extra each $ .06 Overnight Handling Charges Items 1-50 each $ 2.70 Items 51-500 each $ 5.40 Items 501+ consult account manager Overnight Mail cost Postage cost Training and Implementation Services see page 9 PAYROLL SERVICES Our Payroll services automate the payroll process. Data may be input by telephone, transmitted forms, or personal computer. The services are offered through third -party vendors and are distinguished by the use of official checks for employee disbursements -eliminating customer expenses associated with a separate payroll account. Official Bank Check Monthly Maintenance $ 135.00 21 Checks Issued per item $ .29 If payroll vendor fees are paid by the Bank and applied to Account Analysis, a markup of 35% will be added. For Direct Deposit, see ACH Origination Services. Training and Implementation Services see page 9 POSITIVE PAY SERVICES Positive Pay services provide early fraud detection and prevention by assisting in the review of suspicious or unauthorized checks before they are paid. Three plans are offered to meet your disbursement needs: Positive Pay with Account Reconcilement, Reverse Positive Pay with Account Reconcilement, and Basic Positive Pay. Monthly Maintenance per account $ Pos. Pay FREE Reverse Pos. Pay FREE Payee Name Validation each $ .035 Activity Notification Using Information Reporting Service* *Additional fees may apply. Please see Information Reporting Service. Handling* Exceptions Items Returned each $ 12.50 Payee Exception Processing each $ 1.75 Special Handling per account, per day $ 25.00 *Additional fees may apply. Please see Reconcilement Services. Same -Day Processing 1-5,000 each $ .025 5,001+ each $ .015 Paid - No Issue Exceptions Exceptions 1-24 $ FREE Exceptions 25+ each $ .25 Holiday Scheduling per day $ 25.00 Web Delivery Exceptions Reported each $ View Exceptions Items each S View Duplicate Items each $ View History Image each S Upload each S Manual Issue each S Paper Issue—Non-Standard each $ All standard reconcilement reports will be provided at no additional charge. Pos. Pay 1.75 .50 FREE .50 .18 .25 1.65 Reverse Pos. Pay .20 50 FREE .50 N/A N/A N/A Transmission Exception Decision each $ Decision Input per item $ 22 Pos. Pay N/A N/A Reverse Pos. Pay 10.00 065 Basic Positive Pay Without Account Reconcilement Account Base per account $ 60.00 Per Paid Check Items 1-250 each $ .04 Items251-500 each$ .06 Items 501+ each $ .20 Returned Item per item $ 12.50 Web Delivery Exceptions Reported each $ 1.75 View Exceptions Items each $ .50 View Duplicate Items each $ FREE View History Image each $ .50 View Duplicate History Image each $ FREE PPW Upload Items 1-250 $ FREE Items 251-500 each $ .30 Items 501-750 each $ .45 Items 751+ each $ .60 PPW Manual Issue Items 1-250 $ FREE Items 251-500 each $ .30 Items 501-750 each $ .45 Items 751+ each $ .60 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS VIA ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER SERVICES ACH Debit Setup $ 750.00 Monthly Maintenance $ 400.00 Touchtone Transaction Fee $ 15.00 Fax Mailed Receipts $ 15.00 Output Options—CCD + TXP Format Consolidation of Debits and Credits $ Data Transmission each $ Information Reporting Options Database Enrollment per report $ per report $ Daily Summary Reports Faxed/Mailed Receipt Electronic Credits RECEIVABLES STRAIGHT THROUGH PROCESSING SERVICES FREE 55.00 250.00 50.00 15.00 2.50 Our Receivables Straight Through Processing services automate the end-to-end cash application processing, taking the costly and time-consuming manual processes out of receivables management and greatly improving the efficiency of the collections cycle. The interactive Web portal expedites back- end processing through receivables matching and deductions and exceptions workflows, including reporting and analytics. New Client Setup per setup $ 250.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 150.00 Invoice Upload (Transmission) per invoice $ .25 Invoice Upload (Portal) per invoice $ .25 23 Payment Upload (ACH, Lockbox, Wires, RDC, CV, etc.) per payment $ .10 Cash Application (Each Time RSTP Applies Cash to an Open A/R) per event $ .25 Input Transmissions (Maximum $220) per file S 20.00 Output File per file S 20.00 RECONCILEMENT SERVICES Our Account Reconcilement services provide better control and increased productivity over manual reconcilement of bank statements. The service has three options: Full Account Reconcilement, Partial Account Reconcilement, and Deposit Reconcilement. Full Account Reconcilement: Reports and reconciles check activity and requires check issue input from the customer. Partial Account Reconcilement: Reports check activity and requires no additional input from the customer. Deposit Reconcilement: Reports deposit activity by deposit location and type. *Additional fees may apply. Please see Basic Account Services. Reconcilement Services—Optional Features Online Reporting PDF Reports $ FREE (Additional fee may apply for Optional Reports) CSV Format Reports Per Month per account $ 20.00 Reports Downloaded 1-10,000 items each $ .015 10,001+ items each $ .008 Copy/Image Services Web Image Inquiry/Copy of Checks Monthly Maintenance per account $ FREE 24 Full Partial Deposit* Monthly Maintenance per box $ 110.00 65.00 60.00 Deposit Reconcilement per deposit $ N/A N/A .15 Issue Input Transmissions each $ 10.00 N/A N/A (Minimum $25) per issue $ .065 N/A N/A MICR Copy (with $100 Maintenance) per issue $ 2.00 N/A N/A Issue Input—Additional Data per issue $ .11 N/A N/A Rejected Issue Re -Entry per issue $ .15 N/A N/A File Maintenance per transaction $ .15 N/A N/A Record Maintenance per issue $ 1.50 N/A N/A per range $ 25.00 N/A N/A Checks Paid Per Month with Truncation Checks 1-5,000 each $ .12 .14 N/A Checks 5,001+ each S .095 .12 N/A *Additional fees may apply. Please see Basic Account Services. Reconcilement Services—Optional Features Online Reporting PDF Reports $ FREE (Additional fee may apply for Optional Reports) CSV Format Reports Per Month per account $ 20.00 Reports Downloaded 1-10,000 items each $ .015 10,001+ items each $ .008 Copy/Image Services Web Image Inquiry/Copy of Checks Monthly Maintenance per account $ FREE 24 Image on Demand Web Image Inquiry for Checks, Deposit Slips, and Deposited Items Monthly Maintenance $ 5.00 Per -Image Fee Images 0-100 $ FREE Images 101+ per image $ .25 Image Transmission Monthly Maintenance $ 20.00 Per Transmission each $ 10.00 Per Item each $ .05 CD each $ 50.00 Check Capture per item $ .05 CD Reproduction (> 45 Days Following Original Production) per CD $ 90.00 Transmission Output each $ 12.50 per item $ .025 Stale Date Feature (Includes Reports) Monthly Maintenance $ 10.00 Stale Date Listing (Minimum $15) per item $ .006 Delivery Paper Report Printing and Shipping per package $ 75.00 Special Handling additional per package $ 5.00 Snapshot Reconcilement (Does Not Include Statement Charge) each $ 25.00 Additional Cutoff—Demand (Does Not Include Statement Charge) each $ 50.00 Returned Items each $ 12.50 Stop Payments each $ 25.00 Stop Payment Renewal each $ 8.00 Optional Reports Outstanding Only per report $ 10.00 Paid No Issue per report $ 10.00 Cancel Check per report $ 10.00 Additional Copies per report $ 10.00 Other (Non -Standard) per report $ 10.00 Clerical Services (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Custom Reports/Programming per hour $ 150.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 REMOTE DEPOSIT SERVICES Our Remote Deposit services automate check deposits, increase funds availability, and improve efficiencies. No matter where your operations are or how many locations you have, you can electronically scan and deposit all of your checks directly into your account at Union Bank. Web Software Delivery Customers can use our Web -based software and certified scanner to submit deposits. See your deposit manager for current scanner options and pricing. Setup (One Time) $ 200.00 Monthly Maintenance First Account $ 125.00 Additional Accounts (Maximum $400) each $ 75.00 Transaction Fees—ON US each $ .08 Transaction Fees—Transit each $ .10 Deposit Submitted each $ 1.25 25 Image Cash Letter/Direct Send Delivery Customers can submit deposits using an industry standard image deposit file. Setup (One Time) $ 250.00 Monthly Maintenance First Account $ 125.00 Additional Accounts each $ 40.00 Transaction Fees each $ .06 File Transmitted (Maximum $220) each $ 20.00 Deposit Submitted each $ 2.50 Vendor Delivery Customers can submit deposits via payment -processing vendor using an industry standard image deposit file. Setup (One Time) $ 250.00 Monthly Maintenance First Account $ 125.00 Additional Accounts each $ 40.00 Transaction Fees each $ .06 Deposit Submitted (Maximum $100) each $ 5.00 SWEEP SERVICE The Sweep service can make your daily treasury management more efficient and less time consuming. End -of -day collected balances are used to determine daily investment/loan transaction amounts so that you do not have to estimate your end -of -day excess cash position. Monthly Maintenance S 50.00 TAX PAYMENT WITH INSTATAX® SERVICE Our InstaTax service provides for the deposit of business taxes electronically online or by touchtone telephone. Experience speed, convenience, and reliability, since the InstaTax service eliminates the need for check writing, mailing, and coupon completion. Setup per access code $ Monthly Maintenanceper access code $ Transaction Processing Payments, Cancellations, and Deletions each $ Payment Reversal each $ Web Touchtone 25.00 15.00 25.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 5.00 10.00 Receipts/Statements Fax Receipt each $ 1.00 Mail Receipt each $ 5.00 Monthly Statement each $ 15.00 Quarterly Statement each $ 15.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 TOTAL BILLER SOLUTION SERVICE Our Total Biller Solution service provides payment acceptance through Internet, Mobile Web, IVR, and CSR payment channels 26 and modules and supports Electronic Bill Payment and Presentment services. Also, it supports electronic transaction processing through Re -Direct, Payer Single Sign -On, and Web Services/API processes. Basic Package A* Setup Per Account Monthly Maintenance Plus Package B* Setup Per Account Monthly Maintenance Suite Package C* Setup Per Division 1st $3,000.00 Setup Per Division 2+ $ 300.00 Monthly Maintenance 1st $ 1,500.00 Monthly Maintenance 2+ $ 300.00 *Package A includes up to 8 hours of implementation services and up to 5 Customer Service Representative (CSR) seats. *Package B includes up to 12 hours of implementation services and up to 10 CSR seats. *Package C includes up to 20 hours of implementation services and up to 15 CSR seats. *For Package B and C clients with volumes over25,000 items per month, standard setup and standard maintenance fees are waived. A minimum of $4,000 per month applies when volumes are not met after three months. Transaction Fees All Volume up to 3,000 Transactions each $ .60 All Volume from 3,001 Transactions to 5,000 Transactions each $ .50 All Volume from 5,001 Transactions to 10,000 Transactions each $ .45 All Volume from 10,001 Transactions to 25,000 Transactions each $ .35 All Volume from 25,001 Transactions to 50,000 Transactions each $ .25 All Volume Greater Than 50,000 Transactions each $ .17 Supporting Services Additional CSR each $ 20.00 Professional Services (Per Hour) each $ 200.00 Other Modules and Services (Not All Are Available with Package A) Setup Mobile Web (Site) each $ 750.00 Monthly Maintenance Mobile Web each $ 600.00 Setup Interactive Voice Response (IVR) each $ 750.00 Monthly Maintenance IVR each $ 500.00 Per Minute IVR cost + 35% Other IVR (Misc) cost + 35% SMS Messages (Mobile Terminated and Mobile Originated) each $ .08 Setup EBPP each $ 750.00 Monthly EBPP Maintenance each $ 500.00 Bill Load each $ .03 eBill Summary Load (If Exceeds 5 Pass -Through Fields) each $ .03 ePresentment up to 5,000 Items each $ .30 ePresentment from 5,001 to 25,000 Items each $ .25 ePresentment Greater Than 25,000 Items each $ .20 ePresentment with Link each $ .10 per setup $ 1,500.00 per account $ 400.00 per setup $2,000.00 per account $ 600.00 27 ePresentment with API each $ .10 Email Bill Delivery each $ .30 Re -Direct Setup each $3,000.00 Monthly Maintenance Re -Direct each $ 500.00 Web Services/API Setup each $2,000.00 Monthly Maintenance Web Services/API each $1,000.00 Token Stored each $ .04 Token Processed each $ .04 Web Services Processing Only (Without Token) each $ .04 Web Services BIN Lookup each $ .04 Payer Single Sign -On each $3,500.00 Payer Single Sign -On Monthly Maintenance each $ 400.00 WIRE TRANSFER SERVICES Our Wire Transfer services provide flexible features for securely initiating wires and receiving notification of wire activity. Incoming Wire Transfers Domestic per wire $ 12.00 International (USD and Foreign) per wire $ 13.00 Domestic with Repair per wire $ 12.00 International (USD and Foreign) with Repair per wire S 13.00 *Additional correspondent fees may apply. Please see Foreign Exchange Services. Transmission EDI Format (Monthly) $ 220.00 28 Web Branch/ Direct Access Cust. Service Monthly Maintenance $ 50.00 N/A N/A Domestic Wires -Outgoing (Each) Wires 1-100 $ 11.00 N/A N/A Wires 101+ $ 8.00 N/A N/A Repetitive $ N/A 22.00 125.00 Non -Repetitive $ N/A 27.00 125.00 EFTPS (Tax Payment) $ 8.50 12.00 125.00 International Wires* (Each) Repetitive (USD) S 20.00 40.00 125.00 Repetitive (Foreign) S 13.00 35.00 125.00 Non -Repetitive (USD) S 17.00 40.00 125.00 Non -Repetitive (Foreign) S 16.00 35.00 125.00 Drawdown/Reverse Wire (Each) Third -Party Drawdown Request (with Outgoing Wire) S N/A 16.00 N/A Domestic Outgoing Drawdown (Incoming Wire) S 8.50 20.00 30.00 Wire Template Maintenance (Add, Modify, or Delete Template) per occurrence $ 5.00 N/A N/A Wire Template Storage per template $ .50 N/A N/A *Additional correspondent fees may apply. Please see Foreign Exchange Services. Transmission EDI Format (Monthly) $ 220.00 28 Outgoing EDI Format Wires 1-100 each $ Wires 101+ each $ Domestic 8.50 7.50 Int'I 8.50 7.50 Outgoing EDI International USD per wire $ 15.00 Outgoing EDI International Foreign Currency per wire $ 15.00 Outgoing EDI Domestic Internal per wire $ 12.00 Outgoing EDI International USD Pay -in -Full per wire $ 35.00 Outgoing EDI International FX Pay -in -Full per wire $ 45.00 Charges to Sender -Pay -in -Full each $ 45.00 Wire Exception Repair each $ 10.00 Wire Inquiry per inquiry$ 6.00 Correspondent Bank Fees $ 1.00 Swift Base Fee per account $ 10.00 Investigations each $ additional per telex/phone $ Domestic 50.00 15.00 Int'I 50.00 15.00 Payments by Cash or Check each $ 10.00 Standing Instructions Domestic each $ 10.00 International (USD and Foreign) each $ 15.00 Wire Notification Fax Mail Phone Incoming/Outgoing per wire $ 8.00 10.00 22.00 Fast Fax Report per month $ 45.00 Security Tokens $ FREE Wire/Swift Advice per item $ 1.00 Internal Bank Transfers Web Touch- tone Branch/ Direct Access Cust. Service Book Transfer per transfer $ Account Transfer per transfer $ 5.00 2.50 N/A 5.00 8.00 8.00 50.00 30.00 Foreign Currency Demand Account (FCDA)* Wire Transfer Payment per wire $ Web Wire Transfer per wire $ Internal Bank Transfer each $ Fax Confirmation each $ *Additional correspondent fees may apply Please see Foreign Exchange Services. Training and Implementation Services see page 9 Other Intermediary Bank fees may apply. See your All About Business Accounts & Services and Transaction Banking Services Disclosure and Agreement as well as your Master Funds Transfer Agreement. Incoming 15.00 N/A N/A 15.00 Outgoing 30.00 17.00 15.00 15.00 29 TRADE SERVICES Our comprehensive trade services provide importers and exporters with the ability to handle most transactions from beginning to end, eliminating the need for documents to be processed through third -party banks. COLLECTIONS—INCOMING AND OUTGOING Documentary Sight $ 110.00 Usance (Time) $ 125.00 Direct Collection—Web-Initiated $ 80.00 Direct Collection $ 110.00 Clean Collections $ 85.00 Other Collection Services Amend Instructions $ 90.00 Partial Payments $ 75.00 Dishonored cost + $ 75.00 Maintenance—Items Unpaid from Due Date per month $ 65.00 EXPORT LETTERS OF CREDIT Advice Original Union Bank Client—Web-Initiated S 100.00 Union Bank Client S 150.00 Add Confirmation by arrangement, minimum S 250.00 Amendment Advice of Amendment—Web-Initiated S 75.00 Advice of Amendment S 90.00 Examination/Payment Export Letter of Credit 1/8% per set of documents, minimum $ 150.00 Reimbursement with Another Bank by arrangement, minimum $ 150.00 Government Credit by arrangement, minimum $ 350.00 Documents Sent Unexamined per set of documents $ 135.00 Payment on Reserve by arrangement, minimum $ 125.00 Acceptance 2% p.a./draft, minimum $ 150.00 or as arranged Discount Interest by arrangement, minimum $ 100.00 Prepayment Penalty If Paid Before Maturity $ 100.00 Deferred Payment 2% p.a./draft, minimum $ 150.00 Discrepancy per set of documents $ 90.00 Re -Examination and Pre -Examination Fee per set of documents $ 75.00 Expired, Unutilized, or Cancelled $ 125.00 Transfer Letter of Credit by arrangement, minimum $ 250.00 Direction to Pay Proceeds minimum $ 250.00 30 IMPORT LETTERS OF CREDIT Issuance Import Letter of Credit -Web -Initiated 1/8% per quarter, minimum $ 125.00 Import Letter of Credit 1/8% per quarter, minimum $ 150.00 Government Letter of Credit by arrangement Amendment Increase Amount or Extension -Web -Initiated 1/8% per quarter, minimum $ 100.00 Increase Amount or Extension 1/8% per quarter, minimum $ 150.00 Narrative or Other -Web -Initiated $ 100.00 Narrative or Other $ 150.00 Examination/Payment Import Letter of Credit 1/4% per set of documents, minimum $ 135.00 Government Letter of Credit by arrangement Acceptance 2% p.a./draft, minimum $ 150.00 or as arranged Prepayment Penalty If Paid Before Maturity $ 100.00 Discount Interest by arrangement, minimum $ 100.00 Deferred Payment 2% p.a./draft, minimum $ 150.00 Shipside Bond/Air Cargo Release -Web -Initiated 1/4% per quarter, minimum $ 200.00 Shipside Bond/Air Cargo Release 1/4% per quarter, minimum $ 200.00 Discrepancy -Web -Initiated ..per set of documents $ 100.00 Discrepancy per set of documents $ 100.00 Expired, Unutilized, or Cancelled $ 125.00 Transfer Letter of Credit by arrangement, minimum $ 250.00 Direction to Pay Proceeds minimum $ 250.00 Purchase Order Processing by arrangement STANDBY LETTERS OF CREDIT Issuance Opening Commission 2% p.a., minimum $ 500.00 plus processing fee if paid by invoice $ 150.00 Auto-Renewal/Evergreen per renewal period $ 250.00 Amendment Increase or Extension 2% p.a., minimum $ 500.00 Narrative $ 150.00 Advice Advising Fee $ 150.00 Amendment $ 150.00 Add Confirmation by arrangement, minimum $ 250.00 Examination/Payment Standby Letter of Credit 1/4% per drawing, minimum $ 200.00 Direct Pay Examination/Payment $ 150.00 Discrepancy per examination $ 100.00 Expired, Unutilized, or Cancelled $ 150.00 Drafted but Not Issued per draft $ 250.00 Transfer Letter of Credit by arrangement, minimum $ 250.00 Direction to Pay Proceeds minimum $ 250.00 31 OTHER TRADE SERVICES Domestic Postage $ 20.00 Registered/Certified Mail $ 25.00 Courier Domestic $ 35.00 International $ 65.00 Handling Charge (Customer's Courier) $ 10.00 Scan Shipping Documents $ 10.00 Fax/Email Messages Domestic $ 20.00 International $ 20.00 Swift or Telex Short (1 Page) $ 50.00 Long (2+ Pages) $ 75.00 Payment Fedwire or CHIPS $ 35.00 Cashier's Check $ 45.00 Foreign Currency Processing $ 65.00 International Services Activity Statement—Mailed account charge/quarter $ 45.00 payment by invoice/year $ 180.00 Special Handling—Excess Detail by arrangement, minimum $ 125.00 Consultation Fee (Applies to Drafting Only)— Minimum $250 per hour $ 250.00 Credit Reports by arrangement, minimum $ 100.00 Tracers $ 40.00 Trade Finance Investigations per hour $ 75.00 plus cable charges Training and Implementation Services see page 9 Note: Fees assessed by other banks will be additional. This fee schedule may not apply to all customers. Transactions that are not standard may be subject to different charges. Union Bank reserves the right to charge for services not covered by this fee schedule and to effect any alterations or amendments as we may consider necessary. All pricing subject to change without notice, except as otherwise provided by applicable law. 32 ©2017 Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. All rights reserved. The MUFG logo and name is a service mark of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc., and is used by MUFG Union Bank, N.A., with permission; Union Bank is a registered trademark and brand name of MUFG Union Bank, N.A., Member FDIC. unionbank.com/commercial 84060-GOV (01/17) 03 Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Michael Heslin, Director of Information Technology and Support Services DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SDI Presence, LLC, for IT Inventory, Assessment, and Lifecycle Plan Consulting PREPARED BY: Damion Patrick, Assistant Director of ITSS RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SDI Presence, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $93,325, for IT Inventory, Assessment, and Lifecycle Planning Services; 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve Contract Change Orders up to 10% of the contract amount or $9,333; 3. Appropriate $102,658 from Fund 320 — Information Technology Available Fund Balance. BACKGROUND: To ensure the long-term viability of the City's technology infrastructure, and to prepare for the replacement of that infrastructure, the City is procuring consulting services to provide an Information Technology (IT) inventory, assessment, and lifecycle plan. The vendor will perform a comprehensive inventory of City IT assets and an assessment of those assets and related IT service delivery. From that assessment, the consultant will build a lifecycle plan the City will use to prepare funding for the eventual replacement of those assets. On September 29, 2017, the City solicited a Request for Proposal (RFP) via the City's online bidding system, PlanetBids. On October 16th, 2017, four vendors submitted responsive proposals. The most qualified bidder was SDI Presence, LLC in the amount of $93,325. SDI Presence has performed over 40 projects similar in size and scope, including local cities like the Cities of Ontario, Orange, San Bernardino, and San Clemente, among others. The solicitation did include the Local Vendor Preference Ordinance language as adopted in July 2012, however, there were no local bidders. FISCAL IMPACT: At its meeting on February 28, 2017, as part of the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Mid -Year Budget Update, Council appropriated $100,000 of Measure S funds to be transferred to Fund 320 and utilized to perform an IT Assessment. Because the consultant had not been selected prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2016-17, the funds were not encumbered and were instead deposited into Fund 320's Fund Balance. The total amount, $102,658 will be appropriated from Fund 320 — Information Technology, available fund balance. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND SDI PRESENCE LLC TECHNOLOGY INVENTORY, ASSESSMENT, AND LIFECYCLE PLANNING THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of December 12, 2017, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and SDI Presence LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on December 12, 2017, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2019, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The City may, upon mutual agreement, extend the contract for one (1) additional one (1) year term. In no event shall the contract be extended beyond June 30, 2020. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as 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. This amount shall not exceed ninety-three thousand, three hundred twenty-five dollars ($93,325) plus a ten percent (10%) contingency of nine thousand three hundred, thirty-two dollars and fifty cents ($9,332.50) for a total agreement amount of one hundred two thousand, six hundred fifty-seven dollars and fifty cents ($102,657.50) for the total term of this agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager . Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement as approved by City Council. Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Consultant's fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in Consultant's performance or non- performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. 4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4) Professional Liability Coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Consultant shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self- insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Consultant: SDI Presence LLC Attn: David Gupta, CEO 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 14. ASSIGNMENT The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Consultant, or Consultant's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Consultant hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non - contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Consultant or Consultant's sub -contractors on this project. Consultant further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA SDI Presence LLC (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor David Gupta, CEO ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Linda Petty, Secretary SDI Presence LLC David Gupta, CEO 33 W. Monroe St., Ste. 400, Chicago, IL 60603 312-580-7510 312-580-7600 dgupta@sdipresence.com PM Initials: Date: EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed Provided in this section is detailed information regarding NexLevel's methodology for completing a successful and useful IT Assessment and Asset Management Roadmap for the City. The detailed phases and tasks of our methodology include structured processes for gathering information and developing actionable, attainable recommendations to help improve IT service delivery for the City. In summary, our data acquisition process includes: IT Inventory — NexLevel will coordinate the completion of a comprehensive IT inventory, including hardware and software assets throughout the organization. We will work closely with ITSS staff to ensure that the inventory is complete. IT Documentation Review — NexLevel performs a comprehensive review of the City's existing IT documentation in order to determine the adequacy of the documentation, and to provide recommendations to improve it. While documentation is not always considered "mission critical", it is an invaluable tool in the event of an emergency and during IT staffing transitions. IT Staff Interviews — we pride ourselves on taking the time to speak with each member of the IT support staff to ensure we gather the necessary information to develop realistic and defensible recommendations for the City. The NexLevel project team includes two former IT Managers, both of whom spent a significant portion of their careers in the public sector. Our team is well versed on both current best practices in the IT sector, and on emerging technologies and service delivery trends. Prioritization Workshop — while the Workshop is one of the final steps in our process, it is often one of the more active information gathering activities. The purpose of the Workshop is to help the City determine the priority for IT asset replacement and to identify the resources (i.e. budget; staffing) necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the IT Asset Management Roadmap. NexLevel's detailed work plan is depicted in Figure 2 on the following page and includes: 1. The "Initiate" phase, which establishes the foundation for effective communication and the successful completion of the project; 2. The "Analyze" phase, which focuses on how the City is currently using business technology to support operations, along with assessing the City's IT service delivery and management; and 3. The "Strategize" phase, which follows a structured methodology to develop a plan that is supported by the information gathered in the "Analyze" phase. Project Approach: Phases and Tasks Deliverables Phase 1 Initiate 1.1—Planning Meeting 1.2 — Work Plan Development and Review 1.3 — Request Existing IT Documentation Phase 2 Analyze 2.1—Complete IT Asset Inventory 2.2 — Review and Update IT Inventory Policies 2.3—Conduct fTSS Department Interviews 2.4—Perform IT Assessment 2.5 — Deliver IT Assessment Report Phase 3 Strategize 3.1— Prepare for Project Prioritization Workshop 3.2 —Conduct Project Prioritization Workshop 3.3 — Prepare IT Asset Management Roadmap ✓ Work Plan ✓ Documents Request ✓ ITAssetlnventory ✓ Updated IT Inventory Policies ✓ Draft and Final ITAssessment Report ✓ IT Project Portfolio ✓ Prioritization Workshop Materials ✓ Draft and Final ITAsset Management Roadmap Figure 1 —Strategic Planning Methodology NexLevel understands that the City desires to have an information technology consultant develop an IT Asset Management Roadmap to guide it in the effective planning, procurement, implementation, and management of technology. We have adapted our proven methodology to address all of the City's desired tasks and services. In addition, we have included additional tasks and activities that we believe help ensure a realistic and attainable Roadmap that will gain City-wide support and the acceptance of the City. The final Roadmap is developed as a result of several critical milestones during the overall process, and NexLevel provides specific deliverables throughout the project. NexLevel recognizes and is prepared to address the following key considerations for the IT Strategic Plan: Completion of an IT asset inventory and establishment of IT inventory policies Completion of a comprehensive Technology Assessment of existing technology and associated IT support environment, including IT organizational structure and personnel Development of a comprehensive IT Asset Management Roadmap that aligns overall City technology resources with Council Priorities, City business needs and goals, and the objectives of the user Departments Recommendations that will help ensure increased efficiency through the effective use of technology in support of the City's business needs A detailed explanation of each phase is provided below. NexLevel is open to working with the City to review the proposed activities, and if the City believes it can perform some activities, then we will work collaboratively to ensure all aspects of the project are covered. We believe that project success is significantly improved when our team works collaboratively with City staff, as this promotes a comprehensive understanding by all parties and helps ensure knowledge transfer to City staff. In the remainder of this section, we discuss each task in detail, including associated activities and deliverables, and provide information regarding City staff participation in each task. Phase 1 - Initiate NexLevel recognizes the importance of applying a formal project management framework to this project to ensure that it meets objectives and is delivered on-time and on -budget. The purpose of the Initiate phase is to prepare for, and initiate, the project under a well-defined work plan. This phase includes confirming our understanding, as well as the understanding of the stakeholders, regarding the scope of work and the process for accomplishing the overall objectives of the project. The following table provides a detailed discussion of what each task will entail. Table 3 - "Initiate" Phase Tasks and Deliverables IProject Approach: Phases and Tasks 1.1—Planning Meeting 1.2 —Work Plan Development and Review 1.3 — Request Existing IT Documentation Deliverables ✓ Work Plan ✓ Documents Request 1.1 - Planning Meeting Task Description: NexLevel will meet with the City's Project Sponsor and other key staff to complete a detailed review of the scope of work, project timeline, deliverables, project status reporting methods, project participants, and other items to ensure a well-planned project. During this meeting, NexLevel will discuss the tools and templates that will be leveraged. 1.2 - Work Plan Development and Review Task Description: NexLevel will publish a Work Plan and present the Work Plan to the City's Project Sponsor to review and obtain feedback. The goal of this meeting will be to obtain consensus on the Work Plan. Deliverables: Work Plan 1.3 - Request Existing IT Documentation Task Description: To support the activities associated with Phase 2 of the project, NexLevel will first review all applicable information available on the City's web site. NexLevel will then request and review the available documentation which may include, but is not limited to, the following: ♦ City Council Priorities ♦ Current Strategic Business Plan, Budget, and CIP ♦ Current IT Major Initiatives ♦ Previous Related Assessments and Technology Plans ♦ Technology Budgets and Capital Plans ♦ Technology Governance Agendas and Minutes ♦ In Process or Planned Technology Project Documentation ♦ IT Inventory (e.g. desktop/laptop/tablet, applications, peripherals, servers, storage, backup devices, applications, etc.) ♦ IT Policies and Procedures ♦ IT Disaster Recovery Plan ♦ Network Architecture Documentation ♦ IT Service Level Agreements ♦ IT Performance Statistics or Activity Reports ♦ Technology Vendor Listing and Agreements Deliverable: Documents Request Phase 2 - Analyze In completing the IT Assessment, it is necessary to first have a comprehensive and realistic understanding of how effectively the current technology environment meets the City's requirements, business objectives, and priorities. This provides the foundation to determine how the City will use technology as a key enabler in supporting its business. This "look ahead" must take into account that technology is evolving rapidly, and so are public expectations regarding information transparency and timely and easy access to City services. During this Phase, NexLevel will develop an assessment of how well the City's IT support organization complies with best practices, and identify gaps between the level of service provided by the IT resources and user service level expectations. The assessment is developed based on information gathered through in-person interviews, site visits, a self-assessment checklist, and a review of the City's technical documentation. In those areas where the assessment indicates that action is needed, NexLevel will provide a finding and one or more recommended actions, an assessment as to the relative priority of each recommendation, and an action plan that considers the relative importance of each recommendation, including a recommended timeframe for implementation. The following table provides a detailed discussion of what each task will entail. Table 4 - "Analyze" Phase Tasks and Deliverables Project Approach: Phases and Tasks Phase 2 Analyze 2.1— Complete IT Asset Inventory 2.2— Review and Update ITlnventory Policies 2.3 — Conduct ITSS Department Interviews 2.4— Perform ITAssessment 2.5 — Deliver IT Assessment Report Deliverables ✓ IT Asset Inventory ✓ Updated ITlnventory Policies ✓ Draft and Final IT Assessment Report Task Description: NexLevel will complete an inventory of all IT related assets, including hardware and software assets throughout the City. The completed inventory will provide information including asset description, location, asset number, age, useful life, and recommended replacement cost and timeline. To help contain the cost to complete this inventory, NexLevel will work closely with ITSS staff to utilize as much information as readily available to prepare for and execute this task. NexLevel will review the City's existing IT inventory policies and procedures and update them to conform to industry best practices. Deliverable: IT Asset Inventory 2.2 — Review and Update IT Inventory Policies Task Description: NexLevel will review the City's existing IT inventory policies that are currently in place and will make recommendations regarding them. This may include development of new policies, and / or the addition of language to existing policies. Deliverables: Updated IT Inventory Policies 2.3 — Conduct ITSS Department Interviews Task Description: NexLevel will meet with the City's Director of ITSS and each of the Department's team to gather information about the Department's operations and functionality. The meetings are intended to provide NexLevel with data regarding how the Department is organized and how it operates, in addition to assessing the sufficiency of staffing levels, staff training, and overall Department organization. 2.4 — Perform IT Assessment Task Description: NexLevel's IT Assessment evaluates whether the City's technology infrastructure and support organization is prepared to support the future needs of the City by reviewing six key operational "assessment dimensions," which are described briefly below. This review takes a comprehensive "best practices" view of essential technology delivery components, as a weakness in any one particular dimension can adversely influence the overall effectiveness of the organization. The six assessment dimensions include: Technology Governance — Evaluation of the current IT organization and assessment of its skills, staffing levels, and capability to support operation and maintenance of current and future systems. This will include a review of IT project management practices, planning activities, IT hardware refreshment, policies and procedures, and the use of oversight committees. Service Delivery — Evaluation of the daily operation of the IT environment including budget, service metrics, maintenance, help desk, configuration management, change management and capacity management. Business Technology Applications — Evaluation of the processes and methods to support business and operational technology applications. Security — Evaluation of the use of software monitoring tools, virus protection procedures, physical hardware security, network vulnerability, passwords, data backup/recovery processes, physical and data security, integrity planning, PCs, network, firewall, incident response, patch management, anti-virus protection, business continuity and emergency operations. Infrastructure — Review of the network, servers, desktops, telecommunications, storage configurations, mobile devices, printers, remote access, data storage, server management, and operational procedures. Administration — Review of technology procurement processes, contract management, vendor management, software license management, budget/charge back management and physical inventory processes. The IT Assessment is developed based on: Information gathered in the course of the business technology interviews with key stakeholders Information gathered as a part of the "Voice of the User" Survey Results of the self-assessment checklist Interviews with IT support staff NexLevel's team will consolidate this information and develop the IT Assessment in terms of the City's compliance with best practices in the six assessment dimensions. The completed IT Assessment Report will include a summary of the user survey, a summary of the best practices assessment, a SWOT (strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis, specific findings and recommendations that are realistic and actionable, and a proposed action plan for their implementation. The final report will include observations and recommendations regarding the adequacy of the City's IT support structure, along with technology training for IT and the entire organization. 2.5 — Deliver IT Assessment Repor Task Description: NexLevel will prepare a draft of the IT Assessment Report and conduct a meeting to review it with the City. Once the City has had an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft report, NexLevel will incorporate revisions as needed and deliver the final report. Deliverable: Draft and Final IT Assessment Report Phase 3 — Strategize In Phase 3, Strategize, NexLevel works with the City to review and analyze the findings of previous phases in order to identify, analyze, and prioritize projects to be included in the IT Asset Management Roadmap. NexLevel brings to the City proven methods and tools to ensure identified projects are well defined, understood by the stakeholders, and prioritized using agreed upon criteria. During this task, NexLevel will facilitate a Project Prioritization Workshop that uses a multi -step process to arrive at a prioritization of identified projects that will provide the basis for the IT Asset Management Roadmap. The following table provides a detailed discussion of each task. Table 5 - "Strategize" Phase Tasks and Deliverables 1 Project Approach: Phases and Tasks Phase 3 Strategize 3.1— Prepare for Project Prioritization Workshop 3.2 — Conduct Project Prioritization Workshop 3.3 — Prepare IT Asset Management Roadmap 1 Deliverables ✓ IT Project Portfolio ✓ Prioritization Workshop Materials ✓ Draft and Final IT Asset Management Roadmap 3.1— Prepare for Project Prioritization Workshop Task Description: NexLevel will utilize the results of the IT Asset Inventory and the Assessment Report to identify projects that will improve the City's use of technology. The projects will be designed to serve the City's immediate and long-term technology needs. In addition, NexLevel will conduct research of benchmarks and comparisons to similar implementation approaches used by similar sized cities. This activity will provide an opportunity to apply "lessons learned" from other organizations. The output of this effort will be a list of recommended projects, along with a project description, cost estimates, implementation timeframes, and other criteria to prepare for project prioritization. Deliverable: IT Project Portfolio 3.2 — Conduct Prioritization Workshop Task Description: NexLevel will facilitate a Prioritization Workshop, utilizing a multi- step prioritization methodology. The workshop is designed to help drive consensus to obtain an agreed upon prioritization of projects. The end result of the workshop is a prioritized list of projects assigned to a timeframe. In addition, the workshop is designed to identify IT Asset Management Roadmap enabling factors, which are defined as key elements that must be in place or occur to allow the plan to be a success. Examples of enabling factors could include training, staffing, budget, governance, project management, and change management. Deliverables: Prioritization Workshop Materials 3.3 — Prepare IT Asset Management Portfolio Task Description: NexLevel will incorporate work products from previous tasks as the foundation for the development of the City's IT Asset Management Roadmap. NexLevel will use this information, as well as other information provided by staff and independent research, to create a draft of the Roadmap and review it with the City. The Roadmap will include a discussion of emerging technologies in the field, and the potential benefits to the City of considering these emerging technologies. It will also contain actionable recommendations for the delivery of technology services, along with measurable performance metrics to monitor IT service delivery. NexLevel will revise and update Roadmap based on feedback from the City and conduct a final technical and quality review of the final document. Deliverable: Draft and Final IT Asset Management Roadmap Based on NexLevel's experience on similar projects, as well as our knowledge of the City's environment, we estimate that this project will require approximately 12 - 16 weeks to complete. The success of achieving this schedule largely depends on the availability and knowledge of the City assigned staff. Figure 3 below identifies the estimated weeks per phase. sCD utegize Weeks: I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Figure 3 - Project Timeline EXHIBIT B Payment Rates CITY OF TEMECULA PRICING SHEET Name of Company: NexLevel Information Technology, Inc. TECHNOLOGY INVENTORY CONSULTING Description Unit Price Qty Extended Price A. Technology Inventory, Assessment, and Lifecycle Planning $175.00 121 $21,175.00 Al. Inventory of ALL City Technology A2. Update and Develop Inventory & Lifecycle Policies and Procedures B. Technology Assessment $175.00 218 $38,150.00 131. Prepare an assessment of the current state of technology within the City a. Review all City technology related services, support and infrastructure b. Define gaps in technology and technology related support c. Highlight areas of concern regarding and offer mitigation strategies B2. Recommend staffing levels to support ALL City technology C. Lifecycle Planning $175.00 160 $28,000.00 C1. Development of a five (5) year strategic plan C2. Develop a lifecycle plan for ALL City technology C3. Develop a fiscal resource planning for ALL City technology Subtotal $175.00 499 $87,325.00 Sales Tax (8.75%) CA Electronic Waste Recycling Fee Delivery Fees Other Costs (P lease Itemize) Out of Area Travel Not-to-Exceed $6,000.00 Total Price (This is the price to enter into PlanetBids) $93,325.00 Item No. 8 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Michael Heslin, Director of Information Technology and Support Services DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SoftResources, LLC, for Asset Management Consulting and Project Management Services PREPARED BY: Damion Patrick, Assistant Director of ITSS RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SoftResources, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $283,890, for Asset Management Consulting and Project Management Services; 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve Contract Change Orders up to 10% of the contract amount or $28,389; 3. Appropriate $312,279 from Fund 320 — Information Technology, funded through an interfund transfer from the Measure S Fund in the amount of $135,251, an interfund transfer from the General Fund in the amount of $77,028, and a $100,000 appropriation from Fund 320's available Fund Balance. BACKGROUND: Consistent with the Appropriation Guidelines for Measure S, adopted by Council at its February 28, 2017 meeting, to ensure the long-term viability of the City's assets, better manage our technology infrastructure, and to prepare for the replacement of those assets, the City is procuring consulting services to guide the City through an evaluation of our existing asset management practices and through the procurement and implementation an asset management software system. On August 24, 2017, the City solicited a Request for Proposal (RFP) via the City's online bidding system, PlanetBids. On September 25, 2017, two vendors submitted responsive proposals. The most qualified bidder was SoftResources, LLC, in the amount of $283,890. SoftResources has performed over 20 projects similar in size and scope, and has previous experience working with the City on our EnerGov Permitting System implementation. The solicitation did include the Local Vendor Preference Ordinance language as adopted in July 2012. There were no local bidders. FISCAL IMPACT: At its meeting on February 28, 2017, as part of the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Mid -Year Budget Update, Council appropriated $100,000 of Measure S funds to be transferred to Fund 320 and utilized to hire an Asset Management consultant. Because the consultant had not been selected prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2016-17, the funds were not encumbered and were instead deposited into Fund 320's Fund Balance. Council also appropriated $275,000 to the Public Works Department for an Asset Management Study for Streets and Roads. Public Works utilized $197,972.50 of this allocation. The remaining $77,028 is requested to be transferred to Fund 320 to supplement this project. Additionally, an interfund transfer of $135,251 from the Measure S Fund to Fund 320 is requested to fund the balance of this project. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND SOFTRESOURCES, LLC ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONSULTING THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of December 12, 2017, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and SoftResources, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on December 12, 2017, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2020, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The City may, upon mutual agreement, extend the contract for two (2) additional one (1) year terms. In no event shall the contract be extended beyond June 30, 2022. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Consultant in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as 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 the completion of the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed two hundred eighty-three thousand, eight hundred ninety dollars ($283,890) plus a 10% contingency of twenty eight thousand three hundred eighty-nine dollars ($28,389) for a total Agreement amount of three hundred twelve thousand, two hundred seventy-nine dollars ($312,279) for the total term of this agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager . Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement as approved by City Council. Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Consultant's fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. Consultant shall retain ownership of any methods, research, information, templates, and techniques that have been previously developed by Consultant that same shall remain the sole and exclusive property of Consultant. Consultant grants to City the irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty -free right and license to use the materials. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non- performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. Notwithstanding the above, for Professional Liability ONLY (errors and omissions for the verbal counsel and written reports for this project), under no circumstances, except for damages resulting from Consultant negligence regardless of the form of action and whether in tort or contract, shall Consultant be liable for any consequential, indirect, special, punitive, economic or loss of revenue, or exemplary or incidental damages, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, including claims for loss of data, loss of goodwill, stoppage, or impairment of other assets, even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Consultant's maximum Professional Liability shall be limited to one million dollars ($1,000,000) for the services in the scope of work for this project. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. broad as: 00 01 11 85 or 88. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. 4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4) Professional Liability Coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Consultant shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: To Consultant: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 SoftResources, LLC Spencer Arnesen, CPA, Principal 11411 NE 124th Street, Suite 270 Kirkland, WA 98034-4341 14. ASSIGNMENT The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Consultant, or Consultant's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Consultant hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non - contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Consultant or Consultant's sub -contractors on this project. Consultant further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA SoftResources, LLC (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: A • racer Arnesen, CPA,Principal By: Vavu WGelR:VA, Elaine Watson, CPA, Principal Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT SoftResources, LLC Spencer Arneson, CPA 11411 NE 124th Street, Suite 270 425.216.4030 425.968.4131 sarnesen@softresources.com PM Initials: 0624 Date: t- EXHIBIT A Scope of Work SoftResources will perform a review of the City of Temecula's (City) Asset Management processes and systems across multiple departments. The Scope of Work for this project is defined in this document. Phase 1. Asset Management Evaluation 1.1 Project Planning SoftResources will work with the City to plan for the project and complete the following tasks: a. Team introductions. Conduct an introductions conference call between City staff and SoftResources staff assigned to the project. b. Scoping and Planning. Coordinate with the City to document and define expectations for the contracted scope of work, project objectives, overall timeline, and roles and responsibilities. c. Project Plan. Develop and maintain a Project Plan that defines detailed phases and tasks, project milestones, deliverables, resource assignments, and dates. d. Status Updates. Provide periodic status updates and related communications via email and teleconference regarding project status as mutually agreed. Deliverables: Project Plan Status Updates 1.2 Pre -Workshop Preparation SoftResources will prepare for on-site Asset Management Review Workshops (Workshops) as follows: a. Schedule On -Site Workshops. Work with the City to identify staff that will participate in Workshops and develop a two-day Workshop Schedule. The City can expect 12-16 Workshops each lasting 1-2 hours. b. Workshop Memo. Develop the Workshop Memo to invite City personnel to the Workshops. The Memo will include questions to consider so City staff can prepare for the sessions. c. City Documentation Review. In preparation for the On -Site Workshops, the City will provide SoftResources with any available documentation for asset management that will orient and prepare them for the Workshops. The types of documents that can be helpful include: process maps, procedure manuals, strategic plans, system diagrams, commissioned reviews or studies, etc. d. Asset Management Questionnaires. Develop a set of Asset Management Questionnaires (Questionnaires) for the Workshop sessions. The City will review and approve the Questionnaires. Deliverables: Workshop Schedule Workshop Memo Asset Management Questionnaires 1.3 On -Site Workshops SoftResources will travel to the City to facilitate two days of Asset Management review Workshops with City departments. Using interactive style interviewing, we will review the current Asset Management environment including: • Short and long term department goals and strategies. • Assets tracked and attributes tracked for each asset. • Data required to support departments with their short and long term department goals and strategies. • Identification of systems used to support Asset Management and a review of the systems strengths and challenges. • Business processes in place to support Asset Management and a review of the strengths and challenges of these business processes. • Education and information about functionality and best practices provided by Asset Management systems in today's market. 1.4 Key Requirements Definition Using the information gathered during the Workshops, SoftResources will define the key technical and functional requirements unique to the City and complete the following tasks: a. Draft Key Requirements. Develop the draft Key Requirements document (150-300 requirements) in table format. Prioritize the Key Requirements according to the following scale (R=Required, I=Important, N=Nice to Have, E=Explore). b. Finalize Key Requirements. City staff will review the document and provide comments. SoftResources will review the changes and have the City sign off on the final document. Deliverables: Key Requirements Document (150-300 Key Requirements) 1.5 Asset Management Assessment SoftResources will use the information collected through interviews, conduct additional research and develop an Asset Management Assessment report. The specific tasks to be performed are as follows: a. Asset Inventory. Document the assets managed by each department or functional area. b. Asset Attributes or Data Sets. Document the data sets being tracked for each asset group. Document the data sets that should be tracked for each asset group. Please note that the final data sets will be determined with the implementation or re -implementation of an Asset Management software system. c. Asset Management Systems. Provide a review of the systems used to manage assets by each asset group including strengths and limitations of each. d. Business Process Observations. Identify opportunities for process improvement related to Asset Management. These recommendations will include opportunities for improvement both within a system and outside of the system. e. Lucity Fit/Gap Assessment. Request that the current software vendor Lucity complete the Requirements document indicating how it can support the City's requirements. SoftResources will provide a recommendation as to if the City should keep Lucity or replace it with a new Asset Management software solution. f. Asset Management Vendor List. Provide a list of Asset Management software that could be considered by the City as a replacement solution. EAM Software Budget Estimate. Based on our assessment of the City's needs and a review with asset management software vendors, SoftResources will provide estimated cost ranges for the following options: • Lucity — Purchase of additional required modules, services for the implementation of those modules across City departments, and recurring maintenance. g. • Alternate Vendor — Purchase of a replacement solution, implementation of that solution across City departments, and recurring maintenance. h. Software Evaluation Recommendation. Make a recommendation of whether the City should keep Lucity or replace it with an alternative Asset Management software solution. 1.6 Asset Management Assessment Report SoftResources will prepare an Asset Management Assessment Report and present the findings to the City as follows: a. Asset Management Assessment Report. Compile the results of the assessment analysis into a written report (20-40 pages) and deliver to the City via email. At this time, we expect the report will include the following (this may be adjusted based upon discussions with the City and the results of the research): ✓ Asset Management Overview ✓ Asset Management Department Review ✓ Asset Management Data Set Review ✓ Process Improvement Opportunities ✓ Key Requirements for Asset Management Software ✓ Lucity Fit/Gap Analysis ✓ Asset Management Solution Options Budget Estimate ✓ Asset Management Vendor List b. Asset Management Assessment Report Executive Summary Presentation. Prepare a PowerPoint summary of the Asset Management Assessment Report findings and answer any questions the City may have regarding the report contents. Deliverables: Asset Management Assessment Report Asset Management Assessment Executive Summary Presentation At the conclusion of Phase 1, the City will pause and determine if they would like to continue with the remaining Phases and Tasks defined in this Scope of Work document. Phase 2. Asset Management Software RFP SoftResources will work with the City to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Asset Management software and assist the City through the RFP solicitation process. This engagement will be for the development of a single RFP. The specific tasks are as follows: 2.1 Prepare RFP SoftResources will prepare the RFP for Asset Management Software as follows: a. Prepare Request for Proposal. Prepare a draft RFP for Asset Management software. The Key Requirements document completed during Phase 1 will become the Requirements section of the RFP. b. City Review of RFP Draft. The City will review the RFP and provide comments. SoftResources will finalize the RFP. Deliverables: RFP for Asset Management Software 2.2 RFP Management SoftResources will work with the City to complete an RFP solicitation process as follows: a. Vendor Notification. The City will issue the RFP according to its purchasing requirements and notify vendors on the Asset Management vendor list provided in Phase 1. We recommend the City allow a minimum of four weeks for vendors to respond to the RFP. b. Solicitation Activities. Collect pre -bidder questions regarding the RFP from prospective vendors. Create an RFP addendum that documents the questions submitted and provide answers to those questions. The RFP addendum will be posted to the City's website according to the schedule defined in the RFP. Phase 3. Vendor Evaluation and Selection SoftResources will assist the City through vendor selection process including vendor analysis, demo facilitation, due diligence tasks, and final decision activities. 3.1 Vendor Analysis The City will receive the vendors' proposals and provide one hard copy and one soft copy to SoftResources. SoftResources will work together with the City's Project Team to conduct vendor analysis as follows: a. Initial Review of Vendor Proposals. All proposals will undergo an initial review. Vendors may be eliminated or elevated based on the following filters: ✓ RFP Compliance ✓ Vendor Experience with Similar Entities ✓ Pricing for Software, Implementation and Training ✓ Implementation Team Resources ✓ City Specific Requirements b. Detailed Vendor Analysis. Elevated vendor proposals will continue to be analyzed using the Key Requirements. Conduct vendor review calls to validate and clarify the information provided in their proposals. These discussions with the vendors are the best way to mitigate the risk of inaccurate assumptions about the requirements and the vendors' answers, and to gain added insight into the vendor's software, culture, viability and fit for the City. The City may wish to participate through this process if time permits. 3.2 Short List Decision SoftResources will assist the City to make a Short List determination of approximately three vendor solutions and create the following documents: a. Short List Vendor Comparison Chart. Create a Short List Comparison Chart that presents how each vendor will support the City's requirements for Asset Management software. b. Pricing Analysis. Review of the estimated cost for 1 year and 10 years in an equalized format for each vendor on the Short List. c. Short List Presentation. Prepare an executive -level PowerPoint Presentation that provides an overview of the project to date, summary of vendor proposals received, vendors eliminated, and vendors elevated to the Short List. SoftResources will present the Short List to the City and address any questions they have regarding the report. The City will have final approval over the vendor Short List. Deliverables: Short List Vendor Comparison Chart Pricing Analysis Short List Presentation 3.3 Demo Script and Request for Demo Letter SoftResources will create a custom Demo Script and Request for Demo Letter as follows: a. Demo Script. SoftResources will develop a custom Demo Script using the City's Key Requirements and analysis gathered to date. The Demo Script defines the timeline and topics to be covered during the onsite vendor demonstrations. b. Request for Demo Letter. SoftResources will prepare the Request for Demo Letter that will be used to notify vendors they have been elevated to the Short List for the City. The letter will include logistics information about the demo process and invite the vendors to a pre - demo conference call. The City will issue the Request for Demo Letter with the Demo Script to the vendors. Deliverables: Demo Script Request for Demo Letter 3.4 Pre -Demo Preparation SoftResources will work with the City to set-up and prepare for software demos as follows: a. Schedule On -Site Vendor Demos. Advise the City to schedule the On -Site Vendor Demos. We anticipate three 2 -day vendor demos plus a Demo Wrap Up Meeting the day following the final demo. We recommend that the City schedule the demonstrations as close together as possible for best comparative analysis. b. Pre -Demo Vendor Meetings. Work with the City to schedule and facilitate Pre -Demo Meetings via teleconference with each Short Listed vendor. SoftResources recommends the vendors be allowed four weeks to prepare for the Demos. 3.5 Demo Facilitation SoftResources will facilitate the Demo process as follows: a. Facilitate On -Site Demos. Attend and facilitate the software demos on-site at City offices. At this time we estimate three, 2 -day demos, but this may change depending on the needs of the City. Demo feedback from City attendees will be collected at the conclusion of each Demo through the Demo Report document. b. Facilitate Demo Wrap Up Meeting. The day following the final software demo (or an alternate agreed to date), facilitate an on-site Demo Wrap Up Meeting with the City. The purpose of this meeting is to identify the front runner vendor(s) under consideration. We will present Demo Report results and facilitate City discussions. Deliverables: Demo Report 3.6 Decision Support SoftResources will continue to support the City through Decision Analysis as follows: a. Decision Support. Provide tools and templates, assist through the review of data collected throughout the vendor evaluation process, and advise the City through the final decision process. b. Vendor Management. Continue to manage vendor communications and questions, do follow up work, and act as a liaison with the vendors. c. Due Diligence Demos. Assist the City through the process of Due Diligence Demos as needed. These demos are structured to review select functional and technical topics requiring more presentation and are typically managed through a web -demo process. (SoftResources' direct participation during due diligence demos will be billed on a Time and Materials basis.) d. Vendor Reference Checks. Advise the City through the vendor reference review process. Provide our Reference Check template that includes directions and sample questions that may be included in the reference discussions. (SoftResources' direct participation with reference checks will be billed on a Time and Materials basis.) e. Final Decision Meeting. Work with the City to prepare for and participate in the Final Decision Meeting via teleconference. Discuss information about the finalist vendor(s) and facilitate discussion to support the City to make the final decision. The City will make the final decision. Deliverables: Final Decision Tools and Templates Final Decision Meeting LContt • a to •s_ 1- M .. Ni SoftResources will act in an advisory role to assist the City through the Contract Review process. We review the business issues in the contract including some terms and conditions and discounts to protect the City's interests. Note that SoftResources is not a law firm and the contract will require a legal review. Depending on the software selected, the City may have four documents: 1) Software License, 2) Software Maintenance, 3) Implementation Services and 4) Statement of Work. If a hosted or Cloud vendor is selected, a Service Level Agreement (SLA) will be negotiated. We strongly recommend that the Statement of Work be reviewed as part of the contract process. SoftResources will perform the following tasks: 4.1 Software Contract Review Review the software license, maintenance, and implementation services contracts or SLA from a business perspective. Prepare a written Software Contract Review document of key items to review. Review the document with the City in a teleconference. 4.2 Vendor Statement of Work Review (SOW) Review the Vendor SOW proposed for the implementation. Prepare a written SOW Review document of key items to review. Review the document with the City in a teleconference. Deliverables: Software Contract Review Document SOW Review Document • Ia - y •u Imps -u -i - 'oi -•• « • • 11 SoftResources provides Implementation Project Management or Oversight services as requested by our clients. We work on behalf of our client during the planning and execution of implementation to identify and manage issues that can impact the overall success of the project. The role of the SoftResources Project Manager typically requires approximately 15-50% of a full time equivalent (FTE) staff person over the life of the implementation project. This estimate assumes that some weeks the Project Manager will consume 100% of an FTE while other weeks little or no assistance will be required. In addition, we anticipate some of the services will require the Project Manager to be on-site at City offices while other services may be provided remote via teleconference or email communications. For this project we are assuming 25% of FTE based on the services requested. 5.1 Implementation Services Implementation success is dependent on many factors including the City's staff, the software solution selected, and the Vendor Implementation Team (Vendor), etc. SoftResources will work to mitigate implementation risk by advising the City through the process, monitoring project progress, augmenting City resources, and working with the Vendor to facilitate project progression as follows: a. Project Management Services. Project Management Services include: • Maintain the overall Project Plan for the life of the project in conjunction with the Vendor Project Manager. • Participate in weekly status meetings with the Vendor. • Communicate with City internal staff so they understand assignments, as well as associated due dates and deliverables. • Manage project risks and issues and ensure they are documented and resolved. b. Project Plan. Collaborate with the Vendor to create a Project Plan that defines tasks, assigns responsibility, milestones, timeline, and deliverables. Work with the City and Vendor to make modifications to the Project Plan as necessary and monitor completion of project tasks within scope and budget. Collaborate with the Vendor to conduct a Kickoff Meeting with the City to establish expectations for the implementation project and discuss approach to managing milestones, communicate status, and manage vendor payments. c. Quality Control Plan. Work with the City and Vendor to develop a Quality Control Plan that will be used to manage how project results will be measured to verify that the software and services meet the project scope, quality, time, and budget. d. Change Order Management. Review and manage change orders as they occur to ensure accuracy. e. Project Closeout. Assist with Project Close Out including a review of the Project Plan to ensure all tasks are complete, review of Cutover Strategy to be used by the City to ensure all steps have been properly executed, and participate in the Vendor handoff to City staff. Deliverables: Project Plan Quality Control Plan Project Close Out Report Estimated Timeline The following is the estimated timeline for this project. This timeline may be revised based on further discussion with the City and as the project continues. Please note that some tasks within different phases may be completed concurrently. Phase 1. Asset Management Evaluation Deliverables • Project Plan • Status Updates • Workshop Schedule • Workshop Memo • Asset Management Questionnaires • Key Requirements Document • Asset Management Assessment Report • Asset Management Assessment Executive Presentation Timeline Estimate _ 8-12 weeks Plus Project Management through completion of project 2. Asset Management Software RFP • RFP for Asset Management Software 2-3 weeks + 4 weeks for RFP Solicitation 3. Vendor Evaluation and Selection • Short List Vendor Comparison Chart • Pricing Analysis • Short List Presentation • Demo Script • Request for Demo Letter • Demo Report • Final Decision Tools and Templates • Final Decision Meeting 16-20 weeks 4. Contract Negotiations • Software Contract Review Document • SOW Review Document 4-6 weeks Pb4.5.0 Deliverables Timeline Estimate 5. System Implementation and "Go Live" • Project Plan • Quality Control Plan • Project Closeout Report To be Determined Assumed 18 months *Weekly estimates may overlap as some tasks within different phases can be performed concurrently. This timeline is dependent on City availability, timely approval of documents and vendor availability, and may be modified as we move through the project. EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule The fees defined below for Phase 1 through Phase 4 are fixed fees, and will be invoiced upon completion of each task within that phase. Fees associated with Phase 5 will be invoiced monthly for actual services performed that month. Travel expenses will be invoiced monthly as incurred. Phase/l---• Deliverables $ 1. Asset Management Evaluation 1.1 Project Planning • Project Plan • Status Updates $ 5,180 1.2 Pre-Workshop Preparation • Workshop Schedule • Workshop Memo • Asset Management Questionnaires 5,180 1.3 On-Site Workshops 5,920 1.4 Key Requirements Definition • Key Requirements Document 7,400 1.5 Asset Management Assessment 16,650 1.6 Asset Management Assessment Report • Asset Management Assessment Report • Asset Management Assessment Executive Present 9990 2. Asset Management RFP 2.1 Prepare RFP • RFP for Asset Management Software 5,550 2.2 RFP Management 3,330 3. Vendor Evaluation and Selection 3.1 Vendor Analysis13,320 3.2 Short List Decision • Short List Vendor Comparison Chart • Pricing Analysis • Short List Presentation 7,400 3.3 Demo Script and Request Demo Letter • Demo Script • Request for Demo Letter 6,660 3.4 Pre-Demo Preparation 2,590 3.5 Demo Facilitation • Demo Report 12,580 3.6 Decision Support • Final Decision Tools and Templates • Final Decision Meeting 7,400 4. Contract Negotiations 4.1 Software Contract Review • Software Contract Review Document 5,920 4.2 Vendor Statement of Work Review • SOW Review Document 5,920 5. System Implementation and "Go Live" 5.1 Implementation Services • Project Plan • Quality Control Plan • Project Closeout Report 133,200 T&M Sub-Total Fees $ 254,190 Estimated Expenses 29,700 Total Fees and Expenses $283.890 Detailed Hour and Fee Estimate for Temecula Asset Management Project Work Performed by Phase Director Manager Total Hours Fixed Fees $185 $185 1. Asset Management Evaluation 1.1 Project Planning 18 10 28 5,180 1.2 Pre -Workshop Preparation 12 16 28 5,180 1.3 On -Site Workshops (2 days) 16 16 32 5,920 1.4 Key Requirements Definition 16 24 40 7,400 1.5 Asset Management Assessment 45 45 90 16,650 1.6 Asset Management Assessment Report 24 30 54 9,990 Total Hours 131 141 272 50,320 2. Preparation of RFP Document 2.1 Prepare RFP 14 16 30 5,550 2.2 RFP Management 12 6 18 3,330 Total Hours 26 22 48 8,880 3. Vendor Evaluation and Selection 3.1 Vendor Analysis 32 40 72 13,320 3.2 Short List Decision 16 24 40 7,400 3.3 Demo Script and Request for Demo Letter 12 24 36 6,660 '3.4 Pre -Demo Preparation 10 4 14 2,590 3.5 Demo Facilitation (7 days) 64 4 68 12,580 3.6 Decision Support 24 16 40 7,400 Total Hours 158 112 270 49,950 4. Contract Negotiations 4.1 Contract Review 32 0 32 5,920 4.2 SOW Review 32 0 32 5,920 Total Hours 64 0 64 11,840 Total Fixed Fees 379 275 654 120,990 Estimated Expenses 6,300 Total Fixed Fees and Expenses 127,290 5. System Implementation and "Go Live" 5.1 Implementation Services 720 0 720 133,200 Total Not -to -Exceed 720 0 720 133,200 Estimated Expenses 23,400 Total Implementation Not -to -Exceed 156,600 Estimated Expenses for On-site Travel Trip 1: On-site Workshops (2 days on-site) Roundtrip Airfare $400 x 2 persons 800 Hotel $300/night x 2 nights x 2 persons 1,200 S2,i,o0; Trip 2: Needs Assessment Presentation (1 day on-site) Roundtrip Airfare $400 x 2 persons 800 Hotel $300/nightx 1night x 2 persons 600 $1,400 Trips 3 and 4: Software Demos (7 days on-site) Roundtrip Airfare $400 x 1 person x 2 trips 800 Hotel $300/nightx 7nights 2,100 52,900 Total Estimated Expenses $6,300 Implementation Project Management (4 days on-site for each monthly trip) Roundtrip Airfare $400x 1 person x 1 trip 400 Hotel $300/night x 3 nights 900 $1,300 Total Implementation Trips 18 Item No. 9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Isaac Garibay, Human Resources Manager DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Amended Salary Schedule to Include Minimum Wage Adjustments Effective January 1, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Amended Salary Schedule to be Effective January 1, 2018; 2. Appropriate $44,129 from the General Fund available fund balance, and $14,350 from Fund 320 - Information Technology available fund balance. BACKGROUND: In 2016, the State of California issued a Minimum Wage Order (MW -2017), which mandates that all employers, including the City of Temecula, pay employees hourly wages not less than $11.00 per hour beginning January 1, 2018. As a result, those pay ranges that fall below $11.00 per hour were studied along with related job classifications to bring all pay ranges into compliance while maintaining internal equity differentials within each classification family. Salary range adjustments were made to the following classifications: • Intern • Office Aide III • Office Aide II • Office Aide I • Senior Recreation Leader • Recreation Leader • Recreation Assistant • Day Camp Director • Assistant Day Camp Director • Video Production Specialist • Lifeguard • Senior Lifeguard • Lead Lifeguard Additionally, several Project Classifications will be eliminated because they are obsolete, or redundant of updated classifications in the Classification Plan adopted by the City Council on March 25, 2014. As a result, several employees whose classifications will be eliminated will need to be reclassified into a comparable classification from the new Classification Plan, which also will result in pay adjustments. No salary or benefit adjustments were made to Executive, Mid Management, or staff represented by Teamsters Local 911. FISCAL IMPACT: It is difficult to predict the exact fiscal impact of project employment wages due to the nature of the work. Project employment positions have high turnover because they are temporary in nature. Employees often leave project positions for full-time, benefitted opportunities, and sometimes the positions are seasonal by design (e.g. Lifeguards). Although it is unlikely, assuming all project positions are filled for the rest of Fiscal Year 2017-2018, the maximum Citywide fiscal impact would be $160,557, of which $102,078 is from the Temecula Community Services District. ATTACHMENTS: Salary Schedule CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/Title Level Salary Steps 6_ MCP Only 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 'M 5.0 5.5 6.0 I 1 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE Executive 4 29.1324 29.8635 30.6105 31,3733 32.1595 32.9616 33.7872 34.6286 35.4934 36.3820 37.2941 38.0961 39.0475 40.0226 41.0212 Assistant (Y -Rate) 5,049.6100 5,176.3400 5,305.8200 5,438.0300 5,574.3200 5,713.3400 5,856.4500 6,002,2900 6,152,1900 6,306.2100 6,464,3100 6,603.3300 6,768.2300 6,937.2500 7,110.3400 60,595.32 62,116.08 63,669.84 65,256.36 66,891.84 68,560.08 70,277.40 72,027.48 73,826.28 75,674.52 77,571.72 79,239.96 81,218.76 83,247.00 85,324.08 Executive 4 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 Assistant 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Senior 4 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26,8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 Ad m inistrative Ass ista nt 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802,6294 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Administrative 3 22.0478 22.5981 23.1642 23.7462 24,3437 24,9491 25.5704 26.2073 26.8600 27,5282 28,2202 Assistant (Y -Rate) 3,821.6200 3,917.0000 4,015.1300 4,116.0100 4,219.5800 4,324,5100 4,432,2000 4,542,6000 4,655.7300 4,771.5500 4,891,5000 45,859,44 47,004,00 48,181.56 49,392,12 50,634,96 51,894.12 53,186.40 54,511,20 55,868.76 57,258.60 58,698.00 Administrative 3 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23,1145 23.6924 24,2847 24,8918 25.5141 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 Assistant 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280,14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 Senior 2 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22.5507 23,1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 Off ice 5pec ialist 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720,4481 3,813.4593 3,908,7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 42,494.11 43,556,47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 Off ice 5pec ialist 11 1 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541,1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908,7958 4,006.5157 4,106,6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494,11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761,51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 Off ice 5pec ialist l 1 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19,4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22.5507 23,1145 23.6924 24.2847 24,8918 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454,8059 3,541,1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 36,642,54 37,558.60 38,497,57 39,460.01 40,446,51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761,51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280,14 50,512.15 51,774,95 Off ice Aide 111 1 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18,5084 18,9712 19.4454 19.9316 20,4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 Off ice Aide 11 1 14.4588 14.8202 15,1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17,1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18,9712 19.4454 19.9316 20,4299 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Office Aide 1 1 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 14.4588 14,8202 15.1907 15.5705 15,9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385,4245 2,445,0601 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 26,581,25 27,245,78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 Page 1 at 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 • 5.0 5.5 6.0 ANIL MCP Only 7.0 7.5 8.0 ANALYST Principal7 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 Management Analyst 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614,0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Senior 6 38.9454 39.9203 40.9190 41,9228 42.9868 44.0642 45.1649 46.2972 47.4530 48,6403 49,8591 50.9285 52.2022 53.5075 54,8442 Ma nageme nt Analyst 6,750.5300 6,919.5200 7,092.6200 7,266.6200 7,451,0400 7,637.7900 7,828.5900 8,024.8400 8,225.1900 8,430.9900 8,642,2400 8,827.6000 9,048.3800 9,274.6400 9,506.3300 (Y -Rate) 81,006.36 83,034.24 85,111,44 87,199.44 89,412.48 91,653.48 93,943.08 96,298.08 98,702,28 101,171,88 103,706.88 105,931.20 108,580.56 111,295.68 114,075.96 Senior 6 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46,1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 Management Analyst 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803,8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614,0359 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368,43 Management Analyst5 35.2576 36.1382 37.0424 37.9703 38.9218 39.8967 40.8954 41,9176 42.9633 44,0405 45,1413 46.1085 47.2644 48,4437 49.6546 (Y -Rate) 6,111.3200 6,263.9600 6,420.6900 6,581.5100 6,746.4400 6,915.4200 7,088.5300 7,265.7100 7,446.9700 7,633.6900 7,824,5000 7,992,1400 8,192.5000 8,396.9100 8,606.8000 73,335.84 75,167,52 77,048.28 78,978.12 80,957,28 82,985.04 85,062.36 87,188.52 89,363.64 91,604.28 93,894,00 95,905.68 98,310.00 100,762,92 103,281,60 Management Analyst5 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839,29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362,63 93,646.70 Management Assistanta 28.0866 28,7863 29.5097 30.2488 31.0038 31.7822 32.5764 33.3940 34.2275 35.0846 35.9652 (Y -Rate) 4,868.3400 4,989.6300 5,115.0200 5,243.1300 5,373.9900 5,508.9100 5,646.5700 5,788.2900 5,932,7700 6,081.3300 6,233.9700 58,420.08 59,875.56 61,380.24 62,917.56 64,487.88 66,106.92 67,758.84 69,459.48 71,193.24 72,975.96 74,807.64 Management Assistanta 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 49,280.14 50,512,15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631,55 Management Aide III3 21.4641 22.0007 22,5507 23,1145 23.6924 24,2847 24,8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082,75 Ma nageme nt Aide 11 2 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21,4641 22,0007 22,5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541,1761 3,629.7055 3,720,4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 40,446.51 41,457,67 42,494.11 43,556,47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512,15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149,86 Management Aide I 1 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21,4641 22,0007 22,5507 23,1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720,4481 3,813.4593 3,908,7958 4,006,5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645,38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 Intern 1 11.0197 11.2952 11,5775 11.8670 12,1637 12.4678 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 1,910.0770 1,957.8290 2,006.7747 2,056.9441 2,108.3677 2,161,0769 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445,0601 22,920.92 23,493.95 24,081.30 24,683.33 25,300.41 25,932.92 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director of 8 63.6155 65.21 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 Community Development 11,026.69 11,302.36 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381, 21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING & SAFETY Building Official7 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60,5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66,8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584,9206 11,874,5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494, 52 146,056.89 149,708, 31 153,451.02 157,287, 29 Field Supervisor-Building4 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387,56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Plan Checker 4 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47,3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Senior Building Inspector3 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47,3017 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387.56 Building Inspector 112 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42,8530 5,802,6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 Building Inspector l 1 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802,6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565,1425 6,729.2711 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Page 2 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - CODE ENFORCEMENT Field Supervisor -4 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 Code Enforcement 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069,9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Senior Code 3 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 Enforcement Officer 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 6,565,1425 6,729,2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 Code Enforcement Officer 11 2 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35,1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Code Enforcement Officer l 1 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128,6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING Planning Manager7 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56,2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66,8361 68.5070 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050,1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745,9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628,34 139,019.05 142,494.52 Principal Planner6 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 522122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57,6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387,56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099,41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093,01 Senior Planner 5 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 Associate Planner 11 4 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Associate Planner 1 3 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 Assistant Planner 2 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405,0171 6,565,1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Planning Technician 1 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -SERVICES CommDev Processinga 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 Supervisor 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 Senior CommDev 3 29.3131 30.0445 30.7993 31.5699 32.3562 33.1660 33.9916 34.8408 35.7136 36.6100 37.5220 Services Technician 5,080.9400 5,207.7100 5,338.5400 5,472.1100 5,608.4000 5,748.7800 5,891.8800 6,039.0800 6,190.3600 6,345.7300 6,503.8200 (Y -Rate) 60,971,28 62,492.52 64,062.48 65,665.32 67,300.80 68,985.36 70,702.56 72,468.96 74,284,32 76,148.76 78,045.84 Senior CommDev 3 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 Services Technician 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Com mDev Services2 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31,0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 Technician 11 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Com mDev Services 1 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29,5885 30.3282 Technician 1 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128,6788 5,256.8958 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 Page 3 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 • 5.0 ANIL MCP Only 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 CITY CLERK City Clerk8 52.2572 53.5625 54.8993 56.2753 57.6827 59.1216 60.5999 62.1174 63.6665 65.2548 66.8825 68.5529 70.2686 72.0281 73,5738 (Y -Rate) 9,057.9200 9,284.1700 9,515.8700 9,754.3800 9,998.3400 10,247,7400 10,503.9800 10,767.0100 11,035.5300 11,310.8400 11,592.9600 11,882.5100 12,179.8900 12,484.8700 12,752,7900 108,695.04 111,410.04 114,190.44 117,052.56 119,980.08 122,972.88 126,047.76 129,204.12 132,426.36 135,730.08 139,115.52 142,590.12 146,158.68 149,818.44 153,033.48 City Clerk8 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62,0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68,5070 70,2197 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026,6942 11,302,3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171,4072 103,368,43 105,952, 64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 Deputy City Clerk7 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42,8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248,7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729,2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770,03 84,839,29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646,70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952,64 Records Manager6 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42,8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Records Supervisor4 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29,5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 Senior 3 23,1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 Records Coordinator 4,006,5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314,5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 Records Coordinator 2 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512,15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Records Technician 1 18.9712 19.4454 19,9316 20,4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22,5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494,11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 CITY MANAGER City Manager8 111.42 (per Employment Contract) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19,312.50 231,750.00 Assistant City Manager 8 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92,1343 94.4376 96.7986 99.2185 101.6990 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115,1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200, 4198 15,580,4302 15,969,9410 16,369.1895 16,778.4193 17,197.8797 17,627.8267 149,708.31 153,451,02 157,287.29 161,219,47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615,74 177,956,13 182,405.04 186,965,16 191,639,29 196,430.27 201,341,03 206,374.56 211,533.92 Deputy City Manager7 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70,2197 71,9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79,4471 81,4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92,1343 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 15,969.9410 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 191,639,29 Assistant to the 6 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70,2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 City Manager 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584,9206 11,874,5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107,2743 111,316.49 114,099,41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628,34 139,019,05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 Economic Development5 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54,8555 56,2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 Manager 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050,1215 9,276.3745 9,508,2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646,70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601,46 111,316,49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 Video Production 3 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 Specialist 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0261 5,661.1018 5,802.6293 5,947.6951 6,096.3874 6,248.7971 6,405,0171 6,565,1425 6,729,2710 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 Page 4 of 12 Class Family/Title Level 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 MCP Only 7.0 7.5 8.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES Director of 8 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79,4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 Community Services 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171,4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107,2743 13,434,9562 13,770,8301 14,115,1008 14,467,9783 14,829,6778 15,200.4198 15,580,4302 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 Asst Director of 7 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56,2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 Community Services 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944, 40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628,34 139,019.05 142,494.52 Community Services6 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 Superintendent 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387,56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099,41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093,01 Community Services5 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 Manager 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 Community Services4 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 Supervisor 11 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Community Servicesa 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31.0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Supervisor l 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Community Services3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32,6602 Coordinator 11 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 Community Services3 24,2847 24,8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31,0865 Coordinator l 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396,06 55,755,96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 Community Servicesz 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 Specialist 11 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280,14 50,512,15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 Community Servicesz 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22,5507 23.1145 23,6924 24,2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 Specialist l 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646,3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Community Services 1 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20,4299 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 Assistant 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446,51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556,47 44,645.38 45,761,51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280,14 50,512,15 Senior Recreation Leader 1 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 33,196.33 34,026,24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642,54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457,67 42,494.11 Recreation Leader 1 13.0989 13.4264 13,7621 14.1061 14,4588 14,8202 15,1907 15.5705 15,9598 16.3588 16.7677 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385,4245 2,445,0601 2,506,1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 Recreation Assistant 1 11.0197 11.2952 11.5775 11.8670 12,1637 12.4678 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13,7621 14.1061 1,910.0770 1,957.8290 2,006.7747 2,056.9441 2,108.3677 2,161.0769 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385,4245 2,445,0601 22,920.92 23,493.95 24,081.30 24,683.33 25,300.41 25,932,92 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 COMMUNITY SERVICES - AQUATICS Aquatics Supervisor IIa 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 6,565.1425 6,729,2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860,20 78,781,71 80,751,25 Aquatics Supervisor la 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31,0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405,0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Aquatics Coordinator3 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29,5885 303282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33,4767 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523,0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Lead Lifeguard2 15.9598 163588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18,9712 19,4454 19,9316 20,4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748,82 36,642,54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457,67 42,494.11 Senior Lifeguard 1 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026,24 34,876.90 35,748,82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 Lifeguard 1 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13,7621 14.1061 14,4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385,4245 2,445,0601 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698,8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074,24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026,24 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Pag 5of12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/Title Level Salary Steps _ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 . 5.0 5.5 6.0 W COMMUNITY SERVICES - DAY CAMP Day Camp Director 1 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21,4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 Assistant Day Camp 1 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17,1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 Director 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835,5201 2,906,4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 COMMUNITY SERVICES - PARK RANGERS Supervising Park Ranger 4 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860,20 78,781,71 80,751.25 Park Ranger 111 3 27,4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802,6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Park Ranger 11 2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 Park Ra nger l 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 3,908,7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 COMMUNITY SERVICES -THEATER Theater Tech nical 3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 Coordinator 11 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Theater Tech nical3 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 Coordinator 1 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 Theater Tech nical2 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24,8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 Specialist 11 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314,5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646,3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078,19 49,280,14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149,86 58,578.60 Theater Tech nical2 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 Specialist 1 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Theater Tech nical 1 18,9712 19.4454 19.9316 20,4299 20,9406 21,4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 Assistant 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 FINANCE Director of Finance8 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81,4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475, 6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467, 9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580,4302 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056, 89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 Assistant Director7 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50,9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 of Finance 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508,2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495,3663 10,757,7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 98,387, 56 100,847, 25 103,368.43 105,952, 64 108,601, 46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872, 58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 Fiscal Services Manager 6 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54,8555 56.2269 57,6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387,56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601,46 111,316,49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 FINANCE - ACCOUNTING Senior Accountant4 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46,1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387,56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316,49 Accountant 113 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405,0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387,56 100,847.25 Accountant 13 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42,8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985,57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 Page 6 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 AMFIL MCP Only 7.0 7.5 8.0 FINANCE- ACCOUNTING SUPPORT Accounting Supporta 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 Supervisor 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Senior Accounting3 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 Technician 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246,6889 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 Accounting Technician 112 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31.0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578,60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 Accounting Technician 12 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29,5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Accou nting Ass ista nt 1 23,1145 23.6924 24.2847 24,8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069,32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 Cashier 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043,07 61,544.15 FINANCE - BUSINESS LICENSE Business License 4 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38,8227 39,7933 Supervisor 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729,2711 6,897,5028 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 Senior Business License 3 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Technician 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Business License 2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 Technician 4,422,4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 Business License 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 Assistant 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043,07 61,544.15 FINANCE - PAYROLL Payroll Manager5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47,3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839,29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646,70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952,64 Payroll Administratora 32,6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 43,9243 45,0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Payroll Supervisora 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43,9243 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613,5526 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 Senior Payroll3 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 Coordinator 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 Payroll Coordinator2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Payroll Technician 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24,8918 25.5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128,6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 Page 7 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 MCP Only 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 FINANCE - PURCHASING Purchasing Manager5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38,8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47,3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729,2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839,29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Purchasing Supervisora 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 Senior Buyer3 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Buyer II2 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31,0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372.34 Buyer I2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29,5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Purchasing Assist ant 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 FIRE Field Supervisor-Fire4 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49,6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56,2269 57.6325 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 119,875,69 Senior Fire Inspector4 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54,8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316,49 114,099.41 Fire Inspector II2 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 Fire Inspector I 1 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246,6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Page 8 0312 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 ANIL MCP Only 5.5 6.0 6.5= 7.0 7.5 8.0 HUMAN RESOURCES Director of HR/Risk 8 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75,6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 Management 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026,6942 11,302,3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107,2743 13,434,9562 13,770,8301 14,115.1008 14,467,9783 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 Asst Director of HR/Risk7 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59,0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 Management 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302,3616 11,584,9206 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952, 64 108,601, 46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 HR Manager6 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46,1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54,8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387,56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316,49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944,40 Risk Manager6 43.5058 44.5910 45.7074 46.8476 48.0192 49.2222 50.4568 51,7148 53.0042 54,3332 55.6934 56.8887 58.3118 59.7664 61,2603 (5 -Rate) 7,541.0000 7,729.1000 7,922,6200 8,120,2500 8,323.3200 8,531.8500 8,745.8400 8,963.9000 9,187.4000 9,417,7500 9,653.5300 9,860.7000 10,107.3700 10,359.5100 10,618,4600 90,492,00 92,749,20 95,071.44 97,443.00 99,879.84 102,382.20 104,950.08 107,566.80 110,248.80 113,013.00 115,842.36 118,328,40 121,288.44 124,314.12 127,421,52 Risk Manager6 42,8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54,8555 56.2269 57,6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134,27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387,56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944,40 HR Supervisora 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947,6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246,6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Senior HRTechnician 3 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069,9404 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 HR Technician 11 2 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043,07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 HR Technician 1 2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396,06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 HR Assistant 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31,8636 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003,5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Director oflT/Support8 59.0734 60.5502 62,0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70,2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 Services 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093,01 132,320,33 135,628, 34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056, 89 149,708.31 153,451,02 157,287, 29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615, 74 Asst Director of IT/Support7 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71,9751 Services 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026,6942 11,302,3616 11,584,9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475,6924 105,952, 64 108,601, 46 111,316,49 114,099, 41 116,951, 89 119,875,69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320,33 135,628,34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 IT Manager6 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57,6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050,1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989,6407 10,239,3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368,43 105,952,64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 119,875,69 122,872,58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 IT Administrator 5 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 47,3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614,0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952,64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 119,875,69 122,872.58 IT Supervisora 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47,3017 48,4843 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847,25 Senior IT Specialist3 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42,8530 43.9243 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 IT Specialist 112 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802,6294 5,947,6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565,1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 IT Specialist I2 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405,0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 IT Technician 11 1 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 IT Technician 1 1 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 Pag 9of12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 ANIL MCP Only 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 PUBLIC WORKS Director of PW/City 8 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92.1343 94.4376 96.7986 Engineer 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 15,969.9410 16,369.1895 16,778.4193 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 191,639.29 196,430.27 201,341.03 PUBLIC WORKS - CUSTODIAL Custodian 11 2 16.5044 16.9133 17.3378 17.7704 18.2185 18.6746 19.1386 19.6181 20.1057 20,6088 21.1279 (Y -Rate) 2,860.7600 2,931.6400 3,005.2200 3,080.2000 3,157.8700 3,236.9300 3,317.3500 3,400.4700 3,484.9800 3,572.1900 3,662.1700 34,329,12 35,179,68 36,062.64 36,962.40 37,894,44 38,843.16 39,808.20 40,805,64 41,819.76 42,866.28 43,946.04 Custodian 11 2 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454,8059 3,541,1761 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Custodian 1 1 14.4588 14,8202 15,1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17,1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING Engineering Manager7 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83,4691 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026,6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874, 5436 12,171, 4072 12,475.6924 12,787, 5847 13,107.2743 13,434, 9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494, 52 146,056.89 149,708,31 153,451, 02 157,287, 29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 Principal Civil Engineer6 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239,3817 10,495,3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584,9206 11,874,5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 111,316,49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875,69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 Senior Civil Engineer5 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026,6942 11,302,3616 11,584,9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 Associate Civil Engineera 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316,49 114,099.41 Associate Engineer 114 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Associate Engineer 13 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46,1480 47.3017 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 Assistant Engineer 112 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729,2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Assistant Engineer12 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069,9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 Engineering Technician 11 1 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Engineering Technician 1 1 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Page 10 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 PUBLIC WORKS - INSPECTIONS Construction Managera 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47,3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Supervising PW Inspector4 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 42.8530 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246,6889 7,427.8562 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134,27 Senior PW Inspector3 32.2230 33.0245 33.8500 34.6994 35.5640 36.4527 37.3650 38.3007 39.2599 40.2426 41.2493 (Y -Rate) 5,585.2400 5,724,8700 5,868.0000 6,014,7000 6,165.0700 6,319.2000 6,477,1800 6,639.1000 6,805.0800 6,975.2100 7,149.5900 67,023.01 68,690.96 70,408,00 72,174,75 73,973,12 75,821.62 77,719.20 79,665.46 81,660.59 83,704,61 85,798.54 Senior PW Inspector3 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802,6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405,0171 6,565,1425 6,729,2711 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 PW Inspector II2 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 PW Inspector l 1 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388,3182 5,523,0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659,82 66,276.31 PUBLIC WORKS - LANDSCAPE Maintenance Supervisor -5 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43,9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54,8555 Landscape 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998,9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134,27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601,46 111,316.49 114,099,41 Field Supervisor - Landscape 4 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134,27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Senior Landscape Inspector3 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947,6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069,9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 La ndscape Inspector 112 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 La ndscape Inspector l 1 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 PUBLIC WORKS - MAINTENANCE Maintenance Manager7 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57,6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757,7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 Maintenance 6 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 Superintendent 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614,0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387,56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952,64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 Maintenance Supervisor5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42,8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Field Supervisor -4 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31.0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Maintenance 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802,6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Lead Maintenance Worker 3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 Maintenance Worker 11 2 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314,5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 Maintenance Worker l 1 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512,15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396,06 55,755.96 Page 11 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 'M 5.0 MCP Only 5.5 6.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 PUBLIC WORKS - FACILITIES Field Supervisor - Facilities 4 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 6,565,1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Lead Maintenance Worker- 3 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 Facilities 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947,6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 Maintenance Worker 11 - 2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 Facilities 4,314,5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659,82 66,276.31 Maintenance Worker l - 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 Facilities 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578,60 60,043.07 PUBLIC WORKS - SIGNALS Maintenance Supervisor -5 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54,8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 Signal 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403,9375 8,614.0359 8,829,3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093,01 Field Supervisor - Signala 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998,9887 8,198.9634 8,403,9375 8,614,0359 8,829,3868 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134,27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Senior Signal Technician3 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42,8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565,1425 6,729,2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987,86 Signal Technician 112 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860,20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 Signal Technician I2 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802,6294 5,947,6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 SUPPORT SERVICES Support Servicesa 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 Supervisor 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 Senior Support Services3 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22,5507 23,1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 Technician 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 Support Services Technician2 18.5084 18,9712 19.4454 19.9316 20,4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 Support Services Assistant 1 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18,9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21,4641 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642,54 37,558.60 38,497,57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556,47 44,645.38 Page 12 of 12 Item No. 10 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Agreement for Funding Under Senate Bill 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Agreement for Funding under Senate Bill 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program for program funding for the Citywide Buffered Bike -Lane Striping project; 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. BACKGROUND: In April 2017, the Department of Public Works submitted a project application to RCTC in response to the Biennial Call for Projects for the Senate Bill 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program for the Citywide Buffered Bike -Lane Striping project. The proposed project includes the installation of buffered bike lanes and green thermoplastic bike legends along ten miles of roadways throughout the City. Six roadway segments were selected as priority roadways including segments of Butterfield Stage Road, Nicolas Road, Winchester Road, DePortola Road, and La Serena Way. The proposed improvements are located adjacent to or within a two-mile radius of various community services including parks, schools, recreational facilities, medical offices, retail and commercial centers, and employment centers. On July 12, 2017, RCTC approved 21 projects totaling $3,599,364 for SB821 funding. The City's project was not initially selected for funding pursuant to the scoring criteria. Due to the passage of SB1, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) augmented the ATP Cycle 3 program. Agencies which applied for projects under SB821, also applied under the ATP SB1 Augmentation call for projects and were subsequently awarded ATP SB1 program funds, and therefore no longer needed SB821 program funding. As a result, SB821 funds were freed up from projects approved through the ATP SB1 Augmentation and the next highest scored projects under SB821 were selected for funding. On October 11, 2017, RCTC approved the City of Temecula's Citywide Buffered Bike -Lane Striping project for $132,300 of SB821 program funding. In order to utilize the funding made available, the City must enter into the Riverside County Transportation Commission Agreement for Funding under SB821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. The total estimated project cost is $189,000. SB821 Funds will provide for a maximum of $132,300, with a local match of $56,700. FISCAL IMPACT: The total estimated project cost is $189,000, which includes a local match of $56,700 with a reimbursement of $132,300 from the SB821 program. Funds to support our local match are available in the City of Temecula's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2018-2022, Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide Project. ATTACHMENT: Agreement AGREEMENT No. 18-62-069-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING UNDER SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM (Transportation Development Act Article 3; Senate Bill 821) This Funding Agreement ("AGREEMENT") is entered into as of , 2017 ("Effective Date"), by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and the City of Temecula ("RECIPIENT"). RCTC and RECIPIENT may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS A. RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. B. Under RCTC's SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program ("PROGRAM"), cities and counties in the County of Riverside are notified of the availability of PROGRAM funding and a call for projects ("CALL FOR PROJECTS") is anticipated to be issued biennially by RCTC. C. On February 6, 2017, a CALL FOR PROJECTS was published by RCTC seeking applications for FY 2018 PROGRAM funding, which applications were reviewed in accordance with the applicable evaluation criteria included in the CALL FOR PROJECTS. D. Based on the application attached as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by this reference, RECIPIENT has been selected to receive PROGRAM funding for its proposed Citywide Buffered Bike -Lane Striping Project ("PROJECT"). E. Funding for the PROJECT shall be provided pursuant to the terms contained in this AGREEMENT and pursuant to applicable PROGRAM policies adopted by RCTC, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 2. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the preceding recitals and the mutual covenants and consideration contained herein, the Parties mutually agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the above recitals are true and correct, and hereby incorporate those recitals by this reference into the AGREEMENT. 2. RCTC Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to distribute to the RECIPIENT, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed One Hundred Thirty -Two Thousand, Three Hundred Dollars ($132,300), to be used exclusively for reimbursing the RECIPIENT Page 1 of 10 17336.00005\30277983 1 acknowledges and agrees that the FUNDING AMOUNT may be less than the actual and final cost of the PROJECT, which final costs are the sole responsibility of RECIPIENT, and RCTC will not contribute PROGRAM funds in excess of the maximum authorized in this Section 2 unless otherwise mutually agreed to in writing by the PARTIES. In the event the FUNDING AMOUNT is not fully utilized by RECIPIENT for the PROJECT, the unused FUNDING AMOUNT must be returned to RCTC within ninety (90) days of a written request by RCTC unless RECIPIENT can demonstrate in writing, subject to written approval by RCTC in its sole discretion, the following: (i) valid reason for why PROJECT costs were significantly lower than the estimate included in RECIPIENT' s attached application for funding, and (ii) written proposal for how any unused FUNDING AMOUNT will be used for a proposal to support the PROJECT or other use that supports the goals and requirements of the PROGRAM. 2.1 Eligible Project Costs. Reimbursement for PROJECT costs ("REIMBURSEMENT") may only include those items expressly allowed for under Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (California Public Utilities Code section 99200 et seq.), which provides that funding shall be allocated for the construction, including related engineering expenses, of facilities based on the PROGRAM policies adopted by RCTC, provided that such items are included in the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 3 ("SCOPE OF WORK"). Costs incurred prior to approval of PROJECT funding and/or prior to the Effective Date shall be considered eligible for REIMBURSEMENT, provided that such costs are in compliance with the foregoing requirements. All PROJECT costs not included in the SCOPE OF WORK and not expressly permitted under Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act and the PROGRAM policies shall be considered ineligible for REIMBURSEMENT. In the event the SCOPE OF WORK needs to be amended, RECIPIENT shall submit a letter requesting such amendment, the reasons for the requested change and confirmation that costs associated with the proposed amendment are eligible for PROGRAM reimbursement for written approval by RCTC, which approval is subject to RCTC's discretion. In the event of any ambiguity between this AGREEMENT, PROGRAM policies, and applicable law, the following order of precedence will govern: (1) Applicable law; (2) PROGRAM policies; (3) this AGREEMENT. 2.2 Timing for Project Completion. In accordance with the PROGRAM policies attached hereto as Attachment 2, RECIPIENT has twenty-four (24) months to complete the PROJECT from the date of this AGREEMENT, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the PARTIES. If the PROJECT is not completed within 24 months, RCTC shall have the sole discretion to delete the PROJECT from the PROGRAM and reprogram the funding for future approved PROGRAM projects. RECIPIENT will not be reimbursed until the PROJECT is accepted as complete in writing by RCTC following the submission of the PROGRAM funding claim form ("CLAIM FORM") attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 4. In the event additional time is needed for the completion of the PROJECT, RECIPIENT may submit a letter to RCTC requesting an extension of time to complete the PROJECT with an explanation of why the PROJECT cannot be completed under the existing schedule for completion included as Attachment 3, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Before and after PROJECT photographs must be included with the CLAIM FORM upon PROJECT completion, as well as copies of paid invoices and any other backup requested for repayment and audit purposes. Page 2 of 10 17336.00005\30277983.1 2.3 Increases in Project Funding. The FUNDING AMOUNT may, at RCTC's sole discretion, be augmented with additional PROGRAM funds and local agency match funds proportionate to the amounts included in Section 3 if there is a FUNDING AMOUNT balance and the RECIPIENT provides justification as to the reason for the funding increase. Any such increase in the FUNDING AMOUNT must be approved in writing by RCTC's Executive Director and RCTC shall be under no obligation whatsoever to approve any increase in the FUNDING AMOUNT. No such increased funding shall be expended to pay for any PROJECT work already completed. 2.4 Cost Savings. In the event that bids or proposals for the PROJECT are lower than anticipated, or there are cost savings for any other reason, the FUNDING AMOUNT shall be reduced through an amendment to the AGREEMENT mutually agreed to in writing by the Parties. RECIPIENT shall inform RCTC of any cost savings and any cost savings shall be returned to RCTC or may be reprogrammed with written approval by RCTC for other RECIPIENT projects that align with the PROGRAM. No PROGRAM funding may be used for projects not approved by RCTC. If RECIPIENT provides a local match commitment and there are cost savings on the PROJECT, RCTC will still be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of PROJECT selection and approval despite such cost savings in accordance with PROGRAM policies. 2.5 No Funding for Temporary Improvements. Only segments or components of the PROJECT that are intended to form part of or be integrated into the PROJECT may be funded by PROGRAM funds. No improvement(s) which is/are temporary in nature, including but not limited to temporary lanes, curbs, or drainage facilities, shall be funded with PROGRAM funds except as needed for staged construction of the PROJECT. 2.6 Review and Reimbursement by RCTC. Upon receipt of the final detailed invoice from the RECIPIENT clearly documenting work completed and corresponding costs, RCTC may request additional documentation or explanation of the SCOPE OF WORK costs for which reimbursement is sought. Undisputed amounts shall be paid by RCTC to the RECIPIENT within thirty (30) days. In the event that RCTC disputes the eligibility of the RECIPIENT for reimbursement of all or a portion of an invoiced amount, the Parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Additional details concerning the procedure for the RECIPIENT's submittal of invoices to RCTC and RCTC's consideration and payment of submitted invoices are set forth in Attachment 4. 2.7 Recipient's Funding Obligation to Complete the Work. In the event that the PROGRAM funds allocated to the SCOPE OF WORK represent less than the total cost of the PROJECT, RECIPIENT shall be solely responsible for providing such additional funds as may be required to complete the PROJECT. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of any SCOPE OF WORK performed at a PROJECT site. Further, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of RECIPIENT or its contractors relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by RECIPIENT or construction related to the PROJECT. Page 3 of 10 17336.00005\30277983.1 2.8 Recipient's Obligation to Repay Program Funds to RCTC. In the event it is determined, whether through a post -completion audit or otherwise, the PROJECT was not completed in accordance with the PROGRAM requirements or this AGREEMENT, RECIPIENT agrees that any PROGRAM funds distributed to RECIPIENT for the PROJECT shall be repaid in full to RCTC. The Parties shall enter into good faith negotiations to establish a reasonable repayment schedule and repayment mechanism which may include, but is not limited to, withholding of Measure A Local Streets and Roads revenues, if applicable. RECIPIENT acknowledges and agrees that RCTC shall have the right to withhold any Measure A Local Streets and Roads revenues due to RECIPIENT, in an amount not to exceed the total of the PROGRAM funds distributed to RECIPIENT, and/or initiate legal action to compel repayment, if the RECIPIENT fails to repay RCTC within a reasonable time period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days, including any good faith negotiations, from receipt of written notification from RCTC that repayment is required due to failure to comply with the PROGRAM policies or this AGREEMENT. 2.9 Records Retention and Audits. RECIPIENT shall retain all PROJECT records in an organized manner for a minimum of three (3) years following completion of the PROJECT. PROJECT records shall be made available for inspection by RCTC upon request. If a post PROJECT audit or review indicates that RCTC has provided reimbursement to the RECIPIENT in an amount in excess of the maximum PROGRAM provided for in this Section 2, or has provided reimbursement of ineligible PROJECT costs, the RECIPIENT shall reimburse RCTC for the excess or ineligible payments within thirty (30) days of notification by RCTC. This Section 2.9 does not supersede any rights or remedies provided to RCTC under Section 2.8 or applicable law. 3. Recipient's Local Match Contribution. RECIPIENT shall provide at least Fifty -Six Thousand, Seven Hundred dollars ($56,700) of funding toward the SCOPE OF WORK, as indicated in RECIPIENT'S application attached as Attachment 1 and submitted to RCTC in response to its CALL FOR PROJECTS. The foregoing amount may be reduced, as part of an amendment to this AGREEMENT, if there are cost savings as further detailed in Section 2.4 above. RECIPIENT costs related to (i) preparation and administration costs related to invoices, billings and payments; (ii) any RECIPIENT fees attributed to the processing of the SCOPE OF WORK; and (iii) expenses for items not included within the attached SCOPE OF WORK shall be borne solely by the RECIPIENT and shall not qualify towards RECIPIENT's local match requirement in this Section 3. 4. Term: The term of this AGREEMENT shall be from the date first herein above written until: (i) the date RCTC formally accepts the PROJECT as complete, pursuant to Section 2.2; (ii) termination of this AGREEMENT pursuant to Section 14; or (iii) RECIPIENT has fully satisfied its obligations under this AGREEMENT. All applicable indemnification and insurance provisions of this AGREEMENT shall remain in effect following the termination of this AGREEMENT. 5. Recipient Responsibilities. RECIPIENT shall be responsible for all aspects of the PROJECT, in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws, including: (i) development and approval of plans, specifications and engineer's estimate in accordance Page 4 of 10 17336.00005\30277983.1 with all applicable laws, regulations and building codes; obtaining any necessary environmental clearances; right of way acquisition; and, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to commencement of the PROJECT; (ii) all aspects of procurement, contracting, and administration of the contracts and claims for the PROJECT; (iii) all construction management of any construction activities undertaken in connection with the PROJECT, including surveying and materials testing; and, (iv) development of a budget for the PROJECT and SCOPE OF WORK prior to award of any contract for the PROJECT, taking into consideration available funding, including PROGRAM funds. 6. Indemnification. RECIPIENT shall defend, indemnify and hold RCTC, its officials, governing board members, officers, employees, agents, and consultants free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property, persons or government funding agency, including wrongful death, to the extent arising out of or incident to any intentional or negligent acts, errors or omissions of the RECIPIENT, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants related to a breach of this AGREEMENT or any act or omission arising out of the activities governed by this AGREEMENT. RECIPIENT'S obligation to indemnify includes without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other related costs and expenses of defense. RECIPIENT shall defend, at its own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants in connection with this AGREEMENT. RECIPIENT shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants in any such suits, actions or other legal proceedings, including any settlement. RECIPIENT's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds. 7. Expenditure of Funds by Recipient Prior to Execution of Agreement. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall be construed to prevent or preclude RECIPIENT from expending funds on the PROJECT prior to the execution of this AGREEMENT, or from being reimbursed by RCTC for such expenditures. However, RECIPIENT understands and acknowledges that any expenditure of funds on the PROJECT prior to the execution of the AGREEMENT is made at RI-:CIPIENT's sole risk and that some expenditures by RECIPIENT may not be eligible for reimbursement under this AGREEMENT. 8. Compliance with Applicable Laws and Insurance. RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including public contracting laws, requirements for any local state or federal funding used, and records retention and performance reporting requirements concerning the SCOPE OF WORK and PROJECT, which applicable laws and regulations shall be passed on to contractors by RECIPIENT as applicable. RECIPIENT shall have the responsibility of making sure the appropriate amounts of insurance are included in all applicable agreements for the construction of the PROJECT and RCTC shall be named as an Additional Insured on all insurance certificates obtained for the completion of the PROJECT. PROJECT insurance funds, when available, shall be utilized for the repayment of any claims determined to have merit. Page 5 of 10 17336.00005\30277983 1 9. Representatives of the Parties. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this AGREEMENT. RECIPIENT hereby designates Director of Public Works, or his or her designee, as RECIPIENT'S representative to RCTC. RECIPIENT'S representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of RECIPIENT for all purposes under this AGREEMENT and shall coordinate all activities with RCTC concerning the SCOPE OF WORK under the RECIPIENT's responsibility. RECIPIENT shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the PROJECT. 10. Monitoring of Progress by RCTC. RECIPIENT shall allow RCTC's designated representative, or designee, to inspect or review the progress of the work at any reasonable time with prior written notice by RCTC. RCTC may request that the RECIPIENT provide RCTC with progress reports concerning the status of the SCOPE OF WORK and PROJECT completion. 11. Binding on Successors in Interest. Each and every provision of this AGREEMENT shall be binding and inure to the benefit of the successors in interest of the Parties. Due to the specific obligations contemplated herein, this AGREEMENT may not be assigned by any Party hereto except with the prior written consent of the other Party. 12. Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by RECIPIENT or any contractor shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the PROJECT shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the RECIPIENT or contractor, whichever is applicable. The RECIPIENT or contractor shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the SCOPE OF WORK and as required by law. The RECIPIENT or contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations concerning such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. 13. Conflicts of Interest. For the term of this AGREEMENT, no member, officer or employee of RECIPIENT or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with RECIPIENT or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this AGREEMENT, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 14. Termination. This AGREEMENT may be terminated for cause or convenience as further specified below. 14.1 Termination for Convenience. Either RCTC or RECIPIENT may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this AGREEMENT, in whole or in part, for convenience by giving thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. 14.2 Effect of Termination for Convenience. In the event that RECIPIENT terminates this AGREEMENT for convenience, RECIPIENT shall, within 180 days, repay to Page 6 of 10 17336.00005\30277983.1 RCTC in full all PROGRAM funds provided to RECIPIENT under this AGREEMENT. In the event that RCTC terminates this AGREEMENT for convenience, RCTC shall, within 90 days, distribute to the RECIPIENT PROGRAM funds in an amount equal to the aggregate total of all unpaid invoices which have been received from RECIPIENT regarding the SCOPE OF WORK for the PROJECT at the time of the notice of termination; provided, however, that RCTC shall be entitled to exercise its rights under Section 2.6, including but not limited to conducting a review of the invoices and requesting additional information from RECIPIENT. This AGREEMENT shall terminate upon receipt by the non -terminating party of the amounts due it under this Section 14.2. 14.3 Termination for Cause. Either RCTC or RECIPIENT may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this AGREEMENT, in whole or in part, in response to a material breach hereof by the other Party, by giving written notice to the other Party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. The written notice shall provide a thirty (30) day period to cure any alleged breach. During the 30 day cure period, the Parties shall discuss, in good faith, the manner in which the breach can be cured. 14.4 Effect of Termination for Cause. In the event that RECIPIENT terminates this AGREEMENT in response to RCTC's uncured material breach hereof, RCTC shall, within ninety (90) days, distribute to the RECIPIENT PROGRAM funds in an amount equal to the aggregate total of all unpaid invoices which have been received from RECIPIENT regarding the SCOPE OF WORK for the PROJECT at the time of the notice of termination. In the event that RCTC terminates this AGREEMENT in response to the RECIPIENT's uncured material breach hereof, the RECIPIENT shall, within one hundred eighty (180) days, repay to RCTC in full all PROGRAM funds provided to RECIPIENT under this AGREEMENT. Notwithstanding termination of this AGREEMENT by RCTC pursuant to this Section 14.4, RCTC shall be entitled to exercise its rights under Section 2.6, including but not limited to conducting a review of the invoices and requesting additional information. This AGREEMENT shall terminate upon receipt by the terminating Party of the amounts due it under this Section 14.4. 14.5 No Program Funding. In the event that RCTC determines there are inadequate PROGRAM funds for whatever reason, RCTC shall have the ability to immediately terminate the AGREEMENT with written notice to RECIPIENT. In the event that RCTC terminates this AGREEMENT under this Section 14.5, RCTC shall, within 90 days, distribute to the RECIPIENT PROGRAM funds in an amount equal to the aggregate total of all unpaid invoices which have been received from RECIPIENT regarding the SCOPE OF WORK for the PROJECT at the time of the notice of termination; provided, however, that RCTC shall be entitled to exercise its rights under Section 2.6, including but not limited to conducting a review of the invoices and requesting additional information from RECIPIENT. 14.6 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section 14 are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this AGREEMENT. 15. Notice. All notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be effective upon receipt by the other Party. All notices and communications, including invoices, between the Parties to this Page 7 of 10 17336.00005\30277983 1 AGREEMENT shall be either personally delivered, sent by first-class mail, return receipt requested, sent by overnight express delivery service with postage or other charges fully prepaid as follows: TO RCTC: Anne Mayer Executive Director RCTC 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 Phone: (951) 787-7141 TO RECIPIENT: Julie Tarrant Department of Public Works City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Phone: (951) 694-6463 Any party may update its address and contact information by providing written notice of the new information to the other Parties in accordance with this Section 15. 16. Prevailing Wages. RECIPIENT and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the SCOPE OF WORK are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et smq., which require the payment of prevailing wages where the SCOPE OF WORK or any portion thereof is determined to be a "public work," as defined therein. RECIPIENT shall ensure compliance with applicable prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform the SCOPE OF WORK or any portion thereof falling within the definition of "public work." RECIPIENT shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seg. on the PROJECT. 17. Equal Opportunity Employment. The Parties represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, sexual orientation, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 18. Entire Agreement. This AGREEMENT embodies the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties pertaining to the matters described herein and supersedes and cancels all prior oral or written agreements between the Parties with respect to these matters. Each Party acknowledges that no Party, agent or representative of the other Party has made any promise, representation or warranty, express or implied, not expressly contained in this AGREEMENT, that induced the other Party to sign this document. Modifications to this AGREEMENT shall be in the form of a written amendment executed by authorized representatives of the Parties to be bound. 19. Governing Law and Severability. This AGREEMENT shall be governed by, and be construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. If any portion of this Page 8 of 10 17336.00005\30277983.1 AGREEMENT is found to be unenforceable by a court of law with appropriate jurisdiction, the remainder of the AGREEMENT shall be severable and survive as binding on the Parties. 20. Attorneys' Fees. If any legal action is initiated for the enforcement/interpretation of this AGREEMENT, or because of any alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with any of the provisions of this AGREEMENT, the successful or prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, witness fees and other costs incurred in that action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled as determined by a court of law or appointed decider under alternative legal proceedings. 21. No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 22. Section Headings and Interpretation. The section headings contained herein are for convenience only and shall not affect in any way the interpretation of any of the provisions contained herein. The AGREEMENT shall not be interpreted as being drafted by any Party or its counsel. 23. No Waiver. Failure of RCTC to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions in this AGREEMENT shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power provided under applicable law. 24. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this AGREEMENT. 25. Counterparts. This AGREEMENT may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all which together will constitute but one agreement. Facsimile copies of signatures shall be treated as originals. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] Page 9 of 10 17336 00005\30277983.1 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 18-62-069-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING UNDER SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this AGREEMENT to be signed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date. RCTC RECIPIENT CITY OF TEMECULA By: By: -- Name: Anne Mayer Name: Aaron Adams Title: Executive Director APPROVE AS 0 FORM By: _ N Title: CS 1 '_ ` . DV/.4 ,.J[ 17336.00005\30277983.1 Title: City Manager ATTEST: By: Name: Randi Johl Title: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Name: Peter Thorson Title: City Attorney Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1 (RECIPIENT APPLICATION FOR FUNDING) Attachment 1 17336.00005\30277983.1 CITY OF TEMECULA TDA Article 3 (SB 821) PROJECT APPLICATION FISCAL YEAR 2017/2018 CITY OF TEMECULA CITYWIDE BUFFERED BIKE -LANE STRIPING April27, 2017 FY17/18 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION I. APPLICANT INFORMATION Lead Agency: City of Temecula Project Name: Citywide Buffered Bike -lane Striping Contact Person: Patrick Thomas Title: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Telephone #: (951) 506-5163 Fax #: (951) 694-6475 Email Address: patrick.thomas@temeculaca.gov Address: 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 II. PROJECT DETAILS Project type (check all that apply): ® Bicycle Project ❑ Pedestrian Project Project location: ❑ Coachella Valley ® Western Riverside County Does this project proposal include any of the following? (check all that apply): O Curb ❑ Gutter ❑ Driveway ramps If any of the above were checked, is the benefit provided for the exclusive use of bicyclists/pedestrians? ❑ No ® Yes III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Describe the project in its entirety. Include the need, benefit, and location of the project Photos of the existing site of the proposed project are encouraged. The proposed Citywide Buffered Bike -lane Striping project will include the installation of buffered bike lines and green thermoplastic bike legends along 10 miles of roadways throughout the City. The project will support the overall goals and objectives as part of our Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan and expand the City's bicycle trail network. The project will improve access, enhance connectivity and encourage residents to utilize non - motorized modes of travel for commuting and recreational uses. The primary benefits include, increased safety, accessibility and mobility. The buffered bike -lanes ultimately 1 FY17/18 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION reduce travel lane widths while creating an expanded buffer zone between motorists and bicyclists and also increases safety for pedestrians utilizing the adjacent sidewalks. The project locations are as follows; Butterfield Stage Road Butterfield Stage Road Nicolas Road Winchester Road DePortola Road La Serena Way Murrieta Hot Springs Road to La Serena Way Rancho California Road to DePortola Road Winchester Road to Joseph Road Margarita Road to Willows Avenue Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road *A map indicating, at a minimum, the project location must be included. (Ref: Exhibit A attached) IV. DESTINATIONS SERVED (15 pts) List and describe the destinations served by the proposed project (e.g. employment center, school/college, retail center, downtown area, park or recreation facility, library, museum, government office, medical facilities). For pedestrian projects, destinations served must be within a 3/4 -mile or less radius of the proposed project. For bicycle projects, destinations served must be within a 2 -mile or less radius of the proposed project. The proposed improvements will be located adjacent to or within a two mile radius of various community services including; • Parks • Schools • Community Recreation Facilities • Medical Offices • Retail and Commercial Centers • Employment centers *A map with numbered destinations served must be included. (Ref: Exhibit B attached) 2 FY17/18 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION V. SAFETY (10 pts) Describe the extent to which the proposed project will increase safety for the non -motorized public. Include information about project characteristics such as: no existing shoulder within project limits, no existing/planned sidewalk or bikeway adjacent to the project, etc. Applicants may wish to consider including documented pedestrian/bicycle collision history, most current and valid 85th percentile speed of motorized traffic in project limits, photos of existing safety hazards the project will address, existing pedestrian/bicycle traffic counts, student attendance figures for schools served by project. The proposed Citywide Buffered Bike -lane Striping project will provide for increased safety for non -motorized public uses by incorporating traffic calming measures to reduce traffic lanes, narrow travel lane widths and install buffered bike lanes along major roadways. Approximately ten (10) miles of new Class 11 buffered bike -lanes will be installed, along with green thermoplastic bike lane legends, which will enhance the visibility of the buffered bike lane for motorists and bicyclists alike. The proposed project improves access and mobility to the arterial roadway network for non -motorized public for commuting and recreational uses. VI. PROJECT ENHANCEMENT (5 pts) Provide information about any enhancements the proposed project includes that would encourage people to use the facility; for example, ADA ramps, bicycle lockers or other bicycle amenities, or completing a missing Zink. Said enhancements must pre-exist or be part of the project proposal. The Citywide Buffered Bike -lane Striping will be installed at locations where bike lanes do not currently exist and will expand the existing bike -lane network by providing an additional buffered separation between motorists and bicyclists. The proposed project also eliminates missing links and provides gap closures along various roadways and enhances the overall bicycle trail network within the City. VII. MULTIMODAL ACCESS (5 pts) List each bus stop or park and ride facility served by the proposed project. For pedestrian projects, destinations served must be within a %-mile or less radius of the proposed project. For bicycle projects, destinations served must be within a 2 -mile or less radius of the proposed project. Bus Stops - a minimum of 23 bus stops are within a 2 -mile or less radius from the access point/terminus of the Class I1 bike -lane improvements. 3 FY17/18 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION Park -n -Ride - Four (4) designated park and ride facilities are within a 2 -mile or Tess radius from the access point/terminus of the Class I1 bike -lane improvements. *A map with numbered bus stops and/or park and rides served must be included. (Ref: Exhibit C attached) VIII. PROJECT BUDGET AND SCHEDULE The project budget and local match may only encompass the pedestrian or bicycle facility project; no additional maintenance, street projects, etc. expenses should be included. Total Estimated Project Cost $ 189,000 ( 100 %) Local Match* Committed: (10 pts) $ 56,700 ( 30 %) SB 821 Funds Requested: $ 132 300 ( 70 % ) *Supporting documentation of proposed match must be included. OzAk. atleh m prc('QEf bald) Breakdown of Estimated Project Cost (must add up to "Total Estimated Project Cost" above): _:J Engineering/Administration $ 35,000 Right -of -Way $ -0- Construction $ 154,000 Other (specify): $ Estimated Construction start date (Mo/Yr): 02/18 Estimated Construction end date (Mo/Yr): 11/18 IX. CERTIFICATION I certify that the information presented herein is complete and accurate and, if this agency receives funding, it will be used solely for the purposes stated in this application and following the adopted policies. Signature Title Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date April 27, 2017 expstat.rpt 04/26/2017 4:03PM Periods: 0 through 14 Expenditure Status Report Page: 1 CITY OF TEMECULA 07/0112016 through 6/30/2017 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 165 CIRCULATION PUBLIC WORKS CIP PROJECTS Account Number 703 BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM 703.5801 ADMINISTRATION 703.5802 DESIGN & ENVIRONMENTAL 703.5804 CONSTRUCTION Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND Grand Total Adjusted Year-to-date Year-to-date Prct Appropriation Expenditures Expenditures Encumbrances Balance Used 20,000.00 12,142.75 422,720.00 454,862 75 454,862.75 0.00 12,142.75 1,598.80 13,741.55 13,741.55 0.00 12,142.75 1,598.80 13,741.55 0.00 0.00 16,819.00 16,819.00 13,741.55 16,819.00 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 404,302.20 4.36 424,302.20 6.72 424,302.20 6.72 Page: 1 41#7! Tut r.t1 nt TEMECULA • w i,r..... ,,. 9r_...... Exhibit A - Proposed Buffered Bike -lane Striping Locations r, ,,, it . �• p f. . • 1 • • 11181P la. . 4.0 • 1111"116W1411: • • I1 1,• I • I 4,4. 4 10,221.4 • •X-re4114, 1 } ,..�••••l1, 1. 61,329 ....10000001 .4111 0 5,110.71 10,221.4 Feet WGS_1984_Web Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere C Latitude Geographies Group Ltd This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or othelwrse reliat>Ice. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Highways HWY INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE OFFRAMP ONRAMP USHWY City of Temecula Boundary • Creeks Open Space Hillside 10-0 1 0 ar, Jay p Rural (0 1-02 D',2, * -C •wm�:: ) Vineyards/Agnc sa�ua$ • Open Space TnbalTaelLands Lakes ❑ Cities Proposed Bike Lanes Notes \ TIM.. CITY ilk TEMECULA • Exhibit B - Destinations Served 1060 • Medical Offices' Employment Imo- Centers Schools 1 111 Medical Offices -•art• 1: 74,475 0 12,412.5 6,206.24 12,412.5 Feet WGS_1984_Web_Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere 0 Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. HIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Highways HWV INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE OFFRAMP ONRAMP USHWY , City of Temecula Boundary Creeks Open Space Hillside 0-0 1 DU/AC Max } Rural (01-02 DU/AC Max ) V ineyards/Agncultural id Open Space Tnbal Trust Lands Lakes ❑ Cities Notes f r tti. TIIk, CII'\ n! We. TEM L•'CU 1 A Exhibit C - Bus Stops & Park & Ride Lots i 12 Legend Highways HWY INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE OFFRAMP ONRAMP USHWY City of Temecula Boundary Creeks Open Space Hillside (0-0 1 DU/AC Max ) Rural (0 1-0? DU/AC Max ) Vineyards/Agncullural Open Space Tribal Trust Lands Lakes Cities 15 17 19 22 1: 66,701 O 11,116.8 5,558.40 11,116.8 Feet WGS_1984_Web_Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere ® Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and Is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION #1-23 Bus Stops P — Park & Ride Lots Notes ATTACHMENT 2 (PROGRAM POLICIES) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES Transportation Development Act Policies 1. Up to 5% of Article 3 apportionment can be used to supplement other funding sources used for bicycle and safety education programs; the allocation cannot be used to fully fund the salary of a person working on these programs. 2. Article 3 money shall be allocated for the construction, including related engineering expenses, of the facilities, or for bicycle safety education programs. 3. Money may be allocated for the maintenance of bicycling trails, which are closed to motorized traffic. 4. Facilities provided for the use of bicycles may include projects that serve the needs of commuting bicyclists, including, but not limited to, new trails serving major transportation corridors, secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots, and transit terminals where other funds are available. 5. Within 30 days after receiving a request for a review from any city or county, the transportation -planning agency shall review its allocations. 6. Up to 20 percent of the amount available each year to a city or county may be allocated to restripe Class II bicycle lanes. 7. A portion of each city's allocation may also be used to develop comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans. Plans must emphasize bike/pedestrian facilities that support utilitarian bike/pedestrian travel rather than solely recreational activities; a maximum of one entire allocation per five years may be used for plan development. 8. Allowable maintenance activities for the local funds are limited to maintenance and repairs of Class I off-street bicycle facilities only. RCTC Policies 1. The SB 821 Call for Projects will occur on a biennial basis, with a release date of the first Monday of every other February and a close date of the last Thursday of every other April, beginning in 2015. 2. If a project cannot be fully funded, RCTC may recommend partial funding for award. 3. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns. 4. Agencies being awarded an allocation will be reimbursed in arrears only upon submitting adequate proof of satisfactory project completion, including but not limited to the claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was awarded, copies of paid invoices, and photographs of the completed project. Attachment 2 17336.00005\30277983.1 5. The allocated amount represents the maximum amount eligible for reimbursement. For projects completed under the allocated amount, the agency will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval. 6. The Commission expects all projects to be ready for construction; therefore, an agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project. There will be no time extensions granted unless the reason for the delay is due to unforeseen circumstances. Where substantial progress or a compelling reason for delay can be shown, the agency may be granted administrative extensions in twelve-month increments at the discretion of the Executive Director. 7. Any programmed and unused Article 3 Program funds will be forfeited unless that agency can a) utilize the unused funds to complete projects that are the same or similar in scope and/or are contiguous to the approved project or b) apply the funds to a project previously submitted under an Article 3 call for projects and approved by the Commission, subject to Executive Director approval. 8. Design and construction of facilities must conform to the general design criteria for non - motorized facilities as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. 9. Temporary facilities, projects in the bid process, or projects that are under construction will not be funded. 10. The SB 821 evaluation committee will be comprised of a minimum of five evaluators representing a wide range of interests; such as: accessibility, bicycling, Coachella Valley, public transit, and the region. Staff, consultants, and other representatives from agencies submitting project proposals will not be eligible to participate on the evaluation committee that year. 11. Following each call, staff will monitor the equity of allocations to Coachella Valley versus Western Riverside County; the allocation should be relative to what the Coachella Valley's share would have been if distributed on a per capita basis (the percentage of funds applied for should also be taken into consideration). If the allocation is often found to be inequitable to the Coachella Valley, staff will recommend adoption of a new policy to correct the imbalance. 12. Certain costs at times associated with bicycle/pedestrian projects are not eligible when the benefit provided is not the exclusive use of bicyclists/pedestrians, such as: curb and gutter as part of roadway drainage system, driveway ramps installed across sidewalks, and where roadway design standards require a roadway shoulder width that is at least as wide as a standard bike lane. Attachment 2 17336.00005\30277983,1 ATTACHMENT 3 (SCOPE OF WORK) SCOPE OF WORK: FUNDING: *Local Match Source: Local City Funds If Total Project Cost is lower than anticipated, Article 3 will be reimbursed at 30% of Total Project Cost. BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL PROJECT COST ARTICLE 3 LOCAL MATCH %* TOTAL PROJECT $ 154,000 AWARD $ 189,000 COST PROJECT TITLE: Citywide Buffered $132,300 $56,700 30% $189,000 Bike -Lane Striping *Local Match Source: Local City Funds If Total Project Cost is lower than anticipated, Article 3 will be reimbursed at 30% of Total Project Cost. BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL PROJECT COST Engineering and Administration (Admin. for local match only) $ 35,000 Construction $ 154,000 Total Project Cost $ 189,000 TIMETABLE: Provide at a minimum the beginning and ending dates for each phase of work including major milestones within a phase. Phase Engineering Start End March 2018 October 2018 Construction March 2019 June 2019 17336.00005\30277983 1 Comments Attachment 3 ATTACHMENT 4 (PAYMENT CLAIM FORM) TDA ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES NON -TRANSIT CLAIM FORM FY 2017/18 CLAIMANT: COUNTY: RIVERSIDE ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: TELEPHONE NO.: I verify that the information on this Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signed: Date: PROJECT NAME: START DATE (Mo/Yr): COMPLETED DATE (Mo/Yr): TDA ARTICLE 3 REVENUES AND EXPENSES OF CLAIMANT: Total Project Cost: Local Match Spent: $ (100%) $ (Enter %) SB 821 Funds Spent: $ (Enter %) Breakdown of Total Project Cost: Administration (for local match only): Engineering: Right -of -Way (for local match only): Construction: (Include final billing and back up for Construction Contract documentation) $ Other: (Specify) (for local match only) $ Total Claim (must add up to "Total Project Cost" above) : $ Attachment 4 17336.00005\30277983.1 $ ASSURANCE OF MAINTENANCE TDA ARTICLE 3 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES WHEREAS, THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HAS ALLOCATED TO THE CITY/COUNTY OF SIDEWALK/BIKEWAY PROJECT PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT DATED , 2017; AND, WHEREAS, THIS INVESTMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS CAN BE FULLY REALIZED IF THIS FACILITY IS MAINTAINED TO ADEQUATE OPERATING STANDARDS FOR USE BY COMMUTER AND RECREATIONAL PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLISTS: THEREFORE, THE CITY/COUNTY OF ASSURES THAT THIS FACILITY WILL BE MAINTAINED AT ADEQUATE OPERATING STANDARDS AND RCTC SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS MAINTENANCE ASSURANCE THROUGH APPROPRIATE AND LAWFUL MEANS. SIGNED: TITLE: DATE: 17336.00005\30277983.1 Item No. 11 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve Access Easement Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement with Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC, for Temecula Parkway/Wabash Lane Traffic Signal Improvements and Certain Onsite Improvements Related to the Temecula Park and Ride Project PREPARED BY: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITALITY, LLC FOR TEMECULA PARKWAY/WABASH LANE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CERTAIN ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS; AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA BACKGROUND: On February 23, 2016, the City Council awarded a Construction Contract to Aghapy Group, Inc. (AGI), in the amount of $1,471,777, to construct the improvements for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 (Project). The Project is located at the northeasterly corner of La Paz Street and Temecula Parkway and consists of a total of 157 parking spaces, site lighting (LED with down -shielding), drainage, landscaping and irrigation using recycled water, perimeter sidewalks, and bicycle lockers. Construction began on March 24, 2016, and it was scheduled for completion in October 2016. Construction was suspended on the Project in September 2016 due to a dispute with the contractor and the original contract was terminated. Currently, the Project construction is approximately 40% complete. The Plans and Specifications for the Project required updating to reflect existing conditions. The updated Plans and Specifications were needed to rebid the Project and complete the construction. A revised set of Plans and Specifications was prepared by Michael Baker International (MBI). On August 8, 2017, the City Council approved the updated Plans and Specifications and authorized rebidding the project. The Engineer's estimate to complete the project is $1,090,000. The City has been negotiating a Settlement Agreement and Release with the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association (HOA) regarding construction and operation of the Temecula Park and Ride Project. Terms of the Agreement include the City developing cross -lot access to and from the Park and Ride site such that access will not be needed from Vallejo Avenue; and pledging sufficient funds for construction of the cross -lot access which shall be subject to a separate reimbursement agreement between the City and adjacent property owner. The Access Easement Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement with Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC (TVH) satisfy terms of the Settlement Agreement. According to the Access Easement Agreement, TVH grants to the City a non-exclusive perpetual easement over an area of the TVH property aligning with Wabash Lane. This area shall be wide enough to construct a driveway with single lane in each direction that traverses the south westerly corner of TVH property and provide sufficient turning radius to safely gain access to the abutting City property (Park and Ride site). The agreement requires the City to construct a traffic signal and related improvements at the intersection of Wabash Lane and Temecula Parkway and asphalt improvements through the easement area connecting to the Park and Ride site. The agreement also provides for shared maintenance costs of the easement area. The estimated cost of the traffic signal and onsite improvements is approximately $450,000; consisting of $350,000 for the traffic signal and $100,000 for onsite improvements. The Reimbursement Agreement requires TVH to reimburse the City an amount of $175,000 as TVH's total contribution toward the traffic signal and onsite improvements. TVH will have the option of reimbursing the City within 45 days after completion of the improvements; or, upon submittal of a development application for the TVH property or at the time that TVH transfers its interest in any portion of the property to another party; whichever is earlier. This Project is exempt from CEQA requirements pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15332, In -Fill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. FISCAL IMPACT: The Reimbursement Agreement obligates the City to construct the traffic signal at Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane, and onsite improvements with estimated cost of $450,000. The adjacent property owner will reimburse the City $175,000 toward the traffic signal and onsite improvements. Staff will request a budget appropriation for the traffic signal and onsite improvements as part of a future City Council action to initiate this project. ATTACHMENT: 1. Resolution Approving Access Easement Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement 2. Access Easement Agreement 3. Reimbursement Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITALITY, LLC FOR TEMECULA PARKWAY/WABASH LANE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CERTAIN ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS; AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Approval of Agreements. The City Council hereby approves the agreements entitled "Access Easement Agreement" and "Reimbursement Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC for Temecula Parkway/Wabash Lane Traffic Signal Improvements and Certain Onsite Improvements, and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City in the form presented to the City Council with such non -substantive changes as may be approved by the City Attorney as necessary and convenient to implement the purposes of the Agreement. 2. City Manager Authority. The City Manager is authorized and directed to take all actions necessary and convenient to implement the Agreement and to enter into such additional agreements as may be necessary and convenient to implement the agreements, including but not limited to, executing operating memoranda and agreements, certifications, escrow, amendments to the Agreement, and similar agreements and actions. 3. CEQA. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City's approval of the Agreement is exempt from CEQA and further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be filed in compliance with CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Agreement provides for the maintenance of sidewalks that meander back and forth between the Association's common areas and the City's right-of-way. As such, there is no possibility that the Agreement will have a significant effect on the environment. 4. Certification. 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 12th day of December, 2017. Maryann Edwards, 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. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Clerk's Office SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE APNs 922-190-035 & 922-190-033 [X] Portions Documentary Transfer Tax $0.00 This Instrument is for the benefit of the City of Temecula and is exempt from Recording Fees (Govt. Code § 27383), Filing Fees (Govt. Code § 6103), and Documentary Transfer Tax (Rev & Tax Code § 11922). ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Access Easement Agreement ("Access Easement") is entered into by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC ("TVH"). The City and TVH are referred to below collectively as the "Parties". This Access Easement is effective on the date it is fully executed by the Parties ("Effective Date"). RECITALS A. The City is the record fee owner of that certain real property located at 30100 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula, and identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-035 ("City Property"). The City plans to construct the Temecula Park and Ride Project on the City Property. B. TVH is the record fee owner of that certain approximate 2.53 -acre vacant real property identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-033 ("TVH Property"). The TVH parcel is directly adjacent to the City Parcel. C. Based on the location of the City Property, it is not feasible to construct a direct access point to the City Property off of Temecula Parkway. The proposed access to the City Property is via the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane through the adjacent TVH Property. TVH has offered to grant to the City and the City wishes to accept an access easement over a portion of the TVH Property described below to provide the general public with vehicular access, egress and ingress to the adjacent City Property. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. TVH hereby grants to the City a non-exclusive perpetual easement over an area on the TVH Property aligning with Wabash Lane, wide enough to construct a driveway with a single lane in each direction that traverses the south westerly corner of the TVH Property, and provides sufficient turning radius to safely gain access to the -1- abutting City Property at a location along the westerly property line of the TVH Property ("Easement Area"). Said Easement Area is roughly described on Exhibit "A" hereto and is estimated to be roughly 15% of the overall TVH Property area. The purpose of the non- exclusive perpetual access easement on the Easement Area is to provide to the City and the general public the rights to vehicular access, ingress and egress over and through the Easement Area to the City Property. This Access Easement includes the right for the City and its designees to enter the Easement Area to construct the improvements described in Section 2 below, and the right to enter the Easement Area to repair and maintain said improvements under the terms of this Agreement. The City Property is the property benefitted by this Access Easement and the TVH Property is the property burdened by this Access Easement. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the Easement Area will be described more particularly by the Parties after the City constructs on the TVH Property the improvements discussed in Section 2 below. The Parties acknowledge that the Easement Area may be modified further in the future when TVH develops the TVH Property. The Parties agree that they will cooperate and enter into any necessary Amendment(s) to this Access Easement to more particularly describe the Easement Area at such time. 2. City's Construction of Improvements in Easement Area. The City agrees that it will construct (i) traffic signal and related improvements at the intersection of Wabash Lane and Temecula Parkway, including curb, gutter and drainage and (ii) driveway improvements on the TVH Property at the proposed access point off of Wabash Lane and Temecula Parkway and asphalt improvements through the Easement Area to the City Property (collectively "Subject Improvements") pursuant to the terms of the Reimbursement Agreement entered into between the City and TVH regarding the Subject Improvements. Following completion of the traffic signal and cross -lot access improvements connecting to the City Property, the City will close the existing driveway onto Vallejo Road by constructing the improvements described in the settlement agreement between the City of Temecula and the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association (LRHOA) thereby rendering the area consistent with the remainder of the street frontage along Vallejo Road. 3. Maintenance from Date of Construction of Subject Improvements to Date Development Application for TVH Property is Approved by City. The City and TVH agree that the City is responsible for maintaining the Easement Area in good condition and repair and in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes and regulations from the date of the City's construction of the Subject Improvements to the date the City approves a Development Application for the TVH Property. During this time period, the City will maintain reasonable liability and casualty insurance for the Easement Area at its expense, naming TVH as additional insured. The City will provide evidence of such insurance to TVH within 15 calendar days of the City's construction of the Subject Improvements in the Easement Area, and thereafter upon written request of TVH. If the City fails to maintain and/or repair said Easement Area, TVH will provide to the City written notice of said failure. If the City has not repaired or maintained the area within ten calendar days of the TVH's notice, TVH has the right, but not the obligation, to maintain and repair the Subject Improvements in the Easement Area. In such case, TVH will provide to the City an invoice for TVH's reasonable costs of such maintenance and repair and the City will reimburse TVH for said costs within 30 calendar days of receiving said invoice. -2- 4. Shared Costs of Maintenance from Date Development Application for TVH Property is Approved by City. The City and TVH agree that, following completion of the Subject Improvements, TVH is responsible for maintaining the Easement Area in good condition and repair and in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes and regulations from the date on which a development application for the TVH Property is approved by the City. The City represents and warrants that it currently has, and will at all times during and following completion of the Subject Improvements, maintain reasonable liability and casualty insurance for the Easement Area, at its expense, and will name TVH as an additional insured before commencing the Subject Improvements, provide evidence of such insurance to the TVH before commencing the Subject Improvements, and thereafter upon written request of TVH. TVH will maintain reasonable liability and casualty insurance for the Easement Area, at its expense, naming the City as additional insured. TVH will provide evidence of such insurance to the City within 15 calendar days of the date on which a development application for the TVH Property is approved by the City, and thereafter upon written request of the City. If TVH fails to maintain and/or repair said Easement Area, the City will provide to TVH written notice of said failure. If TVH has not repaired or maintained the Easement Area within ten calendar days of the City's notice, the City has the right, but not the obligation, to maintain and repair the Subject Improvements in the Easement Area. The City and TVH agree that the City and TVH will share the reasonable maintenance costs of the Easement Area from the date on which the City approves a development application for the TVH Property. Maintenance costs include all expenses reasonably incurred in TVH's sole discretion to keep the Easement Area in a safe and presentable condition, fit for its intended purpose, and to comply with all legal and contractual obligations then in effect. TVH will provide to the City an invoice on or before December 31 of each calendar year for the reasonable costs of maintaining the Easement Area. Said invoice will itemize and detail the maintenance costs for the Easement Area. The City will pay fifty percent (50%) of the amount of the invoice for the reasonable maintenance costs for the Easement Area within 30 business days of receipt of said invoice. TVH agrees to provide any additional back- up documentation to support said invoice within five business days of receiving the City's written request for said back-up documentation. TVH agrees to maintain all improvements, landscaping and horse trail along Vallejo Road adjacent to the TVH Property and the City Property, as required by the LRHOA. The City will own, be solely responsible for, and will maintain the new traffic signal at its sole cost. 5. Reasonable Use by the City Property. Any entrance upon or movement across the Easement Area by any occupant or invitee of the City Property shall be conducted in such a way that it does not damage or unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the Easement Area or the TVH Property, or otherwise unreasonably increase the burden on the Easement Area or the TVH Property beyond the contemplated use ("Unreasonable Burdens"). The City shall repair and/or replace any damage to the Easement Area or the TVH Property due to any Unreasonable Burdens by the occupants or invitees of the City Property at its sole cost, and indemnify TVH for any damage to the Easement Area caused by any Unreasonable Burdens. 6. Right of TVH Property to Relocate Part of Easement Area. It is understood and agreed that, over time, the TVH Property may be redeveloped in such a manner that the Easement Area may need to be partially relocated, in which case the then owner of the TVH Property may do so, at its sole cost, provided that it obtains the approval of the City or the then owner of the City Property, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. No such partial relocation will materially and adversely affect the City Property's use and enjoyment of the Easement Area. -3- 7. Covenant Running with Land. This Access Easement is expressly for the benefit of the City Property and will be binding upon TVH and its successors -in -interest and will encumber the portion of the TVH Property described in the Easement Area. The terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein will inure to the benefit of the City Property and will bind all parties now having an interest in, under or to the TVH Property or the Easement Area, and the successors -in -interest and assigns of TVH to the TVH Property. 8. No Structures or Barriers. The Parties agree that no wall, fence or barrier of any kind which impairs or impedes access to, or use of the Easement Area will be constructed or maintained on the Easement Area. Further, the Parties will not do anything that prevents, impairs or discourages the use, or will prevent, impair or discourage the use or exercise, of the free access and movement across and through the Easement Area to the City Property or TVH Property. 9. Taxes. TVH will pay all taxes and assessments affecting the Easement Area and Property when due. 10. TVH's Representations Re: Liens and/or Monetary Encumbrances. TVH represents and warrants to City that (i) the Easement Area is not subject to any deeds of trust or other monetary liens (except liens for property taxes and assessments not yet due) or (ii) that if the Easement Area is subject to a deed of trust or other monetary lien, TVH will, within 90 calendar days of the Effective Date, initiate such actions as reasonably required to obtain from any beneficiaries under said deed of trust and/or monetary liens a consent and subordination of said deed of trust and/or monetary lien to this Access Easement or partial reconveyance for the Easement Area, and provide a copy of said subordination and/or partial reconveyance to the City. 11. Notices. All notices and demands will be given in writing by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, or by overnight carrier. Notices will be considered given upon the earlier of (a) two business days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, return receipt requested, or (b) one business day following deposit with an overnight carrier service. The parties will address such notices as provided below or as may be amended by written notice: City: Copy to: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Aaron Adams, City Manager Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Attention: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney TVH Temecula Valley Hospitality c/o Fine Hospitality Group 640 W. Lambert Road Brea, California 92821 Attention: Ken Pansuria -4- 12. Miscellaneous. a. No Joint Venture. No provision of this Access Easement will be deemed to constitute the City and TVH as partners, principal and agent, or joint venturers with one another. b. No Brokers. TVH represents and warrants that no brokers have been retained or consulted in connection with this transaction. c. Amendments. Any amendments to this Access Easement will be effective only when duly executed by both the City and TVH. d. Applicable Law. This Access Easement will be construed and interpreted under, and governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California. e. Successors and Assigns. This Access Easement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. The Parties expressly agree and acknowledge that the obligations and rights under the Access Easement may be assigned by the City and TVH to the successors in interest of the City Property and TVH Property, respectively. Such transfer and assignment of the City's obligations and rights under the Access Easement to the successors in interest of the City Property shall not constitute an obligation by said successors in interest to construct a Park and Ride Lot on the City Property. Said successors in interest or assigns of the City Property, however, shall assume all other obligations and responsibilities under the Access Easement. Any future development of the City Property by any successors in interest will be subject to the applicable zoning and General Plan designations. f. Counterparts and Facsimile and Electronic Signatures. This Access Easement may be executed simultaneously in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. For purposes of this Access Easement, facsimile and electronic signatures will be deemed to be original signatures. g. Remedies Not Exclusive and Waivers. No remedy conferred by any of the specific provisions of this Access Easement is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy and each and every remedy will be cumulative and will be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. The election of any one or more remedies will not constitute a waiver of the right to pursue other available remedies. h. Interpretation and Construction. Each party has reviewed this Access Easement and each has had the opportunity to have its respective counsel and real estate advisors review and revise this Access Easement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party will not apply in the interpretation of this Access Easement or any amendments or exhibits thereto. In this Access Easement the neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and singular number includes the plural, and the words "person" and "party" include corporation, partnership, firm, trust, or association wherever the context so requires. The Recitals and captions of the Sections and Subsections of this Access Easement are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein -5- will in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of this Access Easement. i. Attorneys' Fees. If either party hereto incurs attorneys' fees in order to enforce, defend or interpret any of the terms, provisions or conditions of this Access Easement or because of a breach of this Access Easement by the other party, the prevailing party, whether by suit, negotiation, arbitration or settlement will be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from the other party. j. Severability. If any part, term or provision of this Access Easement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining provisions will not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the Parties will be construed and enforced as if this Access Easement did not contain the particular part, term or provision held to be invalid. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] -6- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Access Easement is executed on the dates set forth below: Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC A California limited liability company Dated: , 2017 By: City of Temecula, a municipal corporation Dated: , 2017 Attest: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Title: By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor -7- Exhibit "A" Rough Description of Easement Area (Portions of APN 922-190-033) The Easement Area is an area on that certain approximate 2.53 -acre vacant real property identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-033 ("TVH Property") that aligns with Wabash Lane, wide enough to construct a driveway with a single lane in each direction that traverses the south westerly corner of the TVH Property, and provides sufficient turning radius to safely gain access to the abutting real property owned by the City of Temecula and located at 30100 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula, and identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-033 ("City Property"), at a location along the westerly property line of the TVH Property. Said Easement Area is estimated to be roughly 15% of the overall TVH Property area. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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 RIVERSIDE COUNTY On before me, , 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, and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity(ies) 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. Place Notary Seal Above Signature of Notary Public REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITALITY, LLC FOR TEMECULA PARKWAY/WABASH LANE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CERTAIN ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS This Reimbursement Agreement for Temecula Parkway/Wabash Lane Traffic Signal Improvements and Certain Onsite Improvements is entered into between the City of Temecula ("City") and Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC, a California limited liability company ("TVH"). The City and TVH are referred to below collectively as the "Parties". The Agreement is effective on the date that it is fully executed by the Parties ("Effective Date"). RECITALS A. The City is the record fee owner of that certain real property located at 30100 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula, and identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-035 ("City Property"). The City plans to construct the Temecula Park and Ride Project ("Park and Ride") on the City Property. B. TVH is the record fee owner of that certain approximate 2.53 -acre vacant real property identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-033 ("TVH Property"). The TVH parcel is located directly adjacent to the City parcel. C. Based on the location of the City Property, it is not feasible to construct a direct access point to the City Property off of Temecula Parkway. The proposed access to the City Property is via the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane through the adjacent TVH Property. D. The City and TVH contemplate entering into an Access Easement Agreement that provides for TVH's grant to the City of an access easement over a portion of the TVH Property to authorize the City to construct on the TVH Property a driveway and asphalt improvements and to provide the general public with vehicular access, egress and ingress through the TVH Property to the adjacent City Property. E. Constructing access to the TVH Property from the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane will require the installation of a traffic signal and construction of related improvements at the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane, including curb, gutter and drainage (collectively "Traffic Signal Improvements"). The Traffic Signal Improvements are more particularly described on Exhibit "A" hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference. F. Certain onsite improvements, including a driveway cut-out, driveway improvements, asphalt pavement, and any necessary storm drain improvements, will be required on the TVH Property to allow for public vehicular access through a portion of the TVH Property to the Park and Ride that the City will construct on the City Property (collectively "Onsite Improvements"). The scope and location of the Onsite Improvements are described on Exhibit "B" hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference. G. TVH plans to develop the TVH Property in the future with a use that is consistent with the City's General Plan and applicable zoning. As a condition of development of the TVH Property, TVH will likely be required to construct the Traffic Signal Improvements to provide for full access to the TVH Property. The Traffic Signal Improvements are necessary to provide for full access off of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane in connection with the proposed future development of the TVH Property. Further, additional onsite improvements complimentary to, or to replace the City constructed Onsite Improvements, are also necessary to provide access, ingress and egress from the adjacent public streets to the TVH Property and through the TVH Property. H. The City and TVH have studied the nature of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements and the benefits that said improvements will have on the TVH Property and City Property. Construction of said improvements at this time will provide for full access to the TVH Property instead of limited right -in and right -out access and will result in time and cost savings in the future for TVH at the time of development of the TVH parcel. Construction of said improvements will benefit the City Property by providing vehicular access, egress and ingress through the TVH Property to the adjacent City Property. I. The City plans to commence construction of the City's Park and Ride on the City Property in the near future. Accordingly, it is necessary that the City construct the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements as soon as possible to ensure vehicular access to the City Property via the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane through the Easement Area on the TVH Property, which is roughly described in the Access Agreement as an area aligning with Wabash Lane, wide enough to construct a driveway with a single lane in each direction that traverses the south westerly corner of the TVH Property, and provides sufficient turning radius to safely gain access to the abutting City Property at a location along the westerly property line of the City Property. The Easement Area is estimated to be roughly 15% of the overall TVH Property area. The City's construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements is in the public interest because these improvements will allow vehicular access to the adjacent City Property. J. The City and TVH estimate that the cost of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements is approximately $450,000, consisting of $350,000 for the Traffic Signal Improvements and $100,000 for the Onsite Improvements. The Parties, however, recognize that economic conditions at the time of bidding and construction conditions could alter the accuracy of these estimates. K. The Parties now desire to set forth the terms of the City's use of portions of the TVH Property to construct the Traffic Signal Improvements and the Onsite Improvements and TVH's reimbursement to the City for a portion of the costs of said improvements. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Construction of Traffic Signal Improvements. The City will construct and install the Traffic Signal Improvements at the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and codes and in conformance with plans and specifications subject to the approval of the City's Director of Public Works. 2. Construction of Onsite Improvements on TVH Property. The City's Director of Public Works and TVH's engineer will meet within 15 calendar days of the Effective Date of this Agreement to mutually set the grade for the driveway access to the City Property that will be work and accommodate future development on the TVH Property. Within 15 calendar days of said meeting, the City and TVH will meet and discuss the draft plans and specifications for the Onsite Improvements and the precise location of said Onsite Improvements. TVH agrees to deliver to the City in writing any comments to the draft plans and specifications within ten calendar days of said meeting, which the City agrees to make good faith efforts to accommodate. TVH's failure to submit to the City in writing any comments to the draft plans and specifications within said ten-day period will constitute approval by TVH of said draft plans and specifications. The City will provide a courtesy copy of the final plans and specifications to TVH at the time that it submits said plans to the City's Director of Public Works for approval. 3. Payment of Reimbursable Costs. Within 45 calendar days after filing a Notice of Completion for the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements on the TVH Property, the City will submit to TVH the City's actual cost of installing and constructing the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. TVH will submit to the City the sum of $175,000.00 ("Reimbursable Costs") as TVH's total and only contribution obligation towards the costs of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements, regardless of the actual cost. TVH will have the option of (a) submitting the $175,000.00 Reimbursable Costs to the City within 45 calendar days of receiving said costs from the City or (b) submitting the Reimbursable Costs to the City upon submittal of a development application for the TVH Property or at the time that the TVH transfers its interest in any portion of the TVH Property to another party, whichever is earlier. TVH agrees and acknowledges that TVH WILL let the City know in writing within 10 calendar days of the City's notification to TVH of the Notice of Completion, whether TVH will choose option (a) or (b) above and that if TVH chooses option (b), the City will place a lien on the TVH Property in the amount of $175,000.00 for the Reimbursement Costs. The City will remove said lien upon TVH's payment of the Reimbursement Costs to the City. 4. City Obligations. The City will complete the following to implement the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements on the TVH Property: a. Design the Traffic Signal Improvements consistent with the description set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto, and in accordance with applicable laws, codes and regulations. b. Design the Onsite Improvements consistent with the grade for the driveway access to the City Property mutually agreed to by the City's Director of Public Works and TVH's engineer and consistent with the scope and location described on Exhibit "B" hereto. The design and the construction of the Onsite Improvements will be in accordance with applicable laws, codes and regulations. The City will require that the contractor for the Onsite Improvements provide a performance and labor/materials bond for the Onsite Improvements. The City will also require that the contractor provide a one-year warranty bond for the Onsite Improvements. c. Obtain possession of all necessary rights of way for the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. d. Obtain all necessary permits for the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements from the applicable public agencies. e. The City will be responsible for the payment of permit fees and the City inspections of the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. £ Designate a representative of the City to regularly meet with representatives of TVH to coordinate construction activities and monitor progress of construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. g. Prepare and maintain all invoices, records and reports relating to the costs for the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements necessary to document the costs incurred in constructing said improvements. The City will permit representatives of TVH to review a copy said invoices, records and reports relating to the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements that document the costs incurred by the City in constructing said improvements on five business days written notice to the City. 5. TVH Obligations. a. Designate an engineer to work with the City's Director of Public Works to mutually set the grade for the driveway access to the City Property that will be work and accommodate future development on the TVH Property. b. Designate a representative of TVH to meet with the City in accordance with Paragraph 2 above about the draft specifications and plans for the Onsite Improvements. c. Designate a representative of TVH to regularly meet with the representatives of the City to coordinate construction activities and monitor progress of construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. d. Provide any necessary approvals and or rights of entry to authorize the City to enter on the TVH Property to construct the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. 6. Construction Right of Entry. TVH hereby grants to the City, its employees, agents, contractors, representatives, consultants and other designees ("City's Designees") a right of entry on the TVH Property for purposes of providing access to construct the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements in accordance with this Agreement. TVH agrees and acknowledges that the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements may include tests, surveys and work of professional engineers, architects and soils experts and this Construction Right of Entry authorizes any such work that is necessary to construct the above improvements. The commencement date for this Construction Right of Entry is ten business days after the City provides written notice to TVH of its intent to enter the TVH Property for the uses authorized by this Agreement. This Construction Right of Entry terminates when the City files a Notice of Completion for the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements or three years from the Effective Date of this Agreement, whichever is sooner. 7. No Liens. Except for the lien referenced under option (b) of Paragraph 3 above, the City agrees to keep the TVH Property free of any liens in connection with the City's construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and the Onsite Improvements, including without limitation, liens by contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, engineers, architects, surveyors or others that may have lien rights for work arising out of the City's use of portions of the TVH Property for said construction. If any such lien, except for the lien referenced under option (b) of Paragraph 3 above, is filed on TVH's Property in connection with the City's use of portions of the TVH Property to construct the Traffic Signal Improvements and the Onsite Improvements, the City will, at its sole cost and expense, have the lien released and discharged of record in a matter reasonably satisfactory to TVH within 45 calendar days of receiving notice of the lien. If the City fails to remove the lien within such 45 -day period, TVH will have the right to remove the lien, and City, upon demand, will reimburse TVH for all reasonable costs and expenses, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees incurred by TVH in connection with such removal. The City agrees that if TVH chooses to pay the Reimbursable Costs to the City under option (b) of Paragraph 3 above, the City will remove said lien within 15 calendar days of receiving payment from TVH of said Reimbursable Costs. 8. Indemnification. Notwithstanding the requirements of Paragraph 9 (Insurance), each party will indemnify, protect and hold harmless the other party, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature, including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs, which the indemnified party, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of other party's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the indemnified party's own negligence or wrongful conduct. 9. Insurance. Prior to entry onto the TVH Property for the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements, the City will cause the City's contractor for said improvements to procure and maintain a policy of commercial general liability insurance issued by an insurer reasonably satisfactory to the City against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work relating to the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements on the TVH Property. The contractor will be required to maintain said insurance policy with a single limit of liability of no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for all covered losses and four million dollars ($4,000,000) general aggregate. The City will cause said contractor to provide a certificate of insurance and copy of additional insured endorsement naming TVH, the City and the City's officers, employees and agents as additional insured, evidencing that such insurance is in force and effect. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. The City will cause its contractor to provide the certificate of coverage and a copy of additional insured endorsement to the City and TVH. The City will review and approve said endorsement before work commences. Such insurance will be maintained in force until such time as the City files a Notice of Completion for said improvements. The City will also require said contractor to procure and maintain insurance required on such construction projects, including, but not limited to, Automobile Liability, Employer's Liability, and Worker's Compensation Insurance. 10. Default. a. In the event one party claims that the other party has defaulted under its obligations under this Agreement, that party will notify the other party of the default in writing ("notice of default"). The party receiving the notice of default will cure the default within 15 business days of the date of the notice of default, unless the default cannot reasonably be cured within that time, in which case the party in default will commence the cure and will diligently prosecute the cure to completion. b. Except as provided in Subparagraph 10.c. below, each party will have all remedies provided by law for any uncured default under this Agreement. c. The sole remedy of TVH against the City in the event of a breach of this Agreement by City related to the completion or repair of Traffic Signal Improvements or Onsite Improvements will be specific performance, declaratory relief, writ of mandate, or similar remedies to compel City's compliance with the terms of this Agreement due to the nature of the City's obligations under this Agreement. City and TVH agree that damages may not be an adequate remedy if the City fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and that TVH's sole remedy will be the right to seek and obtain specific performance, declaratory relief, writ of mandate, or similar remedies to compel City's compliance with the terms of this Agreement as a remedy for any breach of this Agreement and that specific performance, declaratory relief, writ of mandate, or similar remedies to compel City's compliance with the terms of this Agreement are available remedies in the event TVH establishes City's breach of this Agreement. d. If the City fails to complete all reasonably required improvements on TVH's Property in accordance with its obligations hereunder, or to cure any default after required notice, TVH may complete or make reasonably required repairs and deduct the costs from the Reimbursable Costs owed upon completion. TVH also retains all legal rights and remedies to which it may be entitled against any contractor hired by the City or their insurers, or against the City for the breach of any other obligation under this Agreement. 11. Notices. All notices and demands will be given in writing by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, or by overnight carrier. Notices will be considered given upon the earlier of (a) two business days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, return receipt requested, or (b) one business day following deposit with an overnight carrier service. The Parties will address such notices as provided below or as may be amended by written notice: City: Copy to: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Aaron Adams, City Manager Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Attention: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney TVH Temecula Valley Hospitality c/o Fine Hospitality Group 640 W. Lambert Road Brea, California 92821 Attention: Ken Pansuria 12. Miscellaneous. a. Authority to Execute Agreement. The signatories to this Agreement are authorized to bind the respective party for which they are signing. b. No Joint Venture. No provision of this Access Easement will be deemed to constitute the City and TVH as partners, principal and agent, or joint venturers with one another. c. Exhibits. The Exhibits attached to this Agreement are attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. d. Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement will be effective only when duly executed by both the City and TVH. e. Applicable Law. This Agreement will be construed and interpreted under, and governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California. f Successors and Assigns. This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. The Parties expressly agree and acknowledge that the obligations and rights under this Reimbursement Agreement may be assigned by the City and TVH to the successors in interest of the City Property and TVH Property, respectively. Such transfer and assignment of the City's obligations and rights under the Access Agreement to the successors in interest of the City Property shall not constitute an obligation by said successors in interest to construct a Park and Ride Lot on the City Property. Except as otherwise set forth herein, any future development of the City Property by any successors in interest will be subject to the applicable zoning and General Plan designations, and the terms of this Agreement. Any successors in interest of the City Property will designate an engineer to satisfy the duties of the City's Director of Public Works set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5 above. g. Counterparts and Facsimile and Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. For purposes of this Agreement, facsimile and electronic signatures will be deemed to be original signatures. h. Remedies Not Exclusive and Waivers. No remedy conferred by any of the specific provisions of this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy and each and every remedy will be cumulative and will be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. The election of any one or more remedies will not constitute a waiver of the right to pursue other available remedies. i. Interpretation and Construction. Each party has reviewed this Agreement and each has had the opportunity to have its respective counsel and/or real estate advisors review and revise this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party will not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits thereto. In this Agreement the neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and singular number includes the plural, and the words "person" and "party" include corporation, partnership, firm, trust, or association wherever the context so requires. The Recitals and captions of the Paragraphs and Subparagraphs of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein will in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement. �. Attorneys' Fees. If either party hereto incurs attorneys' fees in order to enforce, defend or interpret any of the terms, provisions or conditions of this Agreement or because of a breach of this Agreement by the other party, the prevailing party, whether by suit, negotiation, arbitration or settlement, will be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from the other party. k. Severability. If any part, term or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining provisions will not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the Parties will be construed and enforced as if this Agreement did not contain the particular part, term or provision held to be invalid. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on the dates set forth below: Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC A California limited liability company Dated: , 2017 By: Title: City of Temecula, a municipal corporation Dated: Attest: , 2017 By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Exhibit "A" Description and Scope of Traffic Signal Improvements All work necessary to implement a four way traffic signal, including both vehicular and pedestrian movement indicators; including, but not limited to: Electrical service, traffic signal controller, traffic signal interconnection, traffic monitoring closed circuit camera(s) and pavement markings. Reconfigure the median to the immediate west of the intersection to accommodate an eastbound left turn pocket from Temecula Parkway to the driveway entering the TVH Property. Exhibit "B" Description, Scope and Rough Depiction of Location of Onsite Improvements All work necessary to implement a Portland cement concrete commercial driveway approach per City standards, and an asphalt concrete driveway of sufficient width to accommodate a vehicle lane in each direction that traverses the south westerly corner of the TVH Property, and provides sufficient turning radius to safely gain access to the abutting City Property at a location along the westerly property line abutting the City Property. Said construction will be consistent with the grade for the driveway access to the Park and Ride Lot mutually set by the City's Director of Public Works and TVH's engineer to work with and accommodate future development on TVH's Property. General items of work will include grading, paving, and storm drain improvements necessary to control storm water run-off and erosion/sediment control. Item No. 12 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the First Amendment to a Three -Year Agreement with Counts Unlimited, Inc. for Contractor Services for Fiscal Year 2017-18 PREPARED BY: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer 11 - Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the First Amendment to a Three - Year Agreement for Contractor Services with Counts Unlimited, Inc., in the amount of $20,000, for Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for Fiscal Year 2017-18 BACKGROUND: Counts Unlimited, Inc. provides Citywide traffic count data collection services, including collection of vehicular volume data for the City's Annual Traffic Count Program, the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, and collection of peak hour turning movement count data used for evaluating intersection performance at signalized intersections. Due to increased volume of requested data collection services, additional funds are needed to continue services through the end of fiscal year 2017-18. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18 for the request increase of $20,000, for a total Agreement amount $110,000. ATTACHMENT: First Amendment FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC. CITYWIDE TRAFFIC COUNT DATA COLLECTION THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of December 12, 2017, by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Counts Unlimited, Inc. a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 25, 2017, the City and Contractor entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Contractor Services," in the amount of $30,000 annually, for a total agreement amount of $90,000. b. The parties now desire to increase the payment in the amount of $20,000 for fiscal year 2017-18, for a total agreement amount of $110,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 4 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 First Amendment amount shall not exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) for additional Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for a total Agreement amount of One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($110,000). 3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR Abe Campos, Vice President Kris Campos, Secretary/Treasurer Counts Unlimited, Inc. Attn: Kris Campos P.O. Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (9510 268-6268, ext. 802 counts@countsunlimited.com 2 PM Initials: Date: (- Item No. 13 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Szer- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer December 12, 2017 Amend the Capital Improvement Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22 to Add the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, PW08-04, as a Standalone Project, and Remove the Project from the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide Project Budget PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Avlin R. Odviar, Senior Civil Engineer Nino Abad, Associate Civil Engineer That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO AMEND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018-22 TO ADD THE SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT, PW08-04, AS A STANDALONE PROJECT, AND REMOVE THE PROJECT FROM THE BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM — CITYWIDE PROJECT BUDGET BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April of 2017 in order to address the significant multi -modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide. As part of SB 1 (SEC.36), one hundred million dollars is allocated for the Active Transportation Program (ATP). These types of projects generally promote construction of facilities for non -motorized modes of transportation. In June 2016, City staff applied for federal ATP funds as part of the ATP Cycle 3 Call for Projects for funding of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect project. The project was not funded as part of that grant cycle. On June 13, 2017, the City Council approved the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22. The CIP budget included the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect as part of the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide project. The majority of funding, especially the one pertaining to construction, was not specified and were designated to later years until a funding source could be identified in the future. On June 30, 2017, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) published a "Call for Projects" for ATP Augmentation with the purpose of using State SB 1 funds for projects that were just outside the cutoff for funding during the ATP Cycle 3 Call for Projects. Staff subsequently submitted an application for ATP Augmentation funding through SB 1. On August 31, 2017 staff was notified by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) staff that the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect project is being recommended to receive SB 1 ATP Augmentation funding. At their October 18, 2017 meeting, the CTC adopted the 2017 Active Transportation Program Augmentation approving their staff recommendations to include this project. The funding was allocated by the CTC at their December 6, 2017 meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: The amendment of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide for Fiscal Years 2018-22 will remove the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension project from the Citywide project. This includes the removal of: • $402,353 of Actual Expenditures that were previously expended on the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension Project; • $566,075 of AB 2766 funds in Fiscal Year 2021-22; • $3,330,425 in Unspecified Funds in Fiscal Year 2021-22; and, • $347,634 ($147,434.00 from the Santa Gertrudis Component and $200,000.00 from the Bike Lane and Trail Program) in DIF—Open Space and Trails in Fiscal Year Ending 2017 Carryover. The amendment to the CIP Budget will then create a new standalone project for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension Project, PW 08-04. In addition to the actual expenditures from previous years, the costs to complete the project will be funded by: • $347,634 of DIF - Open Space and Trails in Fiscal Year Ending 2017 Carryover from the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide; • $189,000 of SB 1 ATP Augmentation funding in Fiscal Year 2017-18; • $3,570,000 in SB 1 ATP Augmentation funding in Fiscal Year 2018-19; • $119,556 of Measure S funds transferred from unused fund balance from the Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park Synthetic Turf Replacement in account 210-190-119 in Fiscal Year 2017-18; and, • $262,810 of Measure S funds transferred from the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive project in account 210-165-648 in Fiscal Year 2018-19. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive project will not be affected by the transfer of Measure S funds as those funds are being replaced with Highway Bridge Replacement Program Funds and will be reflected in an updated project sheet during the Fiscal Year 2018-19 CIP budget preparation and approval process. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Current CIP Budget Project Sheets for the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide Project RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO AMEND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018-22 TO ADD THE SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT, PW08-04, AS A STANDALONE PROJECT, AND REMOVE THE PROJECT FROM THE BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM — CITYWIDE PROJECT BUDGET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi -modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide. B. SB 1 includes augmentation funding for projects not funded through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 3 call for projects. C. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) staff recommended $4,082,000 of SB 1 ATP Augmentation funding for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect project in the City of Temecula. D. The CTC adopted the 2017 Active Transportation Program Augmentation approving staff recommendations on October 18, 2017. E. The CTC approved the project funding recommendations of the SB 1 ATP Augmentation on December 6, 2017. F. The City of Temecula Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22 lists the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect project (Project) with several other projects as part of the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide. G. Removing the Project from the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide, and establishing a standalone budget for the Project, is necessary for project implementation with SB 1 ATP Augmentation funds. H. The Capital Improvement Program, as amended by this Resolution, is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and each element thereof. Section 2. Amendment of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget A. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22 is hereby amended to remove the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect from the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide, by replacement of the current Project Sheets with the Amended Project Sheets attached hereto as Exhibit A. B. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22 is hereby amended to incorporate The Santa Gertrudis Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect Project as a standalone project, by adding the Project Sheets attached hereto as Exhibit B. C. A fund transfer of $119,556 from account 210-190-119 to the Santa Gertrudis Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect Project is hereby approved in Fiscal Year 2017-18. D. A fund transfer of $262,810 from account 210-165-648 to the Santa Gertrudis Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect Project is hereby approved in Fiscal Year 2018-19. Section 3. Certification. 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 12th day of December, 2017. Maryann Edwards, 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. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Infrastructure / Other Project (REVISED BY AMENDMENT 12/12/2017) Bike Lane and Trail Program Bike Lane and Trail Program • Bike Pump Track 1 Lake Skinner Trail Rancho California Bicycle Lane and Cycle Track 6 Temecula Creek South Trail Cost to Complete Year Funding Source $ 101,863 2017-18 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 20,000 2017-18 Beyond Grant $ 110,000 2019-20 Unspecified $ 150,000 2020-21 Unspecified $ 153,000 2017-18 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 60,000 2017-18 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 50,000 2018-19 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 1,000,000 2018-22 Measure S $ 905,000 2021-22 Unspecified $ 240,000 2018-19 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 1,050,000 2021-22 Unspecified r Yukon to Ynez $ 200,000 2018-19 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 86,105 2021-22 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 606,895 2021-22 Unspecified Multi -Use Trail- Margarita Road Undercrossing $ 300,000 2021-22 Senate Bill 821 $ 1,549,300 2021-22 Unspecified $ 6,582,163 ofill Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Infrastructure / Other Project [REVISED BY AMMENDMENT 12/12/17] Project Description: The Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was completed in Fiscal Year 2015-16. The Master Plan includes new and potential trail and bikeway segment information sheets that detail constraints, solutions, surface types and widths, and estimated construction costs. The plan also details multiple recommendations including, but not limited to: new signs, gates, fence openings, sharrows, green paint, bike boxes, separated bikeways, bicycle boulevards, striping, maps, bike racks, fix -it stations, bike shares, bike corrals, bike lockers, cycle tracks, rapid flashing beacons, crossings, bicycle detection and actuation at signalized intersections, pedestrian and bicycle counts, access and maintenance agreements, and trailheads. The City is a Bronze Level Bicycle Friendly Community and this program is intended to allow for continued implementation of facilities and programs, which further the City's commitment to proving a safe and convenient network that connects schools, parks, open space, shopping, and employment centers. Benefit / Core Value: This project provides alternative modes of transportation and increases connectivity and accessibility to Old Town, Wine Country, and the City's many schools, parks, trails, and open space areas. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Values of A Sustainable City and Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: The Master Plan was completed in Fiscal Year 2015-16 and includes a list of capital improvements throughout the City. Improvements will be made on an ongoing basis as funding becomes available. Department: Planning / Public Works / Temecula Community Services - Account No. 210.165.703 Level: Project Cost: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2017 2017-18 Carryover Adopted 2018-19 Budget Appropriation Projected 2019-20 Projected 2020-21 Projected 2021-22 Projected and Total Project Future Years Cost Administration $ - $ 20,000 $ 58,000 $140,000 $ 313,525 $ 531,525 Construction $ 11,338 $ 69,720 $ 150,000 $600,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 3,690,075 $ 5,281,133 Construction $250,000 $ 250,000 $250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 Engineering $ 104,400 $ 104,400 Design/Environmental $ 135,001 $ 12,143 $ 25,000 $ 110,000 $150,000 $ 485,800 $ 657,944 MSHCP $ 146,339 $ 101,863 $ 233,000 $740,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 73,500 $ 73,500 Utilities $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Totals $ 146,339 $ 101,863 $ 233,000 $740,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 4,747,300 $ 6,728,502 Source of Funds: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2017 Carryover Budget 2017-18 Adopted 2018-19 Appropriation Projected 2019-20 Projected 2020-21 Projected 2021-22 Projected Total Project Cost BEYOND Grant DIF (Open Space and $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Trails) $ 146,339 $ 101,863 $ 213,000 $490,000 $ 86,105 $ 1,037,307 Measure S $250,000 $ 250,000 $250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 Senate Bill 821 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Unspecified* $ 110,000 $150,000 $ 4,111,195 $ 4,371,195 Total Funding: $ 146,339 $ 101,863 $ 233,000 $740,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 4,747,300 $ 6,728,502 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 1 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 1 *Project cannot be constructed until a funding source is identified 2018-19 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT Infrastructure / Other Project [REVISED BY AMENDMENT 12/12/17] Project Description: This project includes planning and preliminary engineering for the extension and interconnect of the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail from Ynez Road to the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail. The extension and interconnect will provide access and under -crossings at Ynez Road, Interstate 15 and Jefferson Avenue, and a continuous paved trail along the Santa Gertrudis Creek to interconnect with the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail. Benefit / Core Value: This project provides additional pedestrian and bicycle trails for the community. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: The project is currently in the design phase and will be constructed in future years when funding is available. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.739 Level: III Project Cost: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected 2021-22 2019-20 2020-21 Projected and Total Project Projected Projected Future Years Cost Administration $ 130,431 $ 105,634 $ 70,366 $ 262,810 $ - $ 569,241 Construction $ 223,311 $3,364,400 $ - $ 3,364,400 Construction Engineering $ 78,920 $ 45,600 $ - $ 45,600 Design $ 271,922 $ 142,000 $ 413,922 Environmental $ 100,000 $ 238,190 $ 262,810 $ 338,190 ROW $ 189,000 $3,570,000 $ - $ 3,759,000 MSHCP $ 402,353 $ 347,634 $ 308,556 $ 160,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 160,000 Totals $ 402,353 $ 347,634 $ 308,556 $3,832,810 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,891,353 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected 2019-20 2020-21 Projected Projected 2021-22 Projected Total Project Cost AB 2766 $ 58,683 $ - $ 58,683 BTA(1) $ 223,311 $ 223,311 General Fund Contributions $ 78,920 $ 78,920 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 41,439 $ 347,634 $ 389,073 Measure S $ 119,556 $ 262,810 $ 382,366 SB1 ATP Augmentation (z) $ 189,000 $3,570,000 $ - $ 3,759,000 Total Funding: $ 402,353 $ 347,634 $ 308,556 $3,832,810 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,891,353 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2017-18 2019-20 2021-22 (1) Bicycle Transportation Account (2) California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopted the 2017 Active Trasnportation Program Augmentation on October 18,2017 and allocated the funds on their December 6, 2017 meeting ADDED BY AMENDMENT 12/12/2017. SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT Infrastructure / Other Projects Location Aerial Data - March 2010 0 400 800 Feet 1,600 The Heart of Sauthc+n California Wine Country Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Infrastructure / Other Project Bike Lane and Trail Program Bike Lane and Trail Program Cost to Complete Year Funding Source DIF (Open Space and $ 301,863 2017-18 Trails) $ 20,000 2017-18 Beyond Grant DIF (Open Space and $ 110,000 2019-20 Trails) DIF (Open Space and $ 150,000 2020-21 Trails) Bike Pump Track Lake Skinner Trail DIF (Open Space and $ 153,000 2017-18 Trails) DIF (Open Space and $ 60,000 2017-18 Trails) DIF (Open Space and $ 50,000 2018-19 Trails) $ 1,000,000 2018-22 Measure S Rancho California Bicycle Lane and Cycle Track $ 905,000 2021-22 Unspecified Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect $ 566,075 2021-22 AB2766 DIF (Open Space and $ 147,634 2017-18 Trails) Temecula Creek South Trail Yukon to Ynez $ 3,330,425 2021-22 Unspecified DIF (Open Space and $ 240,000 2018-19 Trails) $ 1,050,000 2021-22 Unspecified DIF (Open Space and $ 200,000 2018-19 Trails) DIF (Open Space and $ 113,105 2021-22 Trails) $ 606,895 2021-22 Unspecified Multi -Use Trail- Margarita Road Undercrossing $ 300,000 2021-22 Senate Bill 821 $ 1,549,300 2021-22 Unspecified $ 10,853,297 Fiscal Years 2018-22 Capital Improvement Program 86 2018-19 $ 35,000 2020-21 $ 35,000 C if;"; Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Infrastructure / Other Project Project Description: The Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was completed in Fiscal Year 2015-16. The Master Plan includes new and potential trail and bikeway segment information sheets that detail constraints, solutions, surface types and widths, and estimated construction costs. The plan also details multiple recommendations including, but not limited to: new signs, gates, fence openings, sharrows, green paint, bike boxes, separated bikeways, bicycle boulevards, striping, maps, bike racks, fix -it stations, bike shares, bike corrals, bike lockers, cycle tracks, rapid flashing beacons, crossings, bicycle detection and actuation at signalized intersections, pedestrian and bicycle counts, access and maintenance agreements, and trailheads. The City is a Bronze Level Bicycle Friendly Community and this program is intended to allow for continued implementation of facilities and programs, which further the City's commitment to proving a safe and convenient network that connects schools, parks, open space, shopping, and employment centers. Benefit/ Core Value: This project provides alternative modes of transportation and increases connectivity and accessibility to Old Town, Wine Country, and the City's many schools, parks, trails, and open space areas. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Values ofA Sustainable City and Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: The Master Plan was completed in Fiscal Year 2015-16 and includes a list of capital improvements throughout the City. Improvements will be made on an ongoing basis as funding becomes available. Department: Planning / Public Works / Temecula Community SenAces - Account No. 210.165.703 Level: Project Cost: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 2021-22 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Projected and Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Future Years Cost Administration $ 130,431 $ 32,565 $ 58,000 $140,000 $ 719,600 $ 1,080,596 Construction $ 11,338 $ 269,720 $ 150,000 $600,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 7,047,500 $ 8,838,558 Construction $ 223,311 $ 223,311 Engineering $ 104,400 $ 104,400 Design/Environmental $ 406,923 $ 147,212 $ 25,000 $490,000 $ 485,800 $ 1,064,935 MSHCP $ 78,920 $ 233,500 $ 233,500 Utilities $250,000 $ 250,000 $250,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Totals $ 548,692 $ 449,497 $ 233,000 $740,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 8,670,800 $ 11,401,989 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Project Cost AB 2766 $ 58,683 $ 566,075 $ 624,758 BEYOND Grant $ 20,000 $ 20,000 BTA(1) $ 223,311 $ 223,311 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 187,778 $ 449,497 $ 213,000 $490,000 $ 86,105 $ 1,426,380 General Fund $ 78,920 $ 78,920 Measure S $250,000 $ 250,000 $250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 Senate Bill 821 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Unspecified' $ 110,000 $ 150,000 $ 7,468,620 $ 7,728,620 Total Funding: $ 548,692 $ 449,497 $ 233,000 $740,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 8,670,800 $ 11,401,989 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs 2017-18 *Project cannot be constructed until a funding source is identified 2019-20 $ 35,000 2021-22 $ 35,000 Fiscal Years 2018-22 Capital Improvement Program 87 Item No. 14 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Plans and Specifications, and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Sidewalks — Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement, PW17-16 PREPARED BY: Avlin R. Odviar, Senior Civil Engineer William Becerra, Associate Engineer 11 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Plans and Specifications, and Authorize the Department of Public Works to Solicit Construction Bids for the Sidewalks — Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement, PW17-16; 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. BACKGROUND: The Sidewalks - Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement Project will replace existing boardwalk planks throughout Old Town Temecula, with colored, stamped concrete consistent with the materials and finish of sidewalks at the approaches to the new Main Street Bridge. Some of the existing concrete sidewalks (San Diego Buff) will be replaced for continuity and consistency. Where practical, the improved sidewalk widths will be expanded and trees with cast iron grates installed for consistency with the Old Town Specific Plan. The project improvements will be made on Front Street, Main Street, Sixth Street, and Mercedes Street. This project satisfies the City's Core Values of Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. 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, maintenance, and minor alteration of existing highways and streets are Class 1 activities, which is exempt from CEQA. Project plans and 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 Estimate is $700,000, and the number of allowable working days is fifty, which is ten weeks. FISCAL IMPACT: The Sidewalks - Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement Project is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CI P) budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22, and is funded with Community Development Block Grant and Measure S Funds. At the November 14, 2017, the City Council approved the Draft Substantial Amendments to the Fiscal Years 2012-2013, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plans and the Fiscal Year 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan and Funding Recommendation. The amendment included a transfer of $261,516.25 from the Sam Hicks Monument Park Project to the Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement Project. With this transfer, adequate funds are available in the project accounts to construct the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Description 2 Project Location Map 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 - SIDEWALKS - OLD TOWN BOARDWALK ENHANCEMENT Infrastructure / Other Project Project Description: This project will establish programs that will remove boardwalk plank boards and replace them with colored concrete sidewalks (San Diego buff colors) stamped with wood grain finish similar to what was installed with the new Main Street bridge. Benefit / Core Value: This project promotes a sustainable walkable surface that will require little maintenance. It will also promote a "walkable" community by connecting the City. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City and Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: This project will start in Fiscal Year 2017-18. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.696 Level: II Project Cost: Prior Years FYE2017 Actual Carryover Expenditures Budget 2021-22 2017-18 Projected Adopted 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 and Future Total Project Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Years Cost Administration $ 50,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 90,000 Construction $ 280,000 $160,000 $140,000 $ 580,000 Construction Engineering $ 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 100,000 Design/Environmental $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Totals $ - $ - $ 450,000 $ - $ 200.000 $ - $200.000 $ 850,000 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost CDBGi1 Measure S $ 150,000 300.000 $200,000 $ 200.000 $ 150,000 $ 700,000 Total Funding; $ 450,000 $200,000 $ 200.000 $ 850.000 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs 2017-18 (1) Conmmity Development Block Grant- Action Ran Fiscal Year 2017-18 Fiscal Years 2018-22 Capital Improvement Program 131 w E ci coct i W co L co co c O 1— r r.- 0 f: Of:_ Item No. 15 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Establish an All -Way Stop Control at the Intersections of Temeku Drive and Pin Way/Legends Golf Club Driveway, and Temeku Drive and Gleneagles Drive PREPARED BY: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer II - Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING AN ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF TEMEKU DRIVE AND PIN WAY/LEGENDS GOLF CLUB DRIVEWAY, AND TEMEKU DRIVE AND GLENEAGLES DRIVE BACKGROUND: A request was received from Temeku Hills residents to consider the feasibility of implementing multi -way stop signs at nine intersections located on Temeku Drive to reduce vehicular speeds and provide right of way assignment as follows: 1. Par Way 2. Pin Way/Legends Golf Club (LGC) Driveway 3. Royal Birkdale Drive 4. Inverness Court/Flag Way 5. Gleneagle Drive 6. Firestone Street 7. Sunningdale Drive 8. Congressional Drive/Berkshire Lane 9. Oakhill Drive Following a review of conditions, staff determined that only five of the requested intersections had roadway characteristics that made the intersection a potential candidate for right-of-way assignment provided by multi -way stop controls. The roadway characteristics considered by staff included the entering street extends longer than 600 feet, the entering street has multiple points of access and serves as through street, and access points serve high traffic generator. The five intersections evaluated are as follows: 1. Pin Way/Legends Golf Club (LGC) Driveway 2. Royal Birkdale Drive 3. Gleneagle Drive 4. Firestone Street 5. Sunningdale Drive In August 2017, vehicular speed and volume data was collected along Temeku Drive at the five intersections listed above. In addition to the data collection, staff performed a review of the collision history and completion of a multi -way stop warrant analysis. The multi -way stop warrant analysis performed found that existing volumes fall below the minimum thresholds and multi -way stop signs are not justified at the intersections. However, the Multi -Way Stop Sign Installation Policy for Residential Streets provides the flexibility to consider multi -way stop signs at locations where there is a need to provide right-of-way control to eliminate conflicts between vehicles due to visibility constraints. An evaluation of the intersection sight distance criteria indicates there is justification for multi -way stop signs at the following intersections on Temeku Drive: 1. Pin Way/Legends Golf Club (LGC) Driveway 2. Gleneagle Drive The results of the warrant analysis were presented at the Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting on October 26, 2017. The Commission approved the recommendation (4-0-1) that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing all -way stop controls at the two intersections listed above. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18 for the installation of signs and associated pavement markings. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Location Map RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING AN ALL -WAY STOP CONTROLS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF TEMEKU DRIVE AND PIN WAY/LEGENDS GOLF CLUB DRIVEWAY, AND TEMECULA DRIVE AND GLENEAGLES DRIVE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council has considered the facts justifying the need for stop signs at the locations described in this resolution. A. The City Council hereby finds and determines the installation of stop signs pursuant to this resolution will enhance public health, safety and general welfare at the intersections. B. The City Council hereby finds the proposed stop signs will not create any adverse conditions in the area. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 10.12.100 of the Temecula Municipal Code, the following All -Way Stop Intersections are hereby established in the City of Temecula. Temeku Drive and Pin Way/Legends Golf Club Driveway Temeku Drive and Gleneagles Drive PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of December, 2017. Maryann Edwards, 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. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk 711E CITY 01 TEMECULA ,.141 r. NY, 14 pee. LOCATION MAP 626.7 0 313.34 626.7 Feet WGS_1984_ Web_ Mercator_ Auxiliary_ Sphere © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Parcels Highways . HWY ▪ INTERCHANGE ▪ INTERSTATE - OFFRAMP - ONRAMP USHWY Street Names Parks Schools Hospitals Public Facilities City of Temecula Boundary Sphere of Influence Streets <all other values> <Null> COLLECTOR FREEWAY LIMITED SECONDARY ARTERIAL LOCAL MAJOR ARTERIAL MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERI, NO CLASSIFCATION ASSIGNED Notes TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSENT Item No. 16 ACTION MINUTES November 28, 2017 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District meeting convened at 7:30 PM CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar (Absent), Rahn, Stewart, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 8 Approve the Action Minutes of November 14, 2017 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Nagger Absent); Motion by Rahn, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Edwards, Rahn, Stewart and Comerchero with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of November 14, 2017. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:33 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 12, 2017, for an adjourned regular session commencing at 3:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes 112817 1 Item No. 17 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Temecula Community Services District Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Goods, Supplies and Equipment Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 Per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2017-18 PREPARED BY: Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the purchase of miscellaneous consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment from the following vendors for Fiscal Year 2017-18: Vendor FY 17-18 Amount Description of Purchases Amazon $45,000 Library Books, Goods, Supplies and Equipment for TCSD Programs and Events Costco $45,000 Goods and Supplies for TCSD Programs and Events BACKGROUND: Pursuant to TCSD Resolution No. 15-04, any purchase of consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment in excess of $30,000 requires the Board of Director's action. Throughout each year, various departments within TCSD purchase goods, supplies and equipment from the same vendors. While no single department purchases over $30,000, the cumulative purchases for the District as a whole from the vendors noted above may exceed this threshold. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Board of Director's authorize the cumulative purchase of miscellaneous goods, supplies and equipment for Fiscal Year 2017-18 from the vendors as indicated above. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are programmed in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 operating budgets for affected departments. ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 18 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERIVCES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Board of Directors FROM: Isaac Garibay, Human Resources Manager DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Receive and File the City of Temecula Amended Salary Schedule to Include Minimum Wage Adjustments Effective January 1, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Receive and file the City of Temecula Amended Salary Schedule to be Effective January 1, 2018; 2. Appropriate $102,078 from the Temecula Community Services District available fund balance. BACKGROUND: In 2016, the State of California issued a Minimum Wage Order (MW -2017), which mandates that all employers, including the City of Temecula, pay employees hourly wages not less than $11.00 per hour beginning January 1, 2018. As a result, those pay ranges that fall below $11.00 per hour were studied along with related job classifications to bring all pay ranges into compliance while maintaining internal equity differentials within each classification family. Salary range adjustments were made to the following classifications: • Intern • Office Aide 111 • Office Aide II • Office Aide I • Senior Recreation Leader • Recreation Leader • Recreation Assistant • Day Camp Director • Assistant Day Camp Director • Video Production Specialist • Lifeguard • Senior Lifeguard • Lead Lifeguard Additionally, several Project Classifications will be eliminated because they are obsolete, or redundant of updated classifications in the Classification Plan adopted by the City Council on March 25, 2014. As a result, several employees whose classifications will be eliminated will need to be reclassified into a comparable classification from the new Classification Plan, which also will result in pay adjustments. No salary or benefit adjustments were made to Executive, Mid Management, or staff represented by Teamsters Local 911. FISCAL IMPACT: It is difficult to predict the exact fiscal impact of project employment wages due to the nature of the work. Project employment positions have high turnover because they are temporary in nature. Employees often leave project positions for full-time, benefitted opportunities, and sometimes the positions are seasonal by design (e.g. Lifeguards). Although it is unlikely, assuming all project positions are filled for the rest of Fiscal Year 2017-2018, the maximum Citywide fiscal impact would be $160,557, of which $102,078 is from the Temecula Community Services District. ATTACHMENTS: Salary Schedule CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/Title Level ADMINISTRATIVE Salary Steps 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 MCP 7.0 Only 7.5 8.0 Executive 4 29.1324 29.8635 30.6105 31.3733 32.1595 32.9616 33.7872 34.6286 35.4934 36.3820 37.2941 38.0961 39.0475 40.0226 41.0212 Assistant (Y -Rate) 5,049.6100 5,176.3400 5,305.8200 5,438.0300 5,574.3200 5,713.3400 5,856.4500 6,002.2900 6,152.1900 6,306.2100 6,464.3100 6,603.3300 6,768.2300 6,937.2500 7,110.3400 60,595.32 62,116.08 63,669.84 65,256.36 66,891.84 68,560.08 70,277.40 72,027.48 73,826.28 75,674.52 77,571.72 79,239.96 81,218.76 83,247.00 85,324.08 Executive 4 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 Assistant 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Senior 4 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 Ad m inistrative Assistant 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Administrative 3 22.0478 22.5981 23.1642 23.7462 24.3437 24.9491 25.5704 26.2073 26.8600 27.5282 28.2202 Assistant (Y -Rate) 3,821.6200 3,917.0000 4,015.1300 4,116.0100 4,219.5800 4,324.5100 4,432.2000 4,542.6000 4,655.7300 4,771.5500 4,891.5000 45,859.44 47,004.00 48,181.56 49,392.12 50,634.96 51,894.12 53,186.40 54,511.20 55,868.76 57,258.60 58,698.00 Administrative 3 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 Assistant 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 Senior 2 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 Off ice 5pec ia Iist 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 Off ice 5pec ia Iist 11 1 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 Off ice 5pec ia Iist l 1 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 Off ice Aide 111 1 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 Off ice Aide 11 1 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Office Aide 1 1 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445.0601 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 Page 1 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level ANALYST Salary Steps 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 ■ 5.5 6.0 6.5 I. Principal 7 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 Management Analyst 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Senior5 38.9454 39.9203 40.9190 41.9228 42.9868 44.0642 45.1649 46.2972 47.4530 48.6403 49.8591 50.9285 52.2022 53.5075 54.8442 Management Analyst 6,750.5300 6,919.5200 7,092.6200 7,266.6200 7,451.0400 7,637.7900 7,828.5900 8,024.8400 8,225.1900 8,430.9900 8,642.2400 8,827.6000 9,048.3800 9,274.6400 9,506.3300 (Y -Rate) 81,006.36 83,034.24 85,111.44 87,199.44 89,412.48 91,653.48 93,943.08 96,298.08 98,702.28 101,171.88 103,706.88 105,931.20 108,580.56 111,295.68 114,075.96 Senior5 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 Management Analyst 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 Management Analyst 5 35.2576 36.1382 37.0424 37.9703 38.9218 39.8967 40.8954 41.9176 42.9633 44.0405 45.1413 46.1085 47.2644 48.4437 49.6546 (Y -Rate) 6,111.3200 6,263.9600 6,420.6900 6,581.5100 6,746.4400 6,915.4200 7,088.5300 7,265.7100 7,446.9700 7,633.6900 7,824.5000 7,992.1400 8,192.5000 8,396.9100 8,606.8000 73,335.84 75,167.52 77,048.28 78,978.12 80,957.28 82,985.04 85,062.36 87,188.52 89,363.64 91,604.28 93,894.00 95,905.68 98,310.00 100,762.92 103,281.60 Management Analyst 5 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Management Assistant 4 28.0866 28.7863 29.5097 30.2488 31.0038 31.7822 32.5764 33.3940 34.2275 35.0846 35.9652 (Y -Rate) 4,868.3400 4,989.6300 5,115.0200 5,243.1300 5,373.9900 5,508.9100 5,646.5700 5,788.2900 5,932.7700 6,081.3300 6,233.9700 58,420.08 59,875.56 61,380.24 62,917.56 64,487.88 66,106.92 67,758.84 69,459.48 71,193.24 72,975.96 74,807.64 Management Assistant 4 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Management Aide III3 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 Management Aide II2 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 Management Aide I 1 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 Intern 1 11.0197 11.2952 11.5775 11.8670 12.1637 12.4678 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 1,910.0770 1,957.8290 2,006.7747 2,056.9441 2,108.3677 2,161.0769 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445.0601 22,920.92 23,493.95 24,081.30 24,683.33 25,300.41 25,932.92 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director ofs 63.6155 65.21 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 Community Development 11,026.69 11,302.36 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 16 5,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING & SAFETY Building Official 7 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 Field Supervisor - Building 4 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Plan Checker4 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Senior Building Inspector 3 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 Building Inspector 11 2 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Building Inspector l 1 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Page 2 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level Salary Steps COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- CODE ENFORCEMENT ■ ■ Field Supervisor -4 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 Code Enforcement 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Senior Code 3 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 Enforcement Officer 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55. 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Code Enforcement Officer 11 2 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Code Enforcement Officer l 1 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING Planning Manager7 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 Principal Planner5 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 Senior Planner 5 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 Associate Planner 11 4 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Associate Planner 1 3 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 Assistant Planner 2 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Planning Technician 1 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - SERVICES 1_ CommDev Processinga 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 Supervisor 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 Senior CommDev 3 29.3131 30.0445 30.7993 31.5699 32.3562 33.1660 33.9916 34.8408 35.7136 36.6100 37.5220 Services Technician 5,080.9400 5,207.7100 5,338.5400 5,472.1100 5,608.4000 5,748.7800 5,891.8800 6,039.0800 6,190.3600 6,345.7300 6,503.8200 (Y -Rate) 60,971.28 62,492.52 64,062.48 65,665.32 67,300.80 68,985.36 70,702.56 72,468.96 74,284.32 76,148.76 78,045.84 Senior CommDev 3 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 Services Technician 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Com mDev Services 2 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 Technician 11 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Com mDev Services 1 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 Technician 1 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 Page 3 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level CITY CLERK Salary Steps Abu MCP Only 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5'! 7.0 7.5 8.0 City Clerks 52.2572 53.5625 54.8993 56.2753 57.6827 59.1216 60.5999 62.1174 _ 63.6665 65.2548 66.8825 68.5529 70.2686 72.0281 73.5738 (Y-R8te) 9,057.9200 9,284.1700 9,515.8700 9,754.3800 9,998.3400 10,247.7400 10,503.9800 10,767.0100 11,035.5300 11,310.8400 11,592.9600 11,882.5100 12,179.8900 12,484.8700 12,752.7900 108,695.04 111,410.04 114,190.44 117,052.56 119,980.08 122,972.88 126,047.76 129,204.12 132,426.36 13 5,730.08 139,115.52 142, 590.12 146,158.68 149,818.44 153,033.48 City Clerks 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 103,368.43 105,9 52.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,9 51.89 119,87 5.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 Deputy City Clerk7 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Records Manager 6 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Records Supervisor4 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Senior 3 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 Records Coordinator 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 Records Coordinator 2 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Records Technician 1 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 CITY MANAGER City Manager8 111.42 (per Employment Contract) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19,312.50 231,750.00 Assistant City Manager8 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92.1343 94.4376 96.7986 99.2185 101.6990 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9 562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15, 580.4302 15,969.9410 16,369.1895 16,778.4193 17,197.8797 17,627.8267 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 191,639.29 196,430.27 201,341.03 206,374.56 211,533.92 Deputy City Manager7 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92.1343 11,302.3616 11, 584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,47 5.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9 562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15, 580.4302 15,969.9410 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,9 56.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 191,639.29 Assistant to the 6 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 City Manager 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 Economic Development5 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 Manager 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 Video Production 3 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 Specialist 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0261 5,661.1018 5,802.6293 5,947.6951 6,096.3874 6,248.7971 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2710 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Page 4 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level COMMUNITY SERVICES Salary Steps dab MCP Only 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 M! 7.0 7.5 8.0 Director of 8 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 Community Services 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 16 5,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 Asst Director of 7 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 Community Services 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 Community Services5 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 Superintendent 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 Community Services5 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 Manager 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 Community Servicesa 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 Supervisor 11 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Community Servicesa 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Supervisor l 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Community Services3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 Coordinator 11 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Community Services3 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 Coordinator l 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 Community Services2 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 Specialist 11 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 Community Services2 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 Specialist l 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Community Services 1 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 Assistant 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 Senior Recreation Leader 1 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Recreation Leader 1 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445.0601 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 Recreation Assistant 1 11.0197 11.2952 11.5775 11.8670 12.1637 12.4678 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 1,910.0770 1,957.8290 2,006.7747 2,056.9441 2,108.3677 2,161.0769 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445.0601 22,920.92 23,493.95 24,081.30 24,683.33 25,300.41 25,932.92 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 COMMUNITY SERVICES -AQUATICS Aquatics Supervisor IIa 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Aquatics Supervisor la 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Aquatics Coordinator 3 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Lead Lifeguard2 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Senior Lifeguard 1 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 Lifeguard 1 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445.0601 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 Pag 5of12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level COMMUNITY SERVICES - DAY CAMP Salary Steps ° CP Only 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 Day Camp Director 1 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 Assistant Day Camp 1 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 Director 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 COMMUNITY SERVICES - PARK RANGERS Supervising Park Ranger4 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Park Ranger III3 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Park Ranger II2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 Park Ranger! 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 COMMUNITY SERVICES -THEATER ■ Theater Technical 3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 Coordinator 11 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Theater Technical 3 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 Coordinator! 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 Theater Technical 2 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 Specialist!! 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 Theater Technical 2 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 Specialist! 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Theater Technical 1 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 Assistant 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 FINANCE Director of Finance 8 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11, 584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15, 580.4302 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 16 5,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 Assistant Director 7 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 of Finance 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,9 52.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,9 51.89 119,87 5.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 Fiscal Services Manager 6 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 FINANCE -ACCOUNTING Senior Accountant 4 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 Accountant!! 3 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 Accountant! 3 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Page 6 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level FINANCE -ACCOUNTING SUPPORT Salary Steps .. 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 , ! 7.0 7.5 8(Y Accounting Support4 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 Supervisor 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Senior Accounting3 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 Technician 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 Accounting Technician!! 2 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Accounting Technician!2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Accounting Assistant 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Cashier 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 FINANCE - BUSINESS LICENSE Business License 4 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 Supervisor 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 Senior Business License 3 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Technician 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Business License 2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 Technician 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Business License 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 Assistant 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 FINANCE - PAYROLL Payroll Manager5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Payroll Administrator4 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Payroll Supervisor4 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 Senior Payroll3 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 Coordinator 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 Payroll Coordinator 2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Payroll Technician 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Page 7 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level FINANCE -PURCHASING Salary Steps ....'."+. w 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 M! 7.0 7.5 84) Purchasing Manager5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Purchasing Supervisora 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 Senior Buyer3 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Buyer II2 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 Buyer2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Purchasing Assistant 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 FIRE Field Supervisor -Firea 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 Senior Fire Inspectora 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Fire Inspector II2 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 Fire Inspector I 1 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Page 8 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level HUMAN RESOURCES ■ Salary Steps _ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 I MCP 1 7.0 Only 7.5 8.0 Director of HR/Risk 8 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 Management 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 Asst Director of HR/Risk 7 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 Management 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,9 52.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,9 51.89 119,87 5.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 HR Manager6 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 Risk Manager 6 43.5058 44.5910 45.7074 46.8476 48.0192 49.2222 50.4568 51.7148 53.0042 54.3332 55.6934 56.8887 58.3118 59.7664 61.2603 (Y -Rate) 7,541.0000 7,729.1000 7,922.6200 8,120.2500 8,323.3200 8,531.8500 8,745.8400 8,963.9000 9,187.4000 9,417.7500 9,653.5300 9,860.7000 10,107.3700 10,359.5100 10,618.4600 90,492.00 92,749.20 95,071.44 97,443.00 99,879.84 102,382.20 104,950.08 107,566.80 110,248.80 113,013.00 115,842.36 118,328.40 121,288.44 124,314.12 127,421.52 Risk Manager 6 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 HR Supervisora 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Senior HR Technician 3 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 HR Technician 11 2 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 HR Technician 1 2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 HR Assistant 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Director of lT/Support8 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 Services 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 Asst Director of IT/Support7 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 Services 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 105,9 52.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 IT Manager6 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 IT Administrator 5 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 IT supervisora 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 Senior IT specialist3 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 IT specialist 112 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 IT Specialist 12 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 IT Technician 11 1 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 IT Technician 1 1 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Pag 9of12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level Salary Steps Abu MCP Only 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 Mr 7.0 7.5 8.0 PUBLIC WORKS Director of PW/City 8 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92.1343 94.4376 96.7986 Engineer 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 15,969.9410 16,369.1895 16,778.4193 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 191,639.29 196,430.27 201,341.03 PUBLIC WORKS - CUSTODIAL Custodian II 2 16.5044 16.9133 17.3378 17.7704 18.2185 18.6746 19.1386 19.6181 20.1057 20.6088 21.1279 (Y -Rate) 2,860.7600 2,931.6400 3,005.2200 3,080.2000 3,157.8700 3,236.9300 3,317.3500 3,400.4700 3,484.9800 3,572.1900 3,662.1700 34,329.12 35,179.68 36,062.64 36,962.40 37,894.44 38,843.16 39,808.20 40,805.64 41,819.76 42,866.28 43,946.04 Custodian II 2 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Custodian I 1 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING Engineering Manager7 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11, 584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,47 5.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9 562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161, 219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 Principal Civil Engineer6 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146, 056.89 149,708.31 153451.02 157287.29 Senior Civil Engineer5 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132, 320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142494.52 Associate Civil Engineer 4 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Associate Engineer 114 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Associate Engineer 13 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 Assistant Engineer II2 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Assistant Engineer2 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 Engineering Technician 11 1 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Engineering Technician l 1 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Page 10 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level PUBLIC WORKS - INSPECTIONS ■ Salary Steps ■ Construction Managera 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Supervising PW Inspectora 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Senior PW Inspector3 32.2230 33.0245 33.8500 34.6994 35.5640 36.4527 37.3650 38.3007 39.2599 40.2426 41.2493 (Y -Rate) 5,585.2400 5,724.8700 5,868.0000 6,014.7000 6,165.0700 6,319.2000 6,477.1800 6,639.1000 6,805.0800 6,975.2100 7,149.5900 67,023.01 68,690.96 70,408.00 72,174.75 73,973.12 75,821.62 77,719.20 79,665.46 81,660.59 83,704.61 85,798.54 Senior PW Inspector3 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 PW Inspector 11 2 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 PW Inspector l 1 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 PUBLIC WORKS - LANDSCAPE Maintenance supervisor -5 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 Landscape 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Field Supervisor - Landscapea 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Senior Landscape Inspector3 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 La ndscape Inspector 112 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Landscape Inspector l 1 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 PUBLIC WORKS - MAINTENANCE . -_ Maintenance Manager7 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 Maintenance 6 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 Superintendent 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 Maintenance Supervisor5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Field Supervisor -4 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Maintenance 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Lead Maintenance Worker 3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Maintenance Worker 11 2 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 Maintenance Worker l 1 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Page 11 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level Salary Steps PUBLIC WORKS - FACILITIES ■ Field Supervisor - Facilities 4 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Lead Maintenance Worker- 3 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 Facilities 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Maintenance Worker 11 - 2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 Facilities 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 Maintenance Worker l - 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 Facilities 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 PUBLIC WORKS - SIGNALS Maintenance Supervisor -5 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 Signal 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 Field Supervisor - Signala 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Senior Signal Technician3 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Signal Technician 11 2 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 Signal Technician l 2 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 SUPPORT SERVICES , ■_ Support Servicesa 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 Supervisor 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 Senior Support Services3 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 Technician 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 Support Services Technician2 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 Support Services Assistant 1 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 Page 12 of 12 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 19 December 12, 2017 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM NO. 19 Randi Johl From: Matt Peters Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 11:05 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: FW: Altair Supplement/Clarification City Council Agenda Packet Attachments: ESA Memo - Late Comment Letters - Response to Comments - 12.09.17.pdf; 11 _p9-11.pdf; 00_TOC_pg V.pdf; Altair Development Agreement Onsite Conservation Revision.docx Hi Randi, Please see attached supplements to the agenda packet: 1. Revisions to the Specific Plan, Section 11.9 Wildlife Conservation Fee and the Table of Contents. These revisions are made in order to be consistent with the RCA MSHCP Consistency letter dated, December 8, 2017. 2. Development Agreement Section change to 4.4.50), Onsite Conservation revised to more accurately identify the lot numbers (in the appropriate tract phase) for permanent conservation. 3. Technical Memo from the City's EIR Consultant, ESA addressing late EIR comments, and various project comments. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. - Matt Matt Peters Senior Planner City of Temecula (951) 694-6408 matt.peters@temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 einotw FI wort 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. Fr ESA 550 West C Street Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 619.719.4200 phone 619.719.4201 fax Memorandum Date: December 8, 2017 To: Matt Peters, Senior Planner, City of Temecula From: Eric J. Ruby www.esassoc.com Subject: Response to Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Sierra Club and Cougar Connection Letter (28 & 32), Endangered Habitats League (EHL) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (Letter (29), USFWS/CDFW Letter (30) and Endangered Habitats League (EHL) Email (31) The Draft EIR for the Altair Specific Plan was circulated for public review from May 2, 2016 to June 17, 2016. On February 14, 2017, the Temecula City Council held a public hearing to respond to all comments received prior to that meeting concerning the South Parcel uses and to provide direction to City staff for the development and inclusion of an alternative land use on the Civic Site that would lessen impacts as compared to the proposed land use options contained within the Specific Plan. Several comments received on the Altair Specific Plan ("Project") Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR or "Draft EIR") expressed concern about the proposed uses on the Southern Parcel (or Civic Site) portion of the Specific Plan, as well as a host of other issues (e.g., air quality, climate change, hydrology, and traffic). Many of these comments were received during the public review period on the DEIR, and thus were included in the Responses to Comments section of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR or "Final EIR"). Additional written comments were received several months after the public comment period ended, including the above referenced letters and email, additional letters submitted for the November 15, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, and a second letter received from CBD on December 6, 2017. The second CBD letter has not been responded to due to the date of receipt, and has been attached to this memorandum. This memorandum and the attached CBD, EHL/TNC, USFWS/CDFW letters and EHL email, along with responses to these letters/emails are being provided for informational purposes as the City as lead agency is not required to include responses to late comment letters in the FEIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.). The responses to these letters/email were prepared by the Applicant with select content from and in coordination with the project biologist/environmental consultant Helix Environmental Planning, the Applicant's legal counsel Downey Brand, the City Planning Department, and ESA. Many of the issues raised in the letters/email—including the letters and emails received by the Planning Commission and Planning Department in November and December 2017—have been addressed in the common and individual responses contained in the Final EIR. For purposes of clarity and public information, comments contained in the attached letters/email have been responded to in the attached response to comments. r ESA. Mr. Matt Peters November 28, 2017 Page 2 ESA, the city's EIR consultant, has reviewed the attached responses to comments, concurs with the responses, and has determined that they are consistent with the Draft EIR and similar responses to comments provided in the Final EIR. Likewise, none of the comments or responses present any significant new information that would require recirculation under Section 21092.1 of the Public Resources Code or Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED FROM CBD, SIERRA CLUB, AND COUGAR CONNECTION - No DATE, RECEIVED NOVEMBER 20, 2017 Response CL -28-A The introductory comment is noted and responded to substantively below. Responses CL -28-B and CL -28-C The commenters state that the Project Description for the South Parcel is unstable. In support of this, the commenters state that the Project Description does not specify what will be developed on the South Parcel, and instead lists a number of potential uses, such as an educational facility, office/research facility, convention center, hospital or cultural center. The commenters state that each of these potential uses presents unique impacts to the environment and local community. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not inform decision -makers and the public of the true scope of the Project in order for all interested parties to assess the direct and indirect effects of the project. The commenters state that, as a result of the Project Description being unstable, the DEIR does not provided a firm basis to assess environmental costs and appropriate mitigation measures. The commenters state that traffic impacts will vary depending on the nature and extent of civic uses, which will affect air pollution as well as noise and light impacts that could affect the behavior and movement patterns of nocturnal animals. The concerns raised in these comments are addressed in Response to Comment 18-F at page 3- 99 of the FEIR. As indicated on page 3.9-7, the DEIR evaluated impacts on the South Parcel/Civic Center site based on the most intense use under consideration. Based on the respective impacts of each of the possible uses contemplated for this site, a higher education facility was determined to be the most intensive use in the DEIR, in part because it would involve the largest number of daily users and trips to and from the site. If a future proposed use substantially deviates from the impacts analyzed in the DEIR for the higher education facility and presents new or unmitigated impacts, additional environmental review will be conducted in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162. In response to comments on the DEIR, City staff and the Altair project applicant developed a Nature Center land use proposal for the Civic Site portion of the Specific Plan. That Nature Center land use proposal is Appendix A to the FEIR, entitled Civic Site Nature Center Use Analysis. As explained on page A-2 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use would consist of one or more buildings developed to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, a two-story maximum building height, and a pad elevation about 50 feet higher than current conditions. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this alternative land use would preserve a significant amount of the Civic Site as natural and manufactured open space. Appendix A provides additional environmental analysis to document potential impacts associated with the proposed Nature Center Use as compared to the Civic/Institution use already 1494639.13 evaluated in full in the DEIR. As stated on page A-1 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use substantially lessens certain significant impacts of the proposed Civic/Institutional land use and will not result in any "new" or more severe environmental impacts that have not already been evaluated and mitigated in the DEIR. Response CL -28-D The commenters state that the Project is directly at odds with the General Plan, Community Design Element Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, and Open Space/Conservation Element Policy 5.1, because it will result in "intensive development of a substantial portion of the Western Escarpment." According to the commenters, the DEIR claims consistency with these policies by stating that the Project would retain 85 acres of land as open space, but that retaining 85 acres of land for the 270 -acre Project is inconsistent with the identified policies. The DEIR addresses the Policies identified in this comment on pages 3.9-1 1 and 3.9-12. • Community Design Element Policy 5.1 does not forbid "intensive development of a substantial portion of the Westem Escarpment." This Policy requires the City to work with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from inappropriate grading and development affecting the visual backdrop of the valley. As explained on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, the Project is consistent with this Policy. In addition, as explained on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, the DEIR does more than state that 85 acres of land will be retained as open space in explaining the Project's consistency with this Policy. The DEIR also states that it minimizes visual impacts on the surrounding hillside by including design guidelines and development standards to encourage high-quality architectural and landscape design, and that it would obtain all necessary local permits and approvals for grading activities. Furthermore, this Policy also does not state, or otherwise indicate, that retaining 85 acres of land for a 270 -acre project is inconsistent with the Policy. • Community Design Element Policy 5.2 does not forbid "intensive development of a substantial portion of the Westem Escarpment." This Policy requires retention of critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space areas on the west and south edges of the City. As explained on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, the Project is consistent with this Policy. In addition, as explained on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, the DEIR does more than state that 85 acres of land will be retained as open space in explaining the Project's consistency with this Policy. The DEIR also states that it minimizes development on steep slopes, because it has been designed to minimize visual impacts on the surrounding hillsides and would be developed at a natural bench at the base of the Santa Margarita Mountains. Furthermore, this Policy also does not state, or otherwise indicate, that retaining 85 acres of land for a 270 -acre project is inconsistent with the Policy. • Community Design Element Policy 5.3 does not forbid "intensive development of a substantial portion of the Western Escarpment." This Policy requires establishment of a program to acquire, or permanent protect, critical hillside areas from development. As explained on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, the Project is consistent with this Policy. In 2 1494639.13 explaining this consistency, the DEIR does state that it complies with this Policy because 85 acres of land will be retained as open space in explaining the Project's consistency with this Policy and, even if the DEIR did so state, this Policy also does not state, or otherwise indicate, that retaining 85 acres of land for a 270 -acre project is inconsistent with the Policy. The DEIR, however, does state that it minimizes development on steep slopes, because it has been designed to minimize visual impacts on the surrounding hillsides and would be developed at a natural bench at the base of the Santa Margarita Mountains. • Open Space/Conservation Element 5.1 does not forbid "intensive development of a substantial portion of the Western Escarpment." This Policy requires conservation of the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. As explained on page 3.9-12 of the DEIR, the Project is consistent with this Policy. In addition, as explained on page 3.9-12 of the DEIR, the DEIR does more than state that 85 acres of land will be retained as open space in explaining the Project's consistency with this Policy. The DEIR also states that it minimizes development on steep slopes, because it has been designed around the natural features of the site and would be developed at a natural bench at the base of the Santa Margarita Mountains. Furthermore, this Policy also does not state, or otherwise indicate, that retaining 85 acres of land for a 270 -acre project is inconsistent with the Policy. As outlined above and Appendix A to the FEIR, in response to public comments the City and Applicant developed the Nature Center Use as a possible alternative land use for the Civic Site. The Nature Center Use further lessens the Project's potentially significant impacts, and will devote additional acreage to open space purposes. In this manner, this new use furthers the land policies set forth by the commenters. Response CL -28-E The commenters make three main comments: (1) First, the commenters state that Conservation Element Policies 3.2 and 3.3 require the City to coordinate with relevant agencies in conserving biological resources and implementing the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The commenters state that the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) has informed the City that the Project will not be consistent with implementing the MSHCP and that the City is not coordinating with RCA but frustrating RCA's ability to do its job. The commenters further state that DEIR does not set forth any facts demonstrating that it was coordinated with the RCA, and offers the conclusory statement on page 3.9-14 of the DEIR that "the project has coordinated with the County and the RCA regarding the implementation of the MSHCP." The City and applicant consulted with the RCA and other agencies throughout the development and review of the DEIR and FEIR. The DEIR at pages 3.3-1 to 3.3-66, as well as in Appendices C, C1, and M, considers in detail the Project's potential impacts on sensitive biological resources and habitats, as well as consistency with the MSHCP. 3 1494639.13 Although expressing general concern about MSHCP consistency, the RCA's June 15, 2016 on the DEIR acknowledges the ongoing consultation between the City and RCA, including the effort to address that concern in the FEIR. Since that time, the City has continued to work with the RCA to address its concems, and through additional efforts to refine the Project and evaluate and mitigate its potential impacts on biological resources and MSHCP consistency in particular, the City has determined that the project is consistent with the MSHCP (see, e.g., FEIR, Common Response, at 3-5 to 3-6). This is particularly true for the Nature Center Use, which reduces the footprint and intensity of land uses on the Civic Site, and makes additional acreage available for species habitat and movement. (2) Second, the commenters state that the Project is inconsistent with Conservation Element Policy 3.7 and Land Use Element Policy 6.3, which require the maintenance and enhancement of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River to ensure long-term viability of wildlife movement corridors. The commenters state that the DEIR concedes that the Project could impede wildlife movement at the intersection of Santa Margarita River and Murrieta Creek but asserts on page 3.9-14 that the inadequate mitigation measures will render it consistent. The commenters state that the DEIR's conclusion is disputed by RCA, USFWS, and CDFW. On page 3.9-22, the DEIR states that it is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.3, because the Project would not involve development adjacent to Murrieta Creek or the Santa Margarita River would incorporate "green" drainage infrastructure to manage stormwater runoff from the site. There is no mention of mitigation measures. On page 3.9-14, the DEIR states that implementation of mitigation measures "MM -AES -1, MM - BIO -3, MM -BIO -6b, MM -N01 -1a, MM-NOI-lb and MM-NOI-3" will render the Project consistent with Conservation Element Policy 3.7. The commenters do not identify any deficiency in the proposed mitigation or specify why these mitigation measures are insufficient to support a finding that the Project is consistent with these Policies. (3) Third, the commenters state that the Project violates Implementation Program OS -9, which requires all development proposals in the MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages "provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts, and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance," as stated on page 3.3-4 of the DEIR. The commenters further state that Implementation Programs OS -33, OS -34, and OS -35 require developments to be consistent with the MSHCP, as stated on page 3.3-5 of the DEIR. The commenters state that the enforcing agencies have determined that the Project is not consistent with the MSHCP, the DEIR does not provide adequate biological assessments, and the DEIR fails to mitigate significant impacts. Implementation Program 0S-9 is located on page 3.3-4 of the DEIR, and Implementation Programs 0S-33, OS -34, and 0S-35 are identified on page 3.3-5 of the DEIR. The DEIR, including the MSHCP Consistency Report in Appendix C, provide detailed analysis of potential impacts and mitigation for impacts to biological resources. Surveys were performed in accordance with the requirements of the MSHCP and, where required, species-specific surveys were performed. Further, the DEIR has incorporated mitigation measures to reduce all effects to biological resources to less than significant. 4 1494639.13 Response CL -28-F The commenters state that Table 3.9-4 of the DEIR does not explain in detail how the Project is consistent with the all applicable general plan policies, instead generally refers to mitigation measures. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not explain why some policies are "Not applicable," including at pages 3.9-12 3.9-16, and 3.9-19 of the DEIR. Page 3.9-8 of the DEIR states that "Table 3.9-4 evaluates the project's consistency with relevant policies in the City of Temecula General Plan" and, "[a]s detailed in Table 3.9-4, the project would be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies that pertain to the project." Table 3.9-4 is located on pages 3.9-11 through 3.9-28 of the DEIR, and contains a "Statement of Consistency, Non -Consistency, or Not Applicable" for each identified policy. Under the "Statement of Consistency, Non -Consistency, or Not Applicable," all of the identified policies are determined to be either "Consistent" or "Not Applicable." Regarding the policies determined to be "Consistent," the Table 3.9-4 does more than "generally refer [] to mitigation measures" as the commenters state. For example, on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, under the "Statement of Consistency, Non -Consistency, or Not Applicable" for Community Design Element 5.1, it states: Consistent. The project includes design guidelines and development standards to encourage high-quality architectural and landscape design to minimize visual impacts on the surrounding hillsides. The project would also retain approximately 85 acres of natural open space along the western portion of the project site, which would provide a buffer between the proposed project and the undeveloped hills to the west. In addition, the project would obtain all necessary local permits and approvals for grading activities. The commenters do not identify additional general -plan policies that should have been identified or specific any specific analysis of consistency with a general -plan policy that is inadequate. Regarding the policies determined to be "Not applicable," such policies are irrelevant to the Project and required no additional explanation: • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-12 of the DEIR, Air Quality Element Policies 1.1 — 1.3 were determined to be "Not applicable" because these policies relate to general City planning efforts with respect to air quality improvement programs. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-15 of the DEIR, Open Space/Conservation Element 6.8 was determined to be "Not applicable" because that policy does not relate to City review of individual projects. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-16 of the DEIR, Public Safety Element Policy 1.4 was determined to be "Not applicable" as it relates to City monitoring of seismic events and other geologic activity. 5 1494639.13 • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-18 of the DEIR, Public Safety Element Policy 2.4 was determined to be "Not applicable" because the Project does not involve nuclear -power production. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-19 of the DEIR, Open Space/Conservation Element Policies 2.9 — 2.12 were determined to be "Not applicable" because they do not relate to City review of individual projects but instead provide that the City should participate in various planning activities and programs, and facilitate educational programs. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-20 of the DEIR, Growth Management and Public Facilities Element Policies 7.1 and 7.3 were determined to be "Not applicable" because they do not relate to individual projects but instead to the City's coordination with other agencies regarding public flood control projects. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-24 of the DEIR, Noise Element Policy 2.2 was determined to be "Not applicable" because the Project does not include the placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-25 of the DEIR, Noise Element Policy 4.3 was determined to be "Not applicable" because it relates to the City's law enforcement standards. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-25 of the DEIR, Noise Element Policy 4.5 was determined to be "Not applicable" because it relates to the City's participation in planning activities with other agencies regarding airports. Response CL -28-G The commenters make five main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR incorrectly states that the City "planned for development at the Project site and did not expect for it to remain as undeveloped, open space" on page 3.1-17. The commenter states that the Westside Specific Plan approved by the City in 1995 would have permitted mixed-use development adjacent to the Project site but was superseded by the City's 2005 General Plan, which contains the policies commenters discuss in previous comments that "prohibit development in the Western Escarpment." The policies in the City's 2005 General Plan that commenters discussed in previous comments CL -28-D, CL -28-E, and CL -28-F do not "prohibit development in the Western Escarpment." Further, pages S-3 and 2-1 of the DEIR state that one of the Project Objectives includes "minimizing physical and visual impacts to the hillside escarpment" and page 2-29 of the DEIR states that the Project applicant "will donate to the RCA a conservation easement over 269.6 acres of hillside escarpment in the city of Corona that is adjacent to a MSHCP Criteria Cells" and "will assign to the RCA an existing Purchase and Sale Agreement (P&SA) for the acquisition of 8.97 acres located on the hillside escarpment adjacent to the proposed project for conservation." 6 W04639.13 (2) The commenters state that the DEIR does not adequately address light pollution from the Project, because "there is no way to mitigation [sic] the light impacts of installing thousands of people in an undeveloped wildlife area." Impacts of light and glare on wildlife are analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the DEIR, including at pages 3.3-39 to 3.3-40, and Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3, at page 3.3-40, incorporates measures directed at the reduction of impacts on species due to nighttime constructing lighting, including a prohibition on nighttime construction in areas abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Project would be subject to the MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, which includes measures for the reduction of impacts on species based on light and glare once the Specific Plan Area is occupied, and analysis pursuant to the relevant Guideline is at pages 3.3-33 and 3.3-61 of the DEIR and at page 50 of Appendix C to the DEIR (PDF page 2419 of the Appendices). Further, the Nature Center Use alternative would further reduce light and glare, particularly as nighttime use and lighting is strictly limited (App. A to FEIR). (3) The commenters state that the DEIR does not cite studies or biological opinions on page 3.1-19 indicating sufficient mitigation of impacts on wildlife. Impacts of light and glare on wildlife are analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the DEIR, including at pages 3.3-39 to 3.3-40, and Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3, at page 3.3-40, incorporates measures directed at the reduction of impacts on species due to nighttime constructing lighting, including a prohibition on nighttime construction in areas abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Project would be subject to the MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, which includes measures for the reduction of impacts on species based on light and glare once the Specific Plan Area is occupied, and analysis pursuant to the relevant Guideline is at pages 3.3-33 and 3.3-61 of the DEIR and at page 50 of Appendix C to the DEIR (PDF page 2419 of the Appendices). (4) The commenters state that the aesthetic simulations in Figure 3.1-2 and Figure 3.1-3 do not appear to be accurate, because they appear to downplay the actual size of the development, do not specify whether they address a four -to -five story buildout as discussed in the Project description, and appear to have omitted the Western Bypass. The aesthetic simulations were conducted based on generally accepted methodologies, and provide an accurate depiction of the proposed development from the most likely view area. Due to the unique topography and layout of the site in relation to surrounding areas, the size of the development and mass associated with proposed buildings will actually be less than a similar project with flat, uniform topography. In this way, aesthetic impacts are less than what might otherwise be expected. (5) The commenters state that the DEIR incorrectly states, on page 3.1-17, that "scenic views" of the hills and Western Escarpment will not be impacted by the Project, and that the DEIR admits as much in a subsequent sentence stating that "the visual character of the project site would change substantially from undeveloped, open space to a high - 7 1494639.13 density urbanized development." The commenters further state that the DEIR is incorrect in stating, on page 3.1-18, that the impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels by "[a]dherence to the design guidelines and development standards." This comment conflates impacts on "scenic views" of the surrounding area with "the visual character of the project site." The former refers to the surrounding area, whereas the latter refers to the Project site. Due to the unique topography of the site, the development is not expected to impair scenic views of the hills and Western Escarpment. Further, the City has determined that mitigation for aesthetics is effective, and commenters provide no contrary factual evidence. Response CL -28-H The commenters state that the DEIR air-quality impacts analysis is flawed because it does not take into account all sources of air-quality impacts resulting from the Project and fails to adopt all feasible measures to reduce the Project's significant air-quality impacts. Specifically, the commenters state that, on page 3.2-15, the DEIR relies upon Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology, which the South Coast Air Quality Management District has stated apply to projects of only five acres or less. Page 3.2-15 of the DEIR states that construction LSTs are used for a 3.5 -acre site and operational LSTs are used for a 5 -acre site. These LSTs are shown in Table 3.2-5, which is on page 3.2-16 of the DEIR. As set forth in Response to Comment 22-G from the Final EIR, this method of evaluating local air quality impacts is more conservative than looking only at the aggregated emissions for the entire site. Response CL -28-I The commenters state that the DEIR contains a chart entitled "Proposed Regional Construction Emissions" that does not explain how the statistics described as estimated maximum daily emissions were calculated and instead lists the source as "ESA, 2015" at page 3.2-21. The commenters further state that some of these statistics appears in the Appendices to the DEIR at PDF page 106, but that the assumptions listed in the Appendices to the DEIR are not explained in any detail. The commenters provide the following examples: on PDF page 104 of the Appendices, it is not clear whether the assumption of "2 -mile trip" means that construction trips were calculated as being only 2 miles; and, on PDF page 105 of the Appendices, the assumption that "intemalization reduction" is included in the calculations does not describe the reduction or explain its basis. The reference "ESA, 2015" in the table entitled "Proposed Regional Construction Emissions," which is Table 3.2-6 on page 3.2-21 of the DEIR, is explained in DEIR Section 7.2 References, which is on page 7-10 of the DEIR. As indicated on page 7-10 of the DEIR, "ESA, 2015" refers to "Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2015. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report. April, 2015," which is found in Appendix B of the DEIR. Appendix B includes the assumptions made in the calculations. Regarding PDF page 104 of the Appendices, there is a statement that the calculation "*Assumes all comes from phase 3 as worst case travel analysis 2 mile round trip." The assumed "2 -mile 8 1494639,13 round trip" refers to obtaining the cut/fill materials needed for the Project. PDF page 105 of the DEIR Appendices states that "Project Operational Information" "* Includes Mode Shift Adjustment / Internalization Reduction." Response CL -28-J The commenters state that "the Project involves the installation of a freeway within a few feet of residential developments," and that the DEIR does not offer any analysis of emissions impacts on "sensitive populations," including children and the elderly, in a potential residential development and a proposed elementary school. The Western Bypass is a previously -approved project, based on separate environmental review. The proposed Project would modify the alignment for the Western Bypass. The DEIR evaluates air impacts (for both construction and operation) on sensitive receptors and includes mitigation to reduce those impacts to less than significant. (See e.g. DEIR, pp. 3.2-15-16, 3.2-28, 3.2-19, 3.2-25-29.) As explained on page 3.2-19 of the DEIR, "while residents would be considered sensitive receptors, the project site is not located within 1,000 feet of any major sources, including high-volume roadways or freeways. Therefore, this analysis discusses impacts from TACs on a qualitative basis." Further, the DEIR is not required to assess the impacts of the surrounding environment on the health and safety of the Project's future residents or users. (California Bldg. Indus. Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369, 387 ("California Bldg. Indus. Assn.").) Nevertheless, the DEIR evaluates Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) at pages 3.2-11, 3.2-16, 3.2- 19, and 3.28-3.29, and notes that the project is not a significant source of TACS and there are no major sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the proposed development. Consequently, as the DEIR states, the project is not expected to contribute to any significant exposure to "nearby" or "new onsite receptors." Response CL -28-K The commenters state that the DEIR acknowledges significant air-quality impacts, but includes only six mitigation measures (MM -AQ -la through MM -AQ -Ie and MM -AQ -2) that provide few specific details and lack adequate enforcement mechanisms. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not analyze and adopt all feasible mitigation measures, and it does not sufficiently analyze available mitigation measures for reducing GHG emissions, such as those provided by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA) and the California Office of the Attorney General that the DEIR. The commenters provide two examples: on page 3.2-24 of the DEIR, MM -AQ -1d says that it will comply with 2013 Building Standards, but the more stringent 2016 Building Standards are now applicable to the Project; and MM -AQ -2 does not cite any studies or analysis supporting the conclusion that watering the construction site will reduce construction emissions to a less -than -significant level. Many of the measures identified by the commenter do not apply to this sort of residential development, and several measures were already included in existing measures or as part of the project's design. Additions have been made to the EIR to further support and clarify the DEIR's conclusion. Specifically, the references to building standards have been updated to 2016 and the 9 1090639.13 mitigation measure GHG-1 has been strengthened and included in the FEIR at pages 2-32 to 2- 33. MM-GHG-1 will also serve to lessen the air quality impacts of the project. Due to the overall emissions and very low significance thresholds, however, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Response CL -28-L The commenters state that the DEIR does not cite any authority supporting, or analyze, its claim on pages 3.2-15 and 3.2-20 of the DEIR that compliance with regional land -use plans is consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) regional growth forecasts and therefore consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). As referenced in the DEIR, the growth associated with this project is consistent with regional growth forecasts by SCAG, which in turn serves as the basis for the AQMP. Response CL -28-M The commenters claim that the DEIR does not analyze or disclose the impacts to special status species and disagree with the DEIR's conclusion that certain special status species were not detected during various biological surveys. The commenters also state that the DEIR does not explain whether the surveyors were searching for the species or whether they were qualified to identify them. The commenters state that many of the species that were listed as not detected in surveys were listed as having a "high" potential to occur on the Site. The commenters do not identify any specific species in their comment but instead generally reference "special status species." The DEIR adequately addresses impacts to special status species. Surveys were performed by Helix Environmental Planning, which specializes in environmental consulting and natural resource sustainability. Those surveys were performed in accordance with the requirements of the MSHCP, Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3. A list of all the surveys performed is provided in Appendix C, page 2 and described again on page 4. All species with a Moderate or High Potential to be on site, as well as species found actually present on site, are specifically listed in Table 3.3-3 of the DEIR. All species that were evaluated for their potential to be on site are listed in the master table found in Appendix C1, this table includes species with a low potential. The Mitigation Measures include the requirement that focused surveys be performed by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction. See also Response to Comments 27-T, 27 -AA, 27 -BB, 27 -CC in the Final EIR. Response CL -28-N The commenters cite the DEIR statements regarding the presence of San Diego ambrosia on the Project site. The commenters state that the plants will be transferred, but the DEIR does not identify a location for the transfer. The commenters also claim that the mitigation measure for the plant is impermissibly vague and is likewise unenforceable because it is "voluntary." The commenters state that the DEIR's conclusion that impacts to the paniculate tarplant are less than significant is not based on substantial evidence because destruction of a special status species or 10 1494639.13 its habitat qualifies as a significant impact. Finally, the commenters claim the DEIR did not specify whether the surveyors were looking for specific plant species or were qualified to identify them. The DEIR identifies the population of San Diego ambrosia on the Project site, stating approximately 300 individuals were found during a previous survey. (DEIR, p. 3.3-36.) The species is listed as endangered under the federal ESA, is a CNPS list 1B.1 species, and a Narrow Endemic Plant Species under the MSHCP. (DEIR, p. 3.3-12.) San Diego ambrosia is covered under the MSHCP and impacts are covered under the implementation structure of the MSHCP. Therefore, no mitigation is required. The MSHCP serves as a Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal ESA, as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the NCCP Act. The MSHCP allows the participating jurisdictions to authorize "Take" of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. In addition, the Project site lies outside of MSHCP survey area requirements for the species. Coverage under the MSHCP is afforded because the 3 known populations are being conserved and approximately 21,800 acres of potential habitat will be conserved. The MSHCP allows for take of in excess of 50,000 acres of potential habitat. The applicant has voluntarily proposed, as a Project Conservation Feature, to translocate all San Diego ambrosia found on the site. This voluntary feature is not a mitigation measure, as no mitigation is required for impacts to the San Diego Ambrosia. As provided in the DEIR, "[t]he translocation will occur on already conserved land within 10 miles of the project site" and the "receptor site will be selected in conjunction with the City, the Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and resource agencies." (DEIR, p. 2-29.) In addition, the "applicant will prepare a translocation plan for City review and approval prior to implementing the translocation effort. The RCA will be responsible for any long-term management and monitoring obligations as part of their overall management and monitoring efforts for the MSHCP preserve." (DEIR, p. 2-29; FEIR, p. 2-7.) Paniculate tarplant is a CNPS list 4.2 species. The CNPS List 4 is a watch list for species with limited distribution or occurring infrequently throughout a broader range. Paniculate tarplant occurs from San Luis Obispo County south to the Califomia-Mexico border and into Baja Califomia, and is observed throughout western Riverside County in coastal sage scrub, grassland and vernal pool habitats. This species was observed in limited numbers on the northern portion of the site in the area that was previously graded as part of the Ridge Park Office Complex development. Given that the species is a List 4 species, was observed in limited numbers, and was observed primarily in a previously graded portion of the site, impacts are considered less than significant. Additionally, this species is anticipated to benefit from landscape scale conservation of sage scrub, grassland and vernal pool habitats through implementation of the MSHCP. With regard to the commenters' claim regarding surveys, please see the response to Comment CL -28-M. 11 1494639.13 Response CL -28-O The commenters make three main comments: (1) The commenters claim that Mitigation Measure BIO -1 is inadequate because it only requires clearing activities take place outside of the breeding season "to the extent feasible," does not state if the breeding season is for all bird species, does not limit setback requirements, and does not state the minimum qualifications of the biologist. The commenters also claim that the DEIR also does not adequately address the destruction of habitat for the birds. Impact BIO -1 relates to activities associated with construction of the project on special status avian wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark. The breeding season listed in Mitigation Measure B10-1 applies to all species and is the standard breeding season used in this context. There is discretion in the biologist to either increase or decrease setbacks based on certain findings which are spelled out in the mitigation measure. Several mitigation measures provide specific requirements pertaining to the qualifications of the biologist. For example, Mitigation Measure B10-3 provides that the qualified biologist must have "a minimum of 3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites." Similarly, MM -BIO -1 requires that the qualified biologist conducting the activity under that measure have a "demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys." The DEIR adequately addresses and mitigates for impacts to habitat. Impact B10-6 relates to potential impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. Mitigation Measures 6a and 6b provide mitigation for these potential impacts to habitat. Mitigation Measure 6a requires the payment of Local Development Mitigation fees to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species. (DEIR, p. 3.3-45.) Mitigation Measure 6b requires lands identified for contribution to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project (Conserved Lands) to be included on the final map and conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the RCA or deed transfer of such parcels to the RCA. The project is required to conserve a minimum of 82.77 acres on site. These mitigation measures will ensure that impacts to sensitive habitat covered under the MSHCP are reduced to less than significant. (2) The commenters also state that the DEIR does not take adequate steps to protect the burrowing owl, admits that the owl may be killed during construction activities, and ignores that the project is destroying habitat for the owl. The commenters claim that the DEIR does not provide any evidence that translocation of the owl will be successful, and states that translocation will not reduce impacts to less than significant because the owls' available habitat will be reduced and that will result in a take. The commenters additionally claim the mitigation should include long-term monitoring of passively relocated birds. 12 1494639.13 The burrowing owl is listed as adequately conserved under the MSHCP. The MSHCP permits the take of species so long as the Project is in conformity with the MSHCP. As required under the MSHCP a survey was conducted specifically for burrowing owl. No burrowing owls were detected or observed during the focused surveys, however suitable habitat was found in the upland vegetation communities and disturbed habitat across the project site. (DEIR, p. 3.3-37.) Mitigation Measure BIO -2 requires that additional surveys be performed by a qualified biologist prior to initial ground disturbing activities. If any burrowing owls are detected during those pre -construction surveys, the City of Temecula and the RCA must be notified, and the application must implement the procedures provided in MM BIO -2. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-37-38.) Passive relocation, if necessary, would follow established protocols that have been proven effective, as burrowing owl are a highly adaptable species. (3) The commenters claim that the DEIR fails to take any steps to mitigate impacts on the federally threatened gnatcatcher and yellow warbler, stating that both species occur on the Project site and will suffer habitat loss. Impacts to the gnatcatcher and yellow warbler are included within the discussion of impacts to migratory birds and special -status wildlife provided on page 3.3-36 of the DEIR. The DEIR acknowledges the habitat loss associated with Project construction. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-43-45.) The coastal California gnatcatcher and the yellow breasted warbler are listed as adequately conserved under the MSHCP. Further, the Project will contribute significantly to required MSHCP fees as required under Mitigation Measure BIO -6a, and will conserve a minimum of 82.77 acres onsite as required under Mitigation Measure BIO -6b. (DEIR, p. 3.3-45.) Response CL -28-P The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters claim that the DEIR does not adequately discuss aquatic species that may inhabit the streams or adjacent land, and specifically identifies the Western Pond Turtle (WPT). The commenters disagree with the statement in the MSHCP Consistency Report that no WPT habitat will be impacted because the Project lies entirely outside of Murrieta Creek, stating that WPT regularly occupy areas outside of creeks for hibernation and refuge. The DEIR acknowledges that the WPT uses areas nearby upland habitat bordering aquatic areas. It explains that the WPT uses "[a]djacent upland areas ... for overwintering and estivation sites. Temecula Creek at the confluence of Murrieta Creek appears to be a key area, along with the Santa Ana River, Santa Rosa Plateau, and San Jacinto River (Dudek 2003). Where the Civic Site abuts Murrieta Creek, the western edge of the creek has steep side slopes that limit access to the upland areas for pond turtle, while the area to the east of the creek consists of gently sloping terrain that provides better access to upland areas. The terrain west of the creek and south of the Civic Site flattens out for a portion of the creek channel making the proposed 13 1494639.13 conservation area in the southern portion of the site more accessible to pond turtles." (Appx. C, p. 38.) The DEIR also provides that the WPT is a "thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams & irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 1800 m elevation" and they "[n]eed basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg -laying." (Appx. CI -11.) While generally the western pond turtle is known to use upland areas, the specific site conditions at the Project Site precludes usage of upland areas on the South Parcel by the species. The presence of steep terrain along the portion of Murrieta Creek bordering the South Parcel likely precludes turtle usage in the area adjacent to the development footprint for either the University/Hospital Use or the Nature Center Use. Thus, no impacts to western pond turtles are anticipated on the South Parcel under either alternative. Additions have been made to the EIR to further support and clarify the DEIR's conclusion that impacts to WPT are less than significant. (See FEIR, pp. 2-8 to 2-9.) (2) The commenters claim that the DEIR does not support its conclusion that there will be no suitable habitat for the California red -legged frog (CALF), Arroyo Toad, or Mountain Yellow Legged Frog (MYLF) on the Project site. Additions have been made to the EIR to further support and clarify the DEIR's conclusion that there is no suitable habitat for these three species on the Project site. (See FEIR, p. 2-9.) Response CL -28-Q The commenters make four main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR does not set forth adequate mitigation measures to protect wildlife from polluted runoff, and that the DEIR's statements on pages 3.3-32 that it will comply with the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and that "measures" shall be implemented to avoid discharge of untreated runoff are unenforceable and vague. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not comply with request on page 9 of RCA's letter that measures be implemented to "avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas." The DEIR incorporates the regulatory requirements under the NPDES Construction General Permit and requirements for preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). There is an extensive discussion of how the Project will be designed to handle urban runoff during the operational phase on pages 3.8-19 and 3.8-20. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1, on page 3.8-20 of the DEIR, requires preparation of a final drainage study by a registered civil engineer; and Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2, on page 3.8-25 of the DEIR, pertains to the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements. Compliance with construction and post -construction requirements under NPDES permitting requirements has proven effective at limiting the volume and 14 1494639.13 protecting the quality of state and federal waters. The Project, therefore, is not expected to contribute significantly to the quality or volume of runoff to local drainages. (2) The commenters state that the DEIR contains no specific mitigation measures to safeguard wildlife from toxic chemicals generated by the Project, and that on page 3.3-32 the DEIR states only that unspecified "measures" will ensure that toxic chemicals are not discharged into MSHCP areas. Page 3.3-32 of the DEIR states that "[m]easures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented." Accordingly, toxic chemicals would be covered within the existing mitigation measures pertaining to urban runoff and spill prevention, which are expressly designed and required to protect beneficial uses. (3) The commenters further state that page 3.3-33 of the DEIR contains similarly vague mitigation measures to protect MSHCP Conservation areas from lighting, noise, and invasive species. The commenters do not identify any specific deficiency with the mitigation measures, other than vagueness. The Mitigation Measure AES -1, which can be found on pages 3.1- 18 to 3.1-19 of the DEIR, contains very specific requirements regarding lighting, and requires that a lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the City. Mitigation Measures NO1-1 through NOI-5, which can be found on pages 3.10-25 to 3.10-30, 3.10- 32, and 3.10-35 of the DEIR, are very detailed regarding noise generated from project construction and project operation. Mitigation Measure BIO -4, which can be found on pages 3.3-42 to 3.3-43, includes an invasive species management plan. (4) The commenters state that the DEIR lists a variety of mitigation measures that have limited or no relevance to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, and that the DEIR should list and explain how it complies with each of the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. The DEIR lists, and explains how the DEIR complies with, each of the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines provided in the MSHCP, and it does so more than once. Volume I, Section 6.1.4, pages 6-42 to 6-46, of the MSHCP lists the following Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface: Drainage; Toxics; Lighting; Noise; Invasives; Barriers; and Grading/Land Development. These Guidelines are listed, and compliance with each Guideline is explained, at pages 3.3-61 to 3.3-62 of the DEIR, at pages 3.3-32 to 3.3-33 of the DEIR, and at pages 50 to 51 of Appendix C to the DEIR. Response CL -28-R The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters state that on page 3.3-34 of the DEIR states that no surveys were conducted for amphibian or mammal species because the site is not in a Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA), but that not being located in a CASSA is irrelevant to the City's duty to ascertain the environmental baseline. 15 1494639.13 PDF pages 2343 to 2440 of Appendices to the DEIR contain Appendix C, the MSHCP Consistency Report. MSHCP Consistency Report Section 3, PDF pages 2361to 2366 of the Appendices and internal pages 4 to 8 of the Report, addresses the methods used for identifying species that could potentially be impacted by the Project. As provided in Appendix C, on PDF page 2374 of the Appendices and internal page 15 of the Report, because no appropriate habitat occurs on the property for any amphibian species listed under MSHCP 6.1.2, none of the species has the potential to occur. As provided in Appendix C, on PDF page 2420 of the Appendices and internal page 41 of the Report, the Project is not within any mammal survey area, and no surveys or mitigation is required, under the MSHCP. Despite this, Appendix Cl, Species Table, which is PDF pages 2441 to 2457 of the Appendices to the DEIR, does provide a review of the potential for mammal species to occur on site on PDF pages 2456 to 2457 and internal pages C1-15 to C1-16 of the Species Table. As explained in Section 4.7 of Appendix C, from PDF pages 2384 to 2389 of the Appendices and internal pages 25 to 27 of the Report, and in Appendix CI, on PDF page 2456 of the Appendices and internal page C1-15 of the Table, for mountain lions, data from radio collared mountain lions was analyzed, as well as a host of additional factors influencing species movement. Further, the DEIR performed those surveys that are required under the MSHCP. The MSHCP includes detailed species surveys for plants and wildlife and only directs project applicants to prepare site-specific surveys for specific species based on a project site's characteristics. (2) The DEIR states that the following plants occur outside, and were not observed on, the site, and does not provide any information as to whether suitable habitat exists on the site for, or whether surveyors were qualified to identify and looking for, the following plant species: Lemon Lily, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Mojave tarplant, Parish's meadowfoam, Santa Ana River woolly -star, and Brand's phacelia. This comment is factually incorrect. As explained in Section 4.2.1 of Appendix C, the MSHCP Consistency Report, on PDF page 2370 of the Appendices and internal page 12 of the Report: "A number of the species have distributions well above the elevations at the project site, and/or well north or east of the project site. Species in this group include lemon lily, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Mojave tarplant, Parish's meadowfoam, Santa Ana River woolly -star, and Brand's phacelia." Response CL -28-S The commenters quote the portion of the EIR that states that the Project will permanently impact 1.24 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat, and claim that the mitigation proposed—the preparation of a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation ("DBESP") per the MSHCP and a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan if required by CDFW—is inadequate and constitutes improper deferral of mitigation. The commenters also claim that Mitigation Measure BIO -4b defers specifying any ratios for mitigating riparian habitat impacts. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.6, on pages 3-12 to 3-13, of the FEIR regarding the Project's consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.2. As explained in the Common Response, consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, the project proposes to mitigate for these impacts at a 3:1 ratio for Riparian resources and at a 1:1 ratio for Riverine resources. Mitigation for both 16 1491639.13 temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options: on- or off-site habitat restoration; purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. Based on this, the project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine policy of the MSHCP. The proposed mitigation measures will reduce impacts to Riparian and Riverine habitat to less -than -significant, there will be no "unavoidable" impacts to these resources. Response CL -28-T The commenters state that there is no evidence in the record that the payment of mitigation fees determined by the City and the conservation of 82.77 acres within the Project site will mitigate the impacts of installing hundreds of houses on undeveloped land. There is extensive evidence in the record regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP, including in the Impacts Analysis (DEIR, p. 3.3-58-3.3-66), Mitigation Measures BIO -6a and BIO -6b (DEIR, p. 3.3-45), and in Common Responses 3.2.2 through 3.2.7 (FEIR, pp. 3-6- 3-14). The MSHCP covers 1.26 million acres of wildlife habitat and aims to acquire and set aside 500,000 acres for preservation by 2029. To date, the MSHCP has reached 79% of its acquisition goals through collection of MSHCP fees, land donations, and in -lieu land dedications, putting the MSHCP well on its way to achieve its goals and permanently protect a broad spectrum of plants, animals, and habitats, including those species and habitats potentially impacted by the proposed Project. Please also refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 through 3.2.7 regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP. Response CL -28-U The commenters claim that the Project will severely constrict wildlife corridors and interfere with mountain lion movement, citing to an email from Dr. Winston Vickers from November 2014. The commenters claim that the DEIR's conclusions regarding mountain lion movement are not supported by substantial evidence and disagree with the DEIR's conclusion that the Project will not preclude use of the Proposed Linkage 10. The commenters also state that none of the proposed mitigation measure will ensure that the mountain lions are able to continue to use the wildlife corridors in Linkages 10, 13, and 14. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 of the Final EIR concerning Mountain Lion/Linkage Impacts. Responses CL -28-V and CL -28-W The commenters claim that the Project will violate the MSHCP and that it will significantly interfere with the functionality of MSHCP linkages and will frustrate movement of wildlife, including mountain lions. Please refer to Final EIR Common Responses 3.2.2 through 3.2.7 regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP, and Common Response 3.2.8 regarding impacts and analysis of mountain lion. 17 1494639.13 Responses CL -28-X and CL -28-Y The commenters claim that the DEIR does not support its conclusion that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP and that the Project fails to comply with the MSHCP Planned Roadway Criteria Guidelines. Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 through 3.2.7 regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP. Response CL -28-Z The commenters state that it is unclear whether the 24,953 MTCO2e figure is accurate, and it is not clear what source is cited as "ESA, 2015." in Table 3.6-2. The reference to "ESA, 2015" in Table 3.6-2, at page 3.6-15, is explained in the References at page 7-10. It is referring to ESA's 2015 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report ("GHG Report"), included as Appendix B to the DEIR. The 24,953 MTCO2e figure, which is set forth at page 32 of the GHG Report (PDF page 133 of the Appendices), was generated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod), a statewide land use emissions computer model that serves as the industry standard for quantification of potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction and operations of land use projects. The assumptions and input data are explained in greater detail in the GHG Report. Response CL -28 -AA The commenters incorrectly state that the DEIR improperly utilized the "business as usual" approach to determine the significance of GHG impacts, which was rejected by the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Ca1.4th 204 ("Newhall Ranch"). The DEIR does not use "business as usual" methodology to evaluate the significance of GHG impacts. On pages 3.6-11 to 3.6-12, the DEIR expressly acknowledges the Newhall Ranch case in support of its decision not to use the "business as usual" approach to determining significance. As stated on page 3.6-11, the DEIR utilizes the thresholds of significance set forth in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to that analysis, the DEIR first asks whether the project would [g]enerate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment." On pages 3.6-11 to 3.6-12, acknowledging that there "is no adopted state or local standard for determining the significance of the project's GHG emissions," the DEIR compares the emissions from the project to three potentially applicable bright -line and service population thresholds considered by the SCAQMD Stakeholder Working Group, then makes its significance determination based on the most conservative of those thresholds. On page 3.6-18, the DEIR finds GHG emissions to result in a significant and unavoidable impact. 18 1494639.13 As stated on page 3.6-11, after determining whether there would be a significant impact, the DEIR analyzes whether the project may "[cjonflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases." Response CL -28 -BB (1) The commenters state that the mitigation measures are inadequate. Specifically, in criticizing MM-GHG-1 on page 3.6-18 of the DEIR, the commenters state that the applicant should be required to achieve LEED certification, not just use "best efforts." The commenters further state that the EIR does not adequately demonstrate that additional mitigation measures are not feasible. Changes to MM-GHG-1 have been incorporated in the FEIR, which changes are responsive to the CBD request to add specific, enforceable measures. (FEIR, pp. 2-15 to 2-16.) These measures and existing design elements of the proposed Project include many of the measures referenced in Table 16 of CAPCOA's paper, CEQA and Climate Change (January 2008), including for example bicycle parking, bike lanes/paths, pedestrian network, higher density residential, electric vehicle recharging capabilities, drought resistant landscaping, no wood -burning stoves, energy and water efficient fixtures and appliances, solar capabilities onsite, nearby recreation and downtown, and exceedance of Title 24. Because LEED Certification is governed by a non-governmental entity, as well as the fact that this project may not qualify for LEED Certification due to its location (and not design), LEED Certification cannot be guaranteed. Nevertheless, the measures will be incorporated to help substantially lessen impacts associated with GHG emissions (and air emissions and energy use). Whether or not LEED Certification is achieved, the project will still result in indirect and cumulative GHG emissions above thresholds commonly applied by local and state agencies, and therefore this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. (2) The commenters state that the DEIR does not adequately analyze consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan and Temecula Sustainability Plan. On pages 3.6-18 to 3.6-19, the DEIR discusses consistency with both the CARB Scoping Plan and the Temecula Sustainability Plan, and finds that the project is consistent with both plans with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Response CL -28 -CC Commenter provides a list of proposed mitigation measures, including a variety of "green building" methods it claims would be effective to reduce Project GHG impacts. The agency has a duty to consider a reasonable range of mitigation measures that could reduce impacts, even if it adopts a statement of overriding considerations. The DEIR did so, as described on page 3.6-17. Although the DEIR concluded that this required mitigation would substantially lessen the Project's cumulative impacts on GHG emissions, it acknowledged that its cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, in part due to the use of an extremely conservative threshold of significance for GHG emissions. 19 1.194639.13 In an effort to respond to the commenters concerns, the City and applicant reviewed the CAPCOA and other lists of possible mitigation. CAPCOA measures are already incorporated as part of the Project or are required under current building standards (see, e.g., DEIR, p. 3.6-5). Further, the FEIR amends the existing mitigation to add additional measures to help lessen the significant cumulative impacts of the project on global climate change (see FEIR, pp. 2-15- 2-16 [including many of the measures referenced in Table 16 of CAPCOA's paper, CEQA and Climate Change (January 2008)]). Despite these added measures, the Project's cumulative emissions remain significant and unavoidable, largely due to vehicle emissions associated with residents and visitors traveling to and from the Specific Plan Area. These emissions are beyond the control of the City or Applicant, as they depend on the relative emissions of the statewide vehicle emissions standards. Those standards are becoming more stringent, but not sufficiently so to reduce this Project's impacts to a less than significant level under the conservative significance threshold used by the agency. Consequently, this EIR conservatively identifies these impacts and significant and unavoidable. Response CL -28 -DD The commenters make three main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR fails to inform the public of fire dangers associated with the Project, because the DEIR states that the Project is "near" a "High Fire Hazard Area" without disclosing where this area is in relation to the project. The DEIR is not required to assess the impact of the surrounding environment on the health and safety of the Project's future residents or users. (California Bldg. Indus. Assn., supra, 62 Ca1.4th at 387.) The DEIR nevertheless discloses and analyzes the proximity of the proposed development to the High Fire Hazard Area, concluding that with mitigation incorporated the Project's impacts associated with fire hazards would be less than significant (DEIR, page 3.7-3, 3.7-12, and 3.7-13). (2) The commenters state that the "fuel modification plan" in MM-HAZ-1 would involve replacing native plants with drought resistant alternative that can be assumed to involve significant impacts on plants, wildlife, and other biological resources. The commenters state that the DEIR does not provide specific information on, or analyze impacts on biological impacts from implementation of, the fuel -modification plans. The commenters state that the DEIR should analyze the areas impacted by fuel -modification plans as part of the development "footprint" of the Project; that no fire clearance/thinning activities should occur within the boundaries of any federally designated critical habitat, open - space, natural area, or wildlife movement corridor; and that fuel -modification plans must ensure that invasive species are planted as part of the plans. Page 3.3-60 of the DEIR states that fuel modification is consistent with the MSHCP: "Project fuel modification zones would not extend into the existing or project -proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. As such, the project would be consistent with the Fuel Modification Guidelines in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP." In addition, on page 3.7-13 of the DEIR, Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 requires that the City review and approve a 20 1494639.13 Fre Modification Plan, which shall include "[a] list of plants not recommended to be used within the fuel modification zones." Response CL -28 -EE The commenters make eight main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR provides that runoff from "developed" portions of the site would be treated, but that the DEIR does not identify which portions of the site will be considered "developed" or what types of treatment the stormwater will undergo. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not clearly state to what extent will discharge directly into Murrieta Creek, stating that that runoff from the development will be "treated" and also that "the majority of the project discharges directly into Murrieta Creek..." on page 3.8-19. The DEIR explains in numerous places which areas of the Project are proposed for development and which areas are proposed for open space or conservation lands, such as in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 on pages 2-5 and 2-6. Furthermore, on page 3.8-19, the DEIR includes a detailed description of the onsite storm drainage system that will be constructed as part of the Project — including an explanation of where flows will be conveyed — and states that a preliminary drainage study was prepared for the site to determine the peak post -developed onsite 100 -year flow rates for the site. (2) The commenters state that the DEIR does not provide data regarding existing water - quality conditions sufficient to provide an adequate baseline for evaluation of impacts on local and regional water quality. The CEQA guidelines require that the description of the environmental setting "shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a).) MM -HYD -1 has been strengthened to ensure against any potentially significant adverse impacts on local hydrology and drainages, as stated on page 2-16 of the FEIR. (3) The commenters state that the DEIR provides, on page 3.8-5, only a list of substances constituting impairment under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for Murrieta Creek and does not provide adequate water -quality information regarding Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River. The DEIR evaluates water quality as relevant to the Project's setting, which is within the Murrieta Hydrologic Area, and the CEQA guidelines require that the description of the environmental setting "shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a).) On page 3.8-3, the DEIR states that Murrieta Creek is impaired by metals/matalloids, nutrients, pesticides, and toxicity, and Table 3.8-3 shows the impairments and potential pollutant sources. The DEIR evaluates the pollutants under the USEPA impaired waterbodies section 303(d) list in Table 3.8-3 because, as stated on page 3.8-3 of the DEIR, "Murrieta Creek is listed as impaired on the State of Califomia's 2010 list of impaired water bodies pursuant to provisions of Clean Water Act Section 21 1494619.11 303(d)." In addition, on page 3.8-5, the DEIR discusses Temecula Basin groundwater, and identifies the following constituents of concern: total dissolved solids, nitrate, volatile organic compounds, perchlorate, fluoride, and manganese. This list of constituents of concern and the following discussion of those constituents relies upon "(MWD, 2007)," which is identified on pate 7-19 of the DEIR's References as "Metropolitan Water District (MWD), 2007. Chapter IV: Groundwater Reports" with an Internet link to access the report. As explained in response to comments concerning the steelhead population in Common Response 3.2.9, on pages 3-23 to 3-24 of the FEIR, the Project as designed is not anticipated to reduce water quality or otherwise alter the hydrology in the Santa Margarita River. (4) The commenters state that the DEIR understates the impacts on water quality. The commenters do not agree with what they characterize as the DEIR's conclusion on page 3.8-18 that "runoff patterns during and prior to construction will be the same," because the DEIR states that grading activities will require four million cubic yards of cut and fill on page 8.8-29. The commenters state that intensive grading of the site will "very likely" change runoff patterns. The DEIR provides ample support for its statement that runoff conditions "would not substantially change" during construction." Page 8.8-18 of the DEIR addresses runoff and drainage during construction, and explains that "[t]he proposed drainage pattern would generally be the same during project construction when compared with the pre - project condition. As a result, runoff conditions would not substantially change during construction activities." Furthermore, on pages 8.8-18 to 8.8-19, DEIR explains that "[c]onstruction [best management practices (BMPs)] would be in place during storm events as required by the Construction General Permit" and that `BMPs have proven effective at substantially reducing or eliminating runoff during construction." (5) The commenters state that mitigation measures are not described in sufficient detail to ascertain whether they will be effective, because the types and effectiveness of the referenced BMPs are not disclosed for a project in close proximity to three streams that are home to aquatic life — Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The DEIR provides sufficient information on BMPs. On pages 3.8-7 to 8.8-12, the DEIR describes the BMPs required under the SWPPP for the applicable California Construction Stormwater Permit and the BMPs required under the applicable Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits. In Table 3.8-5, on pages 3.8-22 to 3.8-24, the DEIR also provides an extensive list of potential construction BMPs. Courts have found similar levels of specificity sufficient. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Ca1.App.4th 777, 795.) (6) The commenters state that the DEIR's mitigation measures impermissibly defer actual development of the mitigation measures. The commenters state that MM -HYD -1 impermissibly defers a drainage study to verify capacity of existing drainage facilities on page 3.8-19 and, if the facilities are found insufficient, only requires the unenforceable measure that "onsite detention would be considered" on page 3.8-20. The commenters 22 1494639.13 further state that MM -HYD -3 defers development of the Projects Water Quality Management Plan until immediately before the building or grading permits are issued. Regarding MM -HYD -1 on page 3.8-20 of the DEIR, the CEQA Guidelines provide that mitigation measures may specify performance standards for mitigating a significant impact that might be accomplished in various ways. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) In addition, a lead agency may rely on future studies to devise the specific design of a mitigation measure when the results of the later studies are used to tailor mitigation measures to fit on -the -ground environmental conditions. (City of Hayward v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 855 ("City of Hayward").) The language of MM -HYD -1 has been edited to further support and clarify the mitigation measure at page 2-16 of the FEIR. MM -HYD -3, on page 8.8-28 of the DEIR, addresses future development that could occur under the proposed Specific Plan, and requires Water Quality Management Plans tailored to each future development: "As a condition of approval, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan." Such project -specific Plans cannot be created until the future development has been planned and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines provide that mitigation measures may specify performance standards that may be accomplished in various ways (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B)), and courts have recognized that a lead agency may retain the flexibility to tailor mitigation measures to fit on -the -ground environmental conditions (City of Hayward, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at 855-56). (7) The commenters state that required compliance with the MS4 permit in MM -HYD -1 is insufficient to support the DEIR's finding that stormwater runoff would not have a significant impact. In support of this statement, commenters cite to Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Dep't of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 ("Californians") for the proposition that compliance with existing environmental laws or regulations is not sufficient to support a finding of less than significant environmental impacts. On page 3.8-20, the DEIR states that implementation of MM -HYD -1 and compliance with the MS4 permit "would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur and that the existing capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded." The case cited by the commenters, Californians, did not address circumstances similar to those presented by the DEIR. In Californians, the court found complete reliance on a Department of Pesticide Regulation program inadequate where the program "does not, nor was it intended to, address the environmental impacts of administering a statewide pesticide application program." (Californians, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at 17.) In contrast, the EIR relies upon the requirements of the applicable MS4s, which directly address environmental impacts from stormwater runoff and require site-specific BMPs (as explained on pages 3.8-8 to 8.8-12), as well as the measures in the revised MM -HYD -1 that directly addresses and mitigates project -specific impacts (as explained on page 2-16 of the FEIR). 23 1494639.13 (8) The commenters state that MM -HYD -2 and MM -HYD -3, which require compliance with a SWPPP, potential BMPs, and the MS4 permit, require only compliance with existing legal obligations and thus are not "mitigation measures." Requiring compliance with the SWPPP, BMPs, and the applicable MS4 permits in mitigation measures provides additional clarity and enforceability. If anything, by requiring such compliance, the DEIR provides additional disclosure and analysis of impacts. Response CL -28 -FF The commenters make three main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR does not adequately analyze Project's impacts on water supply because, although it acknowledged that the local water agency has issued an "Extreme Water Supply Warning" requiring substantial cutbacks in water usage, the DEIR concludes that adding 4,000 people to a City of 100,000 will have no significant impact on water supply. The DEIR, and the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) provided in Appendix J (PDF pages 4014 to 4187 of the Appendices), provide a thorough analysis of the Project's impact on the water supply and the water supply available to meet the Project's needs. As provided on page 3.14-14 of the DEIR, the "water demand analysis prepared for the Altair Specific Plan by [Rancho California Water District (RCWD)] shows the build -out of the project would increase RCWD's potable and recycled water demand by approximately 446 AFY and 99 AFY, respectively. The water supply projections are anticipated to increase through year 2041 despite drought and environmental restrictions; this is mainly due to efficiencies in water allocation management as well as use of increased recycled water supply." Thus, as demonstrated in Table 3.14-5 on page 3.14- 15, the projected supplies exceed demand until the year 2041, while factoring in the projected demand required for the Project. (2) The commenters state that the DEIR indicates that groundwater recharge and "local groundwater" will substantially contribute to the water supplies for the Project, but that there is no analysis in the DEIR as to whether the groundwater basin can sustain continued pumping, especially in the event of prolonged droughts. The DEIR discloses and analyzes the Project's potential effects on groundwater supplies in both Chapter 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality, on pages 3.8-30 to 3.8-31; in Chapter 3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment, on pages 3.14-1 to 3.14-18; and in Appendix J (WSA), PDF pages 4014 to 4187 of the Appendices. As explained on page 3.14-1 of the DEIR, the Project will obtain water from RCWD that consists of 33% local groundwater from the Murrieta -Temecula Groundwater Basin. As stated on page 2-2 of Appendix J (PDF page 4041 of the Appendices), Senate Bill 610 requires that Projects that will rely on groundwater must provide additional information conceming the adequacy of the groundwater supplies, pages 4-21 to 4-31 of Appendix J (PDF pages 24 1494639.13 4070 to 4080 of the Appendices) contain a robust discussion of groundwater in the Murrieta -Temecula Basin. (3) The commenters state that the DEIR's water -supply analysis does not adequately plan for the possibility that the state and regional water agencies will curtail water deliveries to the RCWD, which provides water to the City. The commenters state that the WSA recognizes that the Project will rely on deliveries of water, including deliveries through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), and that MWD recently reduced water deliveries to RCWD by 15%. The commenters state that there is no discussion in the DEIR or WSA as to whether adequate water supplies exist for the Project in the event that water -supply deliveries to RCWD are further reduced. A thorough evaluation of how drought restrictions may affect groundwater supplies can be found above in the responses to Response CL-28-FF(1) and (2). Responses CL -28 -GG and CL -28 -HH The commenters make five main comments: (1) The commenters state that construction operations will result in noise levels of 89 dBA and above, which is above the 70 dBA limit established in Temecula Municipal Code section 9.20.040. The commenters state that the Project will seek a construction exception under section 9.20.070 and, if the exception is not approved, the applicant will install noise barriers, state-of-the-art mufflers, and reduce the amount of concurrently operating equipment. The commenters state that, by stating on page 3.10-26 that these mitigation measures will be implemented if the exception is not approved, the DEIR concedes that these mitigation measures are feasible but, on page 3.10-27, incorrectly concludes that construction noise impacts are significant and unavoidable. MM-NOI-la is included so as to substantially lessen the significant impacts associated with construction noise. While some measures are available to reduce noise, given the nature of construction activities, and even with all of the identified mitigation incorporated, noise levels will remain significant and unavoidable. (2) The commenters state that the Project will violate Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) vibration thresholds, as stated on page 3.10-28 of the DEIR, but mitigation measures for vibration are inadequate and unenforceable. Specifically, according to the commenters' interpretation of page 3.10-29 of the DEIR, "MM-NOI-2b only requires the applicant to refrain from operating jackhammers within 20 feet of institutional structures" and that compliance is only "to the extent feasible." In addition, the commenters state that, pursuant to page 3.10-30 of the DEIR, MM-NOI-3 impermissibly defers mitigation of noise impacts by requiring compliance by the issuance of the building permit instead of during the CEQA process. The commenters cite page 3.10-30 to further state that both MM-NOI-2b and MM -N01-3 require mitigation "only if' noise standards are exceeded, and the DEIR is unclear as to who will make the determination that noise standards are exceeded. 25 1494639.❑ Regarding MM -N01 -2b, as stated on pages 3.10-28 to 3.10-29 of the DEIR, both MM - N01 -2a and MM-NOI-2b are implemented in response to construction activities that may exceed FTA vibration thresholds. Contrary to the commenters' characterization, mitigation is not limited to "require[ing] the applicant to refrain from operating jackhammers within 20 feet of institutional structures." In fact, MM -N01 -2b states that "operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities." In addition, MM-NOI-2a states that operation of construction equipment generating high levels of vibration "shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional structures" and that small, rubber -tired construction equipment shall be used during demolition and grading operations. It is also proper to require that these mitigation measures be feasible. (hi re Bay -Delta Programmatic Envt'1Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165 ("Bay -Delta") ["[A]n EIR need not study in detail an alternative that is infeasible or that the lead agency has reasonably determined cannot achieve the project's underlying fundamental purpose."].) To the extent that the feasibility allows some variation in application of these mitigation measures, the CEQA Guidelines provide that mitigation measures may specify performance standards that may be accomplished in various ways (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B)), and courts have recognized that a lead agency may retain the flexibility to tailor mitigation measures to fit on -the -ground environmental conditions (City of Hayward, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at 855-56). Furthermore, the DEIR does not state that these mitigation measures reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. Page 3.10-29 of the DEIR states that, although "[i]mplementation of MM-NOI-2a and MM -N01 -2b would reduce the possibility of exposing sensitive land uses to excessive vibration levels," this impact is significant and unavoidable after mitigation. MM-NOI-3 is not deferred mitigation because it is clear what performance standard needs to be met. On page 3.10-30 of the DEIR, MM-NOI-3 states that the applicant must provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent properties. If such standards are exceeded, design measures — such as erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances — shall be taken to ensure compliance with City noise standards. The CEQA Guidelines provide that mitigation measures may specify performance standards that may be accomplished in various ways. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) And courts have recognized that a lead agency may retain the flexibility to tailor mitigation measures to fit on -the -ground environmental conditions. (City of Hayward, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at 855-56.) The commenters do not state a specific provision on page 3.10-30 stating that MM-NOI- 2b and MM-NOI-3 require mitigation "only if" noise standards are exceeded. The DEIR states that these mitigation measures will be implemented, and does not require an additional determination regarding noise impacts before these mitigation measures are applied. (3) The commenters state that the DEIR does not offer any analysis of construction and operation noise on wildlife. The commenters characterize the DEIR as only generally referring to noise mitigation in the Biological Resources section, on page 3.3-61, and 26 1494639.13 stating that "wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards," on page 3.3-33. The DEIR evaluates the effects of noise on sensitive species in numerous places, including pages 3.3-33, 3.3-36 to 3.3-37, 3.3-39, 3.3-40, 3.3-43, 3.3-49, and 3.3-54. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1, on pages 3.3-36 to 3.3-37, requires that sensitive species be protected from noise, among other things, by construction setbacks. Construction setbacks will reduce noise, impacts. MM -BIO -1 further provides for the installation of noise walls or other noise attenuation devices if a qualified biologist in consultation with the City determines that a noise buffer is not feasible. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3, on pages 3.3-39 to 3.3-40, limits the idling of construction vehicles to minimize noise impacts. (4) The commenters state that "[c]ommon sense suggests" that siting the Westem Bypass in close proximity to the Project's residents will significantly impact the residents, and also state parenthetically that there will also be impacts on wildlife. The commenters interpret the DEIR to mean that residential development may occur "immediately nest to the Western Bypass" or within a few feet of a highway." The commenters further state that MM-NOI-5, on page 3.10-36, would allow siting close to Western Bypass because "unspecified `other measures' would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. The DEIR is not required to assess the impacts of the environment (i.e., existing noise or project noise) on the Project or the health and safety of the Project's future residents. (California Bldg. Indus. Assn., supra, 62 Cal. 4th at 387.) Furthermore, the commenters mischaracterize MM-NOI-5, which states that the "other measures" to reduce noise "includ[e], but [are] not limited to, greater setback distances, the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping." Regarding the commenters' parenthetical reference to impacts on wildlife, the focus of the comment is on residential development and the commenters do not identify any specific impact on wildlife that will occur due to siting a residential development close to a highway. (5) The commenters state that the DEIR defers analysis of noise impacts from foreseeable uses of the Project's civil portion, such as student housing and its "attendant parties, noise, and late-night activities." The DEIR is not required to include a detailed analysis of every potential use of the Project's civil portion. If a future proposed use substantially deviates from the impacts analyzed in the DEIR for the Project's civil portion and presents new or unmitigated impacts, additional environmental review will be conducted in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Response CL -28 -II The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters state that the MDX model used data from mixed-use developments with substantial employment centers such that people can live and work in the same place. The commenters state that, because the City is a bedroom community and the 27 1494639.13 majority of residents commute to San Diego, and Project residents will need to commute to jobs in other cities to afford their residences, the MDX model is not appropriate to assess the traffic impacts of the Project. The City of Temecula has a substantial local jobs base and is not considered a bedroom community. Several large corporations have major operations based in Temecula and numerous smaller companies and public entities employ residents from the local area. A mixed -used development (MXD) trip generation model was used to estimate the trip generation for existing conditions and the proposed project. The MXD trip generation method utilizes raw ITE trip generation estimates and then determines internalization, bike/walk, and transit credits based on built environment variables (also known as Ds) such as design of the project, diversity of uses, demographics, density of uses, distance to transit, destination accessibility, etc. This method provides a much more accurate estimate of external trip generation than ITE trip rates alone. The MXD Model Documentation includes approximately 20 pages of support information related to the creation of the MXD+ trip generation modeling. As discussed therein, the MXD+ model is based upon two earlier trip generation studies including (1) the National Cooperative Highway Research program (NCHRP) Report 684, and (2) the US EPA sponsored Report "Traffic Generated by Mixed -Use Developments — A Six -Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures" which in turn was based upon a study of 239 Mixed Use Developments and verified through 27 mixed use sites across the U.S (2) The commenters state that the accuracy of the traffic analysis cannot be determined, because the DEIR does not disclose the average trip length or the average vehicle miles travelled (VMT). VMT analysis is not yet required as a metric for evaluating traffic impacts, and the City is afforded deference in selecting a methodology for determining significance in traffic impacts. Response CL -28 -JJ The commenters state that the DEIR does not specify the study area for traffic impacts or provide analysis of the regional traffic impacts of adding thousands of cars to the Temecula/I-15 corridor, as required by Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 575. As explained on page 3.13-1 of the DEIR, Figure 3.13-1 on page 3.13-2 shows the Project study area and identifies the analyzed intersection and roadway segment locations in and around the Project area. The critical turning movements associated with Interstate 15 in the vicinity of the project site are on and off ramps at Highway 79 South and Rancho California Road. These intersections were evaluated in the Draft EIR and mitigation measures proposed to reduce impacts. The Draft EIR did not include an analysis of mainline I-15 freeway segments as the city does not have the authority to require mitigation/improvements to the state highway system. In addition, Caltrans indicated the following in their NOP comment letter: "Traffic impact analysis further away from 28 1491639.13 the project is typically not required because a project's impacts to the SHS dissipate to less than significant levels as traffic disperses throughout the transportation system". Response CL -28 -KK The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR states on page 3.13-18 that the Project will violate applicable levels of service (LOS) in the General Plan, but that the DEIR does not provide facts or analysis supporting its conclusion that "signal timing optimization" will reduce impacts to less -than -significant levels. Page 3.13-18 of the DEIR addresses the LOS and the applicable mitigation measure, MM -TRA -3. The DEIR states that development of the specific plan will cause the level of service at Intersection #10 (namely, the intersection of I-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway) to degrade to a LOS F "during the PM peak hour." MM -TRA -3 provides that, prior to the first building permit in Phase 3 of the Project being issued, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for signal timing optimization at Intersection #10. The signal timing optimization will include phase timings and cycle length to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes at Intersection #10, and will be approved by the City Engineer and implemented in coordination with Caltrans. In its discretion to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, the City properly determined MM -TRA -3 to be effective in mitigating the impact on LOS at Intersection #10 during the peak afternoon hour. (1) The commenters state that the Project "may violate" Circulation Element Policy 1.1, which requires the City to strive to maintain a minimum LOS of LOS D. The commenters state that the DEIR indicates that it will not maintain such a minimum LOS at pages 3.13-16 and 3.13-23, and that mitigation measures MM -TRA -1 through MM - TRA -7 "do not demonstrate that the City is taking achievement of LOS D seriously." Page 3.9-27 of the DEIR states that the goal of the Circulation Element is to "[s]trive to maintain" LOS D at intersection within the City during peak hours and, as such, is a "best efforts" policy. On the same page of the DEIR, Policy 1.1 requires "[u]se [of] the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and implementation of the City's roadway system, including appropriate road width and median transitions when a roadway classification changes," and the Project is determined to be consistent with Policy 1.1 because "[t]he project will comply with the Circulation Element's Roadway Plan, as applicable." The commenters do not identify any specific reason why the Project will not comply with the Circulation Element's Roadway Plan or any specific reason why the mitigation measures chosen by the City "do not demonstrate that the City is taking achievement of LOS D seriously." Response CL -28 -LL The commenters make two main comments: 29 1494639.13 (1) The commenters state that, on page 3.13-31 of the DEIR, MM -TRA -14 improperly defers mitigation of traffic impacts because it only requires that development of a Construction Traffic Management Plan be prior to issuance of a building or grading permit, and that such deferral "shuts the public out of the environmental review process." The commenters state that the description of MM -TRA -14 states that the Plan "shall" require certain implementation measures, but the implementation measures or vaguely worded (for example, the commenters emphasize that the "applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary") or require only coordination with the City. Mitigation measure MM -TRA -14, on page 3.13-31 of the DEIR, states that the project applicant shall prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan or Plans for review and approval as part of the application for any grading or construction permit, and that such Plan or Plans shall, "[a]t a minimum," include three implementation measures. The commenters focus on the second two of these three mandatory implementation measures, both of which provide specific measures that will be taken to reduce the impacts of construction traffic: the measure requiring provision of necessary traffic control activities and personnel, and provides examples of potential activities and personnel, if a temporary road or lane closure is necessary during construction; and the measure requiring designation of proper detour routes and signage in coordinate with the affected jurisdictions if a road closer is required. Furthermore, MM -TRA -14 includes mandatory measures while allowing the flexibility necessary to best respond to a particular road or lane closure. The CEQA Guidelines provide that mitigation measures may specify performance standards that may be accomplished in various ways. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) And courts have recognized that a lead agency may retain the flexibility to tailor mitigation measures to fit on -the -ground environmental conditions. (City of Hayward, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at 855-56.) (2) The commenters state that the DEIR proposes widening roads to mitigate Project impacts, such as on page 3.13-27, but that the DEIR does not appear to analyze the impacts of such road -widening projects. The commenters cite the road widening referenced on page 3.13-27 in relation to Impact TRA- 11. Impact TRA -11 determines that road widening of Temecula Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane is not feasible due to right-of-way constraints at the location, and that the impact is thus significant and unavoidable. Therefore, there is no need for the DEIR to analyze the impacts of road -widening improvements that will not occur. Response CL -28 -MM The comment is noted. The comment consists of legal background and does not require a response. Response CL -28 -NN The commenters state that Table 4-1 of the DEIR contains a list of additional, foreseeable projects, but the DEIR does not discuss potential impacts of these projects anywhere else in the 30 1.194639.13 cumulative -impacts analysis, does not state whether these are all the nearby related projects, does not adequately explain how these projects were selected, and does not analyze the foreseeable cumulative impacts associated with these projects. The commenters state that DEIR must be recirculated and include an adequate analysis of additional cumulative impacts resulting from the Project as well as the foreseeable projects identified. On pages 4-4 to 4-20 of the DEIR, Table 4-1 and the following Section of the DEIR, 4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects, provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the listed projects, as relevant to each specific resource area. The discussion of cumulative effects in an EIR "need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone" and "should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(b).) The discussion of cumulative effects in an EIR need not be "exhaustive" and a "good faith and reasonable disclosure of such impacts is sufficient." (Ass 'n of Irritated Residents v. Cty. of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1403-04 [internal quotation marks omitted].) Further, where the lead agency finds that the project's incremental effect on a given resource is not cumulatively considerable, or significant, the lead agency need only "briefly" describe the basis for its conclusion and why it is not discussed further in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a).) The analysis provided in Table 4-1 is sufficient and meets the requirements of CEQA. As stated on page 4-2 of the DEIR, the projects selected for the cumulative -effects analysis in Table 4-1 were the "current and proposed projects" in the City that could potentially contribute to cumulative effects. The commenters have not identified a specific project that was omitted from the analysis. Response CL -28-00 The commenters state that the DEIR does not properly define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic area, citing CEQA Guidelines section 15130(6)(3). The commenters state that the DEIR instead states on page 4-2 that the projects in Table 4-1 are projects "that could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts within the project area." The commenters further state that reference to the undefined term "project area" does not provide sufficient clarity regarding the geographic scope of the cumulative -impacts analysis. Section 4.2.1 Geographic Scopc, at page 4-2, of the DEIR describes the geographic scope of the cumulative -impacts analysis, and Section 4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects, at pages 4-5 to 4-20, describes the geographic scope for each resource area. The geographic scope of the cumulative -impacts analysis is described on page 4-2 of the DEIR, and is restated under the analysis provided for each resource area. On page 4-2, the DEIR explains that geographic scope "varies depending upon the resource area being evaluated (water quality, noise, etc.) and the geographic extent of the potential impact." For example, the "viewshed of the proposed project" is used for the analysis of aesthetics (see page 4-5), the entire South Coast Air Basin is used for the analysis of air-quality impacts (see page 4-6), and the entire watershed is used for the analysis of biological resource impacts (see page 4-7). Such description is sufficient. The commenters have not identified a specific project that was omitted from the analysis but that they believe should be included within the cumulative -impacts analysis. 31 1494639.13 Response CL -28 -PP The commenters state that, because the project -level air-quality analysis is inadequate, the cumulative -impacts analysis is also inadequate. The commenters state that the DEIR identifies potentially significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on air quality but does not state whether all feasible mitigation measures have been required. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not provide detail on the nature and extent of cumulative impacts on air quality or the proximate number of persons impacted. The project -level air-quality analysis is adequate. Please refer to the responses to comments regarding the air-quality analysis. Furthermore, all feasible mitigation measures have been required. In addition to all feasible mitigation for air quality, all feasible mitigation is required for GHG (see DEIR, pp. 3.6-17-3.6-19; FEIR, pp. 2-15-2.16) and energy (see the compilation of energy-related mitigation measures at FEIR, pp. 2-31-2-34.) Response CL-28-QQ (1) The commenters claim that the DEIR fails to define the scope of the cumulative impacts analysis because it does not specifically identify the watershed. The specific watershed of the Project, Santa Margarita River watershed, is referenced multiple times in the DEIR. (See e.g. DEIR, p. 3.3-7, 3.4-2, 3.8-1.) (2) The commenters state that the Biological Resources cumulative effects analysis does not provide any meaningful analysis of the various existing and planned development that will alter the ecosystems surrounding the Project area—and instead falls back on the MSHCP. The commenter claims that there is no guarantee that the other projects will comply with the MSHCP, and such compliance is irrelevant to whether the projects will cause cumulative impacts. The Project and the other cumulative projects fall within the jurisdiction of the MSHCP. As explained on page 4-7 of the DEIR, the "MSHCP requires any new development to pay fees to support the financing for the MSHCP, to be applied toward acquisition and management of Conservation Area land. The fees are intended to meet mitigation requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act, the federal Endangered Species Act, and the California Endangered Species Act." As a result, the DEIR permissibly assumes that future projects will also comply with the MSHCP. Finally, where the lead agency finds that the project's incremental effect on a given resource is not cumulatively considerable, or significant, the lead agency need only "briefly" describe the basis for its conclusion and why it is not discussed further in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a).) (3) The commenters claim that the DEIR inaccurately implies that the Project's cumulative impacts to biological resources would not be considerable since the Project would implement mitigation measures in the DEIR and claim that the mitigation measures in the DEIR only address the Project's direct impacts. As provided in CEQA Guidelines, 15130(a)(3), "[a] project's contribution [to a significant cumulative impact] is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement 32 1494639.13 or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact." For this reason, the DEIR's cumulative effects analysis appropriately references the mitigation measures imposed on the project to reduce impacts to biological resources, such as the funding of conservation efforts under the MSHCP. The MSHCP is directly related to a cumulative effects analysis, as payment of a fee into the MSHCP is used to support conservation efforts within the region to ensure that cumulative -level effects of various projects do not cause cumulatively considerable effects to species. (4) The commenters claim that the DEIR contains no analysis of how the Project, combined with other reasonably foreseeable projects, will impact water quality, water supplies, noise levels, habitat corridors, and protected species. The commenters claim that issues not addressed include disturbances to animals, litter, vehicular deaths, off-road vehicle use nearby wildlife habitat, noise disturbances, increased hunting, spreading of invasive species and erosion. The discussion of cumulative effects "... need not provide as great a detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone" and "should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130.) The discussion of cumulative effects in an EIR need not be "exhaustive" and a "good faith and reasonable disclosure of such impacts is sufficient." (Irritated Residents, 107 Ca1.App.4th at 1403.) Further, where the lead agency finds that the project's incremental effect on a given resource is not cumulatively considerable, or significant, the lead agency need only "briefly" describe the basis for its conclusion and why it is not discussed further in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a).) The discussion provided in the EIR is sufficient in the areas of biological resources, water quality, water supplies, and noise. Response CL -28 -RR (1) The commenters state that the DEIR contains no analysis regarding the cumulative impacts of the Project on biological resources and that there is no discussion of the proposed Temecula Creek Inn, which the commenters claim will severely constrain proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. The DEIR provides an analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources on page 4-7. As stated by the Commenter, Appendix C does discuss the proposed Temecula Creek Inn as further impacting Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. (Appx. C, pp. 40-41.) Contrary to the Commenter's claim, Temecula Creek Inn will not have an effect on Proposed Linkage 10. "Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 does not directly touch the project site and its western terminus is located at 1-15 approximately 1,800 feet southeast of the southern boundary of the Civic Site. Given the distance from the project site, and the fact that the linkage occurs entirely east of 1-15, no direct or indirect impacts to Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 are anticipated from the Proposed Project." (Appx. C, pp. 40-41; DEIR, p. 3.3-45.) Thus, the Project is not contributing to a cumulative effect. As to Proposed Linkage 10, the Project will implement Mitigation Measure BIO -6b, which will mitigate impacts to Linkage 10 to less than significant. Other cumulative projects would be required to adhere to and be consistent with the goals and objectives established in the MSHCP including those pertaining to the protection of Linkage 10. (2) The commenters state that the I-15/State Route 79 interchange project will impact much of the remaining acreage in Cell 7356, which contributes to Proposed Linkage 10. The commenter 33 1494639.13 also claims that the RCA asked the City to analyze the cumulative impacts of the 1-15/State Route 79 interchange projects, but the DEIR does not provide any analysis. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to provide an analysis of whether the project will "interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors." In addition, the MSHCP requires avoidance and mitigation measures with respect to specified mountain lion corridors. The I-15/79 Interchange project is included among the list of projects in the cumulative effects analysis. (DEIR, p. 4-5.) Response CL -28 -SS The commenters make three main claims: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR does not contain any meaningful analysis regarding potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality. The commenters state that the DEIR's statements that it will comply with existing regulations and permits are insufficient to demonstrate a lack of cumulative effects, as exemplified by the DEIR's recognition on page 4-10 that Murrieta Creek is already impaired. The DEIR contains meaningful analysis of, and sufficiently demonstrates less -than - significant, cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality. Page 4-10 of the DEIR addresses potential cumulative hydrologic or water -quality impacts in the Project area due to pollutant generation associated with residential, commercial, and industrial uses that could affect surface waters and increases runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. Furthermore, the DEIR does not base its conclusion entirely on compliance with existing regulations and permits, but recognizes that compliance with applicable regulatory standards can provide a basis for determining that the project will not have a significant environmental impact. (Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 933-34; see Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (201 1) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906 [`.`[A] condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure, and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance."].) Page 4-10 of the DEIR explains that "all reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Murrieta Hydrologic Area would be required to implement non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs, similar to the proposed project. These drainage requirements were developed to reduce the cumulative impacts to water quality, and to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality. For example, during operation, the cumulative projects would be required to maintain water quality through development and implementation of BMPs pursuant to the SDRWQCB MS4 Permit and City Stormwater Ordinance requirements, which would reduce potential impacts of each related project." (2) The commenters state that the DEIR should have analyzed the impacts of residential and commercial pesticide and fertilizer use on Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The commenters further state that the RCA, on page 9 of its 34 1494639.11 letter, warned that wildlife is at a great risk from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. Page 3.8-25 of the DEIR discloses, analyzes, and mitigates for impacts to water quality based on pesticide and fertilizer use. In addition, Appendix G is the preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the project, which includes BMPs for landscape/outdoor pesticide use at PDF pages 3496 to 3497 of the Appendices and internal pages 31 to 32 of Appendix G. (3) The commenters state that the DEIR ignores the foreseeable cumulative impacts on the waterways adjacent to the Project of additional planned development, such as Temecula Creek Inn. Table 4-1 of the DEIR, on pages 4-4 to 4-5, provides a list of all the projects included in the description and analysis of the foreseeable water quality impacts and, on page 4-5, the Temecula Creek Inn is listed among those projects. As explained on page 4-10 of the DEIR, "all reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Murrieta Hydrologic Area would be required to implement non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs, similar to the proposed project. These drainage requirements were developed to reduce the cumulative impacts to water quality, and to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality." Response CL -28 -TT The commenters state that the DEIR does not provided the required analysis of alternatives for two reasons. First, the DEIR's analysis of the proposed alternatives is inadequate. Regarding the No Project Alternative, the commenters state that the DEIR should have discussed the need for the Project and whether it can be accommodated by existing areas, and relying on a 2008 CAPCOA white paper and a 2008 statement by the Office of the California Attorney General, that the DEIR should consider an alternative relying on "higher -density mixed commercial/residential development projects on existing disturbed lands in order to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and encourage efficient delivery of services and goods." Second, the commenters state that the DEIR does not include a reasonable range of alternatives. The commenters state that the DEIR does not state whether any other sites are potentially available within walking or cycling distance of Old Town, despite stating that the objectives of the project require a site within "walking or cycling" distance of Old Town on page 5-4. Both of the points raised by the commenters suggest that the DEIR should have considered altemative locations, but CEQA does not expressly require an EIR to discuss alternative locations for the project. Furthermore, because both points relate to entirely different property that is not owned by the Project applicant, the commenters are suggesting that the DEIR should consider an alternative that is likely not feasible for the Project applicant. The DEIR need not present alternatives that are infeasible or fundamentally incompatible with the Project objectives. (Bay -Delta, supra, 43 Cal.4th at 1165 ["[A]n EIR need not study in detail an alternative that is 35 1494639.13 infeasible or that the lead agency has reasonably determined cannot achieve the project's underlying fundamental purpose."].) In response to comments on the DEIR, City staff and the Altair project applicant developed a Nature Center land use proposal for the Civic Site portion of the Specific Plan. That Nature Center land use proposal is Appendix A to the FEIR, entitled Civic Site Nature Center Use Analysis. As explained on page A-2 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use would consist of one or more buildings developed to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, a two-story maximum building height, and a pad elevation about 50 feet higher than current conditions. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this alternative land use would preserve a significant amount of the Civic Site as open space, available as habitat and for passive recreation. Appendix A provides additional environmental analysis to document potential impacts associated with the proposed Nature Center Use as compared to the Civic/Institution use already evaluated in full in the DEIR. As stated on page A-1 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use substantially lessens certain significant impacts of the proposed Civic/Institutional land use and will not result in any "new" or more severe environmental impacts that have not already been evaluated and mitigated in the DEIR. Response CL-28-UU The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR included only one alternative that is comparable to the project, Alternative 3, which mirrors the project except that it would relocate the civic use to the elementary-school site and remove the elementary school from the project. The commenters state that the DEIR did not consider a slightly downsized version of the project that could have accommodated both the civic use and the elementary school. The DEIR evaluates an adequate number of alternatives. On pages S-7 to S-8 and 5-4 to 5-17, the DEIR analyzes three altematives, a required no -project alternative where no development would occur, a no -project alternative where the site would be developed under the approved Westside Villages Specific Plan, and an alternative that would relocate the proposed educational/institutional use (e.g., college) to the area of the proposed elementary-school site (Village C) and the elementary school would be eliminated. Further, the City required the Applicant to consider a further land use alternative for the Civic Cite: a Nature Center Use that both meets most of the project objectives and further lessens the potential impacts of the project. (2) The commenters state that Table 5-2 of the DEIR concludes that Alternative 3 would not meet two Project goals. The commenters state that Table 5-2 concluded that Alternative 3 would not meet the Project goal of providing a civic site of up to 450,000, but that the page 5-14 of the DEIR states that a civic use of "up to 450,000 square feet." The commenters further state that Alternative 3 would not meet the Project goal of providing an elementary school accommodating 600-730 students, but that the DEIR could have 36 1494639.13 evaluated an alternative that retained the elementary school by reducing the amount of residential units. As stated in the discussion of aesthetics on page 5-14 of the DEIR, the analysis of Alternative 3 included the "introduction of an educational/institutional use with up to 450,000 square feet of building area" at the elementary-school site. Regarding the range of alternatives that could have been evaluated, see the response to (1) above. Response CL -28 -VV The commenters state that the DEIR employed an improperly narrow objective to reject environmentally superior alternatives. The commenters state that by requiring both the 450,000 square foot civic center and an elementary school, and refusing to analyze reduced size alternatives, the DEIR "essentially preordains the development of the Project as proposed." On pages S-8, 5-6 to 5-7, and 5-15 to 5-17, the DEIR considers Alternative 3, which would require that the elementary school to be eliminated from the Project. Thus, the City did consider alternatives that did not meet every project objective. Response CL -28 -WW The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR did not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives, including: (a) increased density with a substantially smaller footprint; (b) transportation - oriented design surrounding existing transit nodes or transit corridors within or adjacent to the Project area; (c) a low -carbon alternative that would actually result in lower emissions; (d) conversion of the land into a conservation or mitigation bank; and (e) mixed-use development combined with a greater preservation and enhancement of existing wildlife habitat. CEQA requires that an EIR include analysis of a "reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives" that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a).) However, an "exhaustive list of alternatives is not required, and the statutory requirements for consideration of alternatives must be evaluated against a rule of reason." (Marin Man. Water Dist. v. KG Land California Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652.) As explained in Response CL-28-UU (1) above, the DEIR evaluates an adequate number of altematives, including reduced intensity and reduced footprint alternatives. In addition, the Final EIR includes an alternative use for the South Parcel for consideration by the City Council, the Nature Center use. This alternative use would modify the proposed use of the South Parcel. A description of the Nature Center can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of the Final EIR, and Appendix A. Overall, the Nature Center use would provide more than a 95 percent reduction in maximum building size and a 60 percent reduction in maximum building height compared to the South Parcel civic (university/hospital) use. The Nature Center use adds 8.9 acres of natural open space and revegetated areas when compared to the civic use. The Nature Center use also precludes 37 1494639.13 night time uses, which will further facilitate wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek. As explained in Chapters 1 and 2, and Appendix A, the Nature Center use would be designed and mitigated to have a less -than -significant impact on mountain lion movement and population health and would enhance the use of the Murrieta Creek area by mountain lions when compared with the civic/institutional use. Furthermore, the commenters propose alternatives that are not feasible, fail to meet the fundamental project objective or most of the project objectives, or do not lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project. (2) The commenters state that the DEIR should include quantitative and meaningful comparisons between the Project's impacts and proposed alternatives' likely impacts, including analysis of estimated GHG emissions, quantified impacts to biological resources, water resources including water quality and water availability, and traffic. Under CEQA, the DEIR's analysis of proposed alternatives' significant environmental impacts requires less detail than analysis of the Project's impacts. The DEIR nevertheless provides a detailed analysis of proposed alternative's impacts. On pages 5-8 to 5-17, the DEIR provides a narrative discussion of each alternative's impacts, including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, GHG emissions and climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise and vibration, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and water supply assessment. In addition, in Table 5-3 on page 5-18, the DEIR provides a table summarizing the impacts and comparing each impact category for each alternative. The DEIR's analysis is thus consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(d). CEQA does not require that the DEIR contain a quantitative comparison of impacts and comparisons. In response to comments on the DEIR, City staff and the Altair project applicant developed a Nature Center land use proposal for the Civic Site portion of the Specific Plan. That Nature Center land use proposal is Appendix A to the FEIR, entitled Civic Site Nature Center Use Analysis. As explained on page A-2 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use would consist of one or more buildings developed to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, a two-story maximum building height, and a pad elevation about 50 feet higher than current conditions. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this alternative land use would preserve a significant amount of the Civic Site as open space, available as habitat and for passive recreation. Appendix A provides additional environmental analysis to document potential impacts associated with the proposed Nature Center Use as compared to the Civic/Institution use already evaluated in full in the DEIR. As stated on page A-1 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use substantially lessens certain significant impacts of the proposed Civic/Institutional land use and will not result in any "new" or more severe environmental impacts that have not already been evaluated and mitigated in the DEIR. 38 1494639.13 Response CL -28 -XX The commenters state that application of the three factors in Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 369 ("Napa Citizens"), indicates that the DEIR should have contained a "detailed analysis" of growth - inducing impacts, but that the DEIR spends less than two pages on growth -inducing impacts. The commenters further state that the DEIR's analysis of growth -inducing impacts did not mention the Western Bypass. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not discuss how the Project will lead to increased population and will likely require construction of new or expanded public facilities, which will then cause additional significant impacts including those on the environment, wildlife, air quality, and traffic. The analysis of growth -inducing impacts on pages 6-1 to 6-3 of the DEIR is sufficient. A generalized analysis of growth -inducing effects is sufficient because "`[n]othing in the Guidelines, or in the cases, requires more than a general analysis of projected growth."' (See Cover Valley Found. v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 227 [quoting Napa Citizens, 91 Ca1.App.4th at 369].) Furthermore, "[a]n EIR must analyze the growth -inducing impact of a project, including reasonably foreseeable consequences but not speculative effects" (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass 'n v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1265 ("Federation of Hillside")), and an EIR need not undertake a detailed analysis of later growth that might be facilitated by a project (Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 369). The need for public services, such as fire and emergency services and schools, is evaluated in chapter 3.12 of the DEIR, on pages 3.12-1 to 3.12-15. The commenters do not specify which other "public facilities," if any, will become necessary. The DEIR, however, need not discuss every conceivable future project or expansion that could occur, whether or not they may be facilitated by the Project. (Federation of Hillside, 83 Cal.App.4th at 1265; Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 369) Response CL -28 -YY The commenters state that the DEIR does not analyze energy conservation measures as required by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, including transportation energy impacts and the use of renewable energy sources as required by California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173 and the viability of adding renewable energy systems to the Project to mitigate environmental impacts. In order to further support and clarify the DEIR's analysis and conclusion, all of the information in the DEIR related to energy conservation has been compiled into new subsection, which can be found at pages 2-24 to 2-39 of the FEIR. Response CL -28 -ZZ The closing comment is noted. 39 1494639.13 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED FROM EHL AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY FEBRUARY 14, 2017 Response CL -29-A The commenters state that they appreciate the thoughtful workshops the City held on wildlife movement and the MSHCP, and that they recognize the positive urban design features of the Project. This comment is noted. This comment does not state a specific concern about the adequacy of the DEIR and a response is thus not required pursuant to CEQA. Response CL -29-B The commenters state that they and others have expressed concern that there is not sufficient distance between the main linkage via Temecula Creek and civic site uses, particularly uses that would involve nighttime activity, traffic, and lighting. Specifically, the commenters state that uses such as a hospital or university are problematic. There are two possible MSHCP linkages that relate to Temecula Creek. Linkage 13 relates to the linkage along Murrieta Creek from the confluence of Temecula Creek to Cole Creek. The western end of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 relates to the area of Temecula Creek at the confluence of Pechanga Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River, which occurs immediately east of the southeastern corner of the Project Site. Linkage 14 lies almost entirely east of I-15. Figure 3.3-4 of the DEIR shows the linkages near the Project site. Given the distance of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 from the project site (approximately 1,800 feet) and its location (east of Interstate 15), the Project would not have any direct or indirect effects on that linkage. (DEIR, p. 3.3-45.) As provided in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would impact wildlife corridors, in particular Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 through reduction in width and the effects of the urban/wildlife interaction, but would not preclude the use of these linkages for wildlife movement. (DEIR, p. 3.3-45.) Impacts to Linkage 13 can be reduced to less than significant based on the more intense use—a university on the Civic Center site—with the application of Mitigation Measures MM -AES -1, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -6b, MM- NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b, and MM NOI-3. (DEIR, p. 3.3-54.) In response to public comments on the Draft EIR and city council workshops, the Final EIR includes an alternative use for the Civic Site for consideration by the City Council, the Nature Center Use. A description of the Nature Center can be found in Chapter 1 and 2 of the Final EIR, and Appendix A. This alternative use would modify the proposed use of the South Parcel. Overall, the Nature Center Use would provide more than a 95% reduction in maximum building size and a 60% reduction in maximum building height compared to the South Parcel civic (university/hospital) use. The Nature Center Use adds 8.9 acres of natural open space and re - vegetated areas when compared to the civic use. The Nature Center Use also precludes nighttime uses, which will further facilitate wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek. The Nature Center Use would include 8.2 acres of undulating slopes that will be restored with native vegetation. When that acreage is included in Constrained Linkage 13, the width of the corridor expands to 40 1194639.13 between 356 and 1,050 feet. As explained in Chapters 1 and 2 of the FEIR, and Appendix A of the FEIR, the Nature Center Use would further reduce possible adverse impacts of the project on wildlife corridors and would enhance the use of the Murrieta Creek area by mountain lions when compared with the Civic Center Use. The commenter can also refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8 of the Final EIR. Response CL -29-C The commenters state that less intensive civic uses are viable, including a nature center with associated trails, which could lead to surrounding attractions, and interpretive facilities. The commenters offer to provide scientific input on such a use. The currently proposed land use for the civic site is the Nature Center Use that is analyzed in Appendix A to the FEIR, entitled Civic Site Nature Center Use Analysis. As stated on page A-1 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use substantially lessens certain significant impacts of the proposed Civic/Institutional land use and will not result in any "new" or more severe environmental impacts that have not already been evaluated and mitigated in the DEIR. As explained on page A-4 and depicted in Figure 1 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use includes a number of trails, including trails providing access to offsite locations. As explained on page A-4 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use would provide educational programs and/or exhibits related to culture, the natural environment, and the sustainability of the region. Response CL -29-D The commenters state that they would offer to build consensus around the project, if an agreeable civic use is decided upon, and make a general reference to linkages across Temecula Creek and regarding I-15. This comment is noted. This comment does not state a specific concern about the adequacy of the DEIR and a response is thus not required pursuant to CEQA. 41 149439 13 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED FROM USFWS AND CDFW FEBRUARY 14, 2017 Response CL -30-A The commenters state that they are writing in support of preserving the 55 -acre South Parcel in a natural state, and provide a list of benefits that the USFWS and CDFW (the Wildlife Agencies) believe would be achieved through preservation of the site in its natural state, which are more particularly described in later comments within the letter. The commenters also refer to their previous comments on the Draft EIR and re -state that they have concerns with the project. The comment does not identify any deficiency in the Draft EIR. The previous comments submitted by the Wildlife Agencies on the Draft EIR are addressed in the Final EIR Responses to Comments. As described in the Final EIR, as well as in previous responses to comments in this Technical Memorandum, in response to public comments received on the Draft EIR the City Council directed City Staff to evaluate an alternative use for the South Parcel known as the Nature Center Use, which would consist of one or more buildings developed to a maximum of 20,000 square feet and a two-story maximum building height. The Nature Center pad elevation would be about 50 feet higher than current conditions. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this altemative land use would preserve a significant amount of the Civic Site as open space, available as habitat and passive recreation. Implementation of the Nature Center land use would result in a 95 percent or greater reduction of the maximum allowable building size and a 60 percent reduction in the maximum building height. In addition, the Nature Center Use would limit the amount of permitted uses on the site to just this land use. As described in the FEIR and in Appendix A to the FEIR, the Nature Center Use would reduce impacts to the mountain lion as well as wildlife corridors. Specific responses to the issues concerning MSHCP consistency, Linkages 10 and 14, mountain lion impacts, and conservation of pond turtle habitat are addressed in Responses CL -30-B to CL - 30 -F. Response CL -30-B The commenters state that the Project was found to be inconsistent with the MSHCP by the Westem Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), the USFWS, and CDFW because it proposes development in an area primarily described for conservation and is therefore inconsistent with the MSHCP's Reserve Assembly Criteria. This comment was previously raised in comments on the Draft EIR. A Common Response to these issues is provided in the Final EIR in Common Responses 3.2.3, 3.2.4, and 3.2.8. As provided in the Draft EIR, and explained in Common Response 3.2.3, the project's biologists undertook a detailed analysis of the Project's consistency with the MSHCP at the Area Plan, Subunit, and Cell/Cell Group levels ("2015 Consistency Report"). (DEIR, Appx. C3.) As explained in the DEIR and based on independent review by the City and its biological expert consultant, it was determined that while the Project does not meet specific Criteria Cell acreage goals in every Cell, the Project would not preclude achievement of reserve assembly target 42 1194639.13 acreages in either Subunit 1 or Subunit 6 due to the availability of other undeveloped and rural residential lands for conservation. (DEIR, p. 3.3-64.) In particular, the analysis concluded that the midpoint acreage targets for Subunit 1 could still be exceeded by as much as 163 acres (15 percent) and for Subunit 6 could be exceeded by as much as 712 acres (34 percent) with available conservation in both subunits following implementation of the Project as proposed (DEIR, Appx. C p. 43), and that the Project would meet overall conservation goals for Proposed Linkage 10. (Id., p. 45.) Thus, the DEIR measured the Project's consistency with reserve target acreages on an Area Plan Subunit basis and the project as designed and mitigated is consistent with the adopted MSHCP. Response CL -30-C The commenters state that the size and location of the Project significantly narrows Proposed Linkage 10 and Linkage 14 at critical points and has the potential to significantly negatively affect the movement of mountain lions between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges and would negatively affect the MSHCP Conservation Area as a whole. The commenters also claim that a MSHCP Criteria Refinement is required if the Project is to be developed as proposed. The commenters also refer to the RCA's Joint Project Review (JPR) findings on the Project regarding MSCHP Cells 7355 and 7356. Finally, the commenters re -state the claim that a criteria refinement is needed. These issues were previously raised in comments on the Draft EIR. A Common Response to these issues is provided in the Final EIR in Common Responses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.7, and 3.2.8. In addition, as provided in Response CL -30-A, and as described in the Final EIR, the alternative Nature Center Use for the South Parcel would further reduce impacts to the mountain lion as well as wildlife corridors. Response CL -30-D The commenters state that development of the South Parcel has the potential to remove suitable upland western pond turtle habitat, a MSHCP Planning Species for Linkages 13 and 14. The Commenters note that MSHCP Conservation Objectives #2 and #5 for the pond turtle specify maintaining occupancy in 75% of 8 listed Core Areas and that Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek are two of the Core Areas listed for this species. They commenters also claim that the proposed grading for a development pad on the South Parcel would extend nearly to the edge of the creek and would remove nesting and overwintering habitat. Information regarding the analysis of impacts to the Western Pond Turtle is provided in Section I above under Response CL -28-P. As provided in that Response, while generally the western pond turtle is known to use upland areas, the specific site conditions at the Project Site preclude usage of upland areas on the South Parcel by the species. The presence of steep terrain along the portion of Murrieta Creek bordering the South Parcel likely precludes turtle usage in the area adjacent to the development footprint for either the University/Hospital Use or the Nature Center Use. Thus, no impacts to western pond turtles are anticipated on the South Parcel under either alternative. Additions have been made to the EIR to further support and clarify the DEIR's conclusion that impacts to WPT are less than significant. (See FEIR, pp. 2-8-2-9.) 43 1494639. 13 CL -30-E The commenters state concerns regarding placement of hiking trails within MSHCP linkages and specifically on the South Parcel. The commenters claim that the development of an interpretive center and hiking trails on the South Parcel, while less damaging than an institutional campus, would still attract human use into an area that currently provides live-in habitat for pond turtles and mountain lions that is intended to act as a linkage in the MSHCP conservation configuration and that human presence will discourage mountain lion use from the crossing under Interstate 15. The DEIR analyzed the potential for both direct and indirect impacts the project may have on the mountain lion, both for the project site as well as within the larger context of the MSHCP Plan Area. This assessment includes the direct loss of habitat, potential indirect impacts associated with increased human presence such as lighting, noise, and increased access to open space (such as hiking trails), potential impacts to linkages, and potential for further genetic isolation of the mountain lion in the Santa Ana Mountains. As provided in the DEIR, the project would impact wildlife corridors identified in the MSHCP, including Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, through reduction in width and the effects of urban/wildlife interaction; however, it would not preclude the use of these linkages for wildlife movement. (DEIR, p. 3.3- 45.) The South Parcel falls within both Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13, and would be set back approximately 900 feet from the Santa Margarita River. This linkage area provides an east -west connection that crosses beneath 1-15 along the Santa Margarita River that was assumed to maintain the gene pool and genetic diversity of the mountain lion population on both sides of the freeway as part of the review and approval of the MSHCP. However, based on radio collar data evaluated in the DEIR, there may no longer be mountain lion movement underneath I- 15 at this location. Current evidence suggests that the mountain lion population is genetically isolated from populations east of I-15 (Vickers et. al. 2015; Ernest et. al. 2014). In addition, there is a 100 -foot vertical cliff between the Santa Margarita riverbed and the South Parcel situated on the plateau above. Future buildings on the South Parcel would not be directly visible from the Santa Margarita River bottom. In addition, the project applicant will construct a 10 -foot tall berm and landscape buffer along the southern portion of the South Parcel, as part of the project, to screen adjacent conserved lands. (DEIR, p. 3.3-49.) Under the Nature Center Use, the southern end of Proposed Linkage 10 would be increased by 150 feet as a result of the shortened length of the graded pad. In addition, with the lower intensity use of the Nature Center Use and the elimination of nighttime activities, this use would enhance wildlife movement over the Civic Center Use. Information regarding the analysis of impacts to the Western Pond Turtle is provided in Section 1 above under Response CL -28-P as well as in Response CL -30-D. The specific site conditions at the Project Site preclude usage of upland areas on the South Parcel by western pond turtle. Thus, no impacts to western pond turtles are anticipated on the South Parcel under either the Civic Center Use or the Nature Center Use. Additions have been made to the EIR to further support 44 1494639.13 and clarify the DEIR's conclusion that impacts to WPT are less than significant. (See FEIR, pp. 2-8-2-9.) Finally, the commenters are also referred to Final EIR Common Response 3.2.8. CL -30-F The commenters refer to their previous comment letters on the Draft EIR to re -state that the increased noise, traffic, human activity, and risk of trespass are not adequately analyzed or mitigated by the proposed mitigation measures of berms, directional lighting, and vegetation for development of the South Parcel. The commenters state that impacts to pond turtle, mountain lion, and the linkage were not adequately addressed or mitigated in the Draft EIR. The commenters are referred to Final EIR Responses to Comments 3-A to 3-K, which correspond to the responses to the joint letter submitted by the Wildlife Agencies on the Draft EIR. With respect to mountain lion and pond turtle, the commenters are referred to Response CL -30-E above. CL -30-G The commenters summarize the points previously raised in the letter stating that they support conservation of the site to meet MSHCP goals and maintain the integrity of Linkages 10 and 14. The comment is noted for the record. Responses to specific issues summarized in this comment are provided above in Responses CL -30-A through CL -30-F. 45 1494639.13 RESPONSE TO EMAIL COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM EHL FEBRUARY 14, 2017 Response CL -31-A The commenter states that it reaches a different conclusion than the letter from USFWS and CDFW, dated February 14, 2017, regarding the compatibility with the Temecula Creek corridor with a small and peripherally sited interpretive center and trails for daytime use. This comment is noted. This comment appears to disagree with CL -30-E, which is addressed in Response CL -30-E above. Response CL -31-B The commenter states that, based upon conversations with mountain -lion specialists, the intrusion of noise, light, and activity during nocturnal hours inhibits corridor use by mountain lions the most. The commenter does not anticipate use of the interpretive facility at night. The commenter is referred to Response CL -30-E above. In particular, as stated in Response CL - 30 -E, the project would not preclude use of wildlife corridors identified in the MSHCP. As further stated in Response CL -30-E, the Nature Center Use would be a lower -intensity use and eliminate nighttime activities, thus increasing wildlife movement in comparison to the Civic Center Use. Response CL -31-C The commenter states that elimination of recreational use in a natural area immediately adjacent to a medium-sized city is not realistic, and that the real choice is between unregulated and regulated recreation. The commenter lists a properly designed trail system, signage, education, and interpretation as ways to regulate recreation, and states that proper outreach and education makes it possible to work with groups such as mountain bikers as long as some trails are provided. The commenter is referred to Response CL -30-E and Response CL -29-C above. In addition, as explained on pages A-5 to A-6 of Appendix A to the FEIR, the Nature Center Use would create 1.15 miles of new trails, and provide educational programs and/or exhibits related to culture, the natural environment, and the sustainability of the region. Response CL -31-D The commenter states that ideally little or no recreation or human activity would occur within important corridors, but that carefully controlled use is preferred in this peri -urban location. The commenter states that, if limited open spaces are used, it would urge ongoing coordination with the Regional Conservation Authority and the Wildlife Agencies on procedures for MSHCP consistency. 46 1494639.❑ This comment is noted. This comment appears to be in response to CL -30-E, which is addressed in Response CL -30-E above. 47 1494639.13 40 1494639.13 Beanuse fire gooa SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 1892 Via Electronic Mail and USPS (w/attachments) Matt Peters City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 matt.petersac itvo ftemecu la.org Comment Letter 28 Cougar Connection Re: Altair Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2014111029 Dear Mr. Peters: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the "Center"), the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Cougar Connection (collectively, the "Conservation Groups") regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Altair Specific Plan (the "Project"). The Project is anticipated to result in many significant environmental impacts that will degrade the current ecosystems on the Project site, interfere with mountain lion movement, and reduce the health and quality of life in the surrounding community. Yet, the CEQA mandated environmental review for the Project is wholly inadequate and fails to comply with the requirements of the statute. For the reasons detailed below, we urge approval of the Project be denied, or at the very least substantial revisions to the DEIR to better analyze, mitigate or avoid the Project's significant environmental impacts. The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over one million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Riverside County. The Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization of over 700,000 members dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; to educating and enlisting humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful means to carry out these objectives. The Sierra Club reports that over 190,000 members reside in California. The San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club focuses on issues within the inland empire, including Riverside County. 28-A Alaska . Arizona . California . Florida . Minnesota . Nevada . New Mexico. New York . Oregon . Vermont. Washington, DC P.O. Box 710. Tucson, AZ 85702-0710 tel: (520) 623.5252 fax: (520) 623.9797 wwwBiologicalDiversily.org Comment Letter 28 Cougar Connection is a non-profit, public interest organization that is dedicated to the preservation of Puma concolor, Cougar populations. open space, wildlife connectivity, and public education. I. The Current Project Description Does Not Represent The True Scope Of The Project And Is Misleading. T Under CEQA, a "project" is defined as "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment ...." (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1222 (citing CEQA Guidelines § 15378, subd. (a).) An "accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (Cnty. of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193; (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 655 (project description held unstable and misleading) [hereinafter "San Joaquin Raptor"].) "However, a curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input." (San Joaquin Raptor, 149 Cal.App.4th, at 655.). An inaccurate or truncated project description is prejudicial error because it fails to "adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project." (See City of Santee v. Cnty. of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454-55 [hereinafter "City of Santee"].) "Only through an accurate view of the project may the public and interested parties and public agencies balance the proposed project's benefits against its environmental cost, consider appropriate mitigation measures, assess the advantages of terminating the proposal and properly weigh other alternatives." (San Joaquin Raptor, 149 Cal.App.4th, at 655.) Here, the Project Description for the South Parcel is unstable. The Project Description does not specify what will be developed on the South Parcel, and instead lists a number of potential uses, such as an educational facility, office/research facility, convention center, hospital, or cultural center. Each of these potential uses presents unique impacts to the environmental and local community. Consequently, the DEIR provides no firm basis to assess the environmental costs and appropriate mitigation measures of the Project. (San Joaquin Raptor, 149 Cal.App.4th, at 655.) Traffic impacts will vary depending upon the nature and extent of civic uses at the site. In turn, the amount of traffic — including truck traffic — is a key factor affecting the extent to which the Project will contribute to increased air pollution. Moreover, the noise and light impacts of the Project will vary depending upon the actual development on South Parcel — for example, a hospital may result in emergency vehicles entering and exiting the hospital in both the daytime and nighttime. The sirens and flashing lights of these vehicles will interfere with the behavior and movement patterns of nocturnal wildlife, such as mountains lions. Yet, the DEIR fails to analyze or disclose any of the impacts of these foreseeable uses. As such, the DEIR fails to inform decision -makers and the public of the true scope of the Project from which all interested parties could assess the direct and indirect environmental effects of the Project. (City of Santee, 214 Cal.App.3d, at 1454-55; San Joaquin Raptor, 149 2 28-A 28-B 28-C Comment Letter 28 Cal.App.4th, 655; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 83-86.) II. The Project Is Not Consistent With The General Plan. T Land use decisions must be consistent with all applicable land use policies, including the General Plan and all of its elements. (See Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (201 1) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1552, 1562-1563.) Unfortunately, the Project is clearly inconsistent with multiple General Plan policies, as set forth below. A. Development of the Western Escarpment violates Community Design Element Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, among others. The Community Design Element contains the following policies: (a) Policy 5.1 requires the protection of hillside areas from inappropriate development that effects the visual backdrop of the valley; (b) Policy 5.2 requires the retention of critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space on the west edge of the City; (c) Policy 5.3 requires the establishment of a program to permanently protect critical hillside areas from development. The Open Space/Conservation element similarly contains Policy 5.1, which states that the Western Escarpment must be conserved through the development review process. The Project is directly at odds with these goals because it will result in intensive development of a substantial portion of the Western Escarpment. (See RCA Letter at 6 ("The project site is currently undeveloped and located ... in an area known as the `escarpment'.. . .").) The DEIR claims consistency with these policies by noting that the Project would retain 85 acres of land as open space. (DEIR at 3.9-1 1.) Retaining a mere 85 acres in light of the 270 -acre Project is inconsistent with these policies. B. The Project violates Open Space and Conservation Element Policies 3.2, 3.3, and 3.7, and Land Use Element Policy 6.3, among others. Conservation Element Policies 3.2 and 3.3 require that the City coordinate with relevant agencies in conserving biological resources and implementing the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"). (DEIR at 3.3-9.) As set forth below, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority ("RCA") — which implements and enforces the MSHCP — has informed the City in no uncertain terms that the Project will not be consistent with the implementation of the MSHCP. As such, the City is not coordinating with the RCA, but is instead frustrating the ability of the RCA to do its job. The DEIR does not set forth any facts demonstrating that it was coordinated with RCA, but instead offers the conclusory statement that "the project has coordinated with the County and the RCA regarding the implementation of the MSHCP." (DEIR at 3.9-14.) The Project also is inconsistent with Conservation Element Policy 3.7 and Land Use Element Policy 6.3. which requires the maintenance and enhancement of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River to ensure long-term viability of wildlife movement corridors. The DEIR concedes that the Project "could" impede wildlife movement at 3 28-C 28-D 28-E Comment Letter 28 the intersection of Santa Margarita River and Murrieta Creek, but conclusorily asserts that the inadequate mitigation measures discussed below will render it consistent. (DEIR at 3.9-14.) As noted below, RCA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") all dispute this conclusion. The Project also violates Implementation Program OS -9, which requires that all development proposals in MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages "provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts, and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance." (DEIR at 3.3-4.) Similarly, Implementation Programs OS -33, OS -34, and OS -35 require that all developments be consistent with the MSHCP. (DEIR at 3.3-5.) As discussed further in section VII, the enforcing agencies have concluded that (a) the Project is not consistent with the MSHCP; (b) the DEIR does not provide adequate biological assessments; and (c) the DEIR fails to mitigate significant impacts. C. The DEIR does not adequately explain the Project's consistency with other general plan policies. In Table 3.9-4, the DEIR attempts to claim consistency with all applicable general plan policies. Unfortunately, Table 3.9-4 does not explain in any detail how the Project is consistent with these various policies, and instead generally refers to mitigation measures. The DEIR also fails to offer any analysis regarding some policies, and instead states "Not applicable," without any explanation as to why these policies are not applicable. (See, e.g., DEIR at 3.9-12, 3.9-16, 3.9-19.) III. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze The Impacts To Aesthetics. The Aesthetics section of the DEIR contains numerous deficiencies and inaccuracies. For instance, the DEIR claims that the City "planned for development at the Project site and did not expect for it to remain as undeveloped, open space." (DEIR at 3.1-17.) This is misleading. The DEIR is correct that the Westside Specific Plan was approved by the City in 1995, and that the Plan would have permitted mixed used development adjacent to the Project site. (DEIR at 1- 1.) However, the City's 2005 General Plan contains the policies discussed above, which prohibit development on the Western Escarpment. To the extent that the Westside Specific Plan conflicts with the 2005 General Plan, the 2005 General Plan supersedes the Westside Specific Plan. (See Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 541 (a land use planning decision that was originally consistent with the general plan but has become inconsistent must be brought into conformity with the general plan).) The DEIR does not set forth adequate measures to mitigate the substantial light pollution caused by the Project. While the DEIR proposes a number of mitigation measures such as directing nighttime construction light downward (see DEIR at 3.1-18), there is no way to mitigation the light impacts of installing thousands of people in an undeveloped wildlife area. The DEIR fails to cite any studies or biological opinions indicating that the meagre mitigation measures proposed are sufficient to mitigate impacts on wildlife. (See DEIR 3.1-19.) 28-E 28-F 28-G Comment Letter 28 Furthermore, the aesthetic simulations in Figure 3.1-2 and Figure 3.1-3 do not appear to be accurate. These figures appear to downplay the actual size of the development, and also do not specify whether these figures depict the Project with a four to five story buildout, as discussed in the Project Description section. The figures also appear to have omitted to the Western Bypass. In any event, the DEIR is wrong in claiming that scenic views of the hills and Western Escarpment will not be impacted by the Project. (See DEIR 3.1-17.) The DEIR admits as much sentences later, when it states that "the visual character of the project site would change substantially from undeveloped, open space to a high-density urbanized development." (Id.) Contrary to the DEIR's unfounded conclusion, such intensive development on the Western Escarpment cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels by "[a]dherence to the design guidelines and development standards ..... (See DEIR at 3.1-18.) IV. The DEIR Does Not Adequately Analyze The Project's Impacts On Air Quality. The DEIR's air quality impacts analysis is flawed because it fails to take into account all sources of air quality impacts resulting from the Project and fails to adopt all feasible measures to reduce the Project's significant air quality impacts. Californians experience the worst air quality in the nation, with annual health and economic impacts estimated at 8,800 deaths and $71 billion per year. (Cayan 2006.) The Project will further degrade the region's air quality by generating considerable emissions from the construction phase, ongoing operations, and the many miles of vehicle trips generated by the Project. In particular, the DETR's significance analysis is flawed because it uses the "Localized Significance Threshold" or "LST" methodology. (DEIR at 3.2-15.) This is not a proper threshold for this Project. According to South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), LSTs only apply to project that must undergo CEQA or NEPA review and "are five acres or less." I In contrast, the Project would develop at least 100 acres. The DEIR fails to disclose the origin of construction emissions data cited in the DEIR. More specifically, the DEIR sets forth a chart of "Proposed Regional Construction Emissions" with various statistics which are described as estimated maximum daily emissions. Yet, the DEIR does not explain how these statistics were calculated, and instead lists the source as "ESA, 2015." (DEIR at 3.2-21.) Some of these statistics do appear on PDF page 1062 of the Appendices to the DEIR, and PDF page 104 lists "assumptions" that were used, presumably in calculating these statistics. However, these "assumptions are not explained in any detail. For example, PDF page 104 lists an assumption of "2 mile trip." Does that mean that construction trips were calculated as being only 2 miles? PDF page 105 contains an assumption that the calculations include "internalization reduction," but does not describe this reduction or explain its basis. South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Localized Significance Thresholds," (available at http://www.agmd.gov/home/reeulations/cega/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresho Ids). 2 The Appendixes document does not include page numbers, such that citations refer to the PDF page number. 5 n 28-G 28-H 28-1 Comment Letter 28 A. The DEIR fails to disclose or analyze the impacts of the Project on sensitive populations. The DEIR does admit that the Project would result in emissions above the SCAQMD significance thresholds, and claims these significant impacts are "unavoidable." (DEIR at 3.2- 23.) The DEIR warns that the Project's ROG and NOx emission increases could contribute to "additional air quality violations" or result in air quality levels that are unhealthy for sensitive populations. (DEIR at 3.2-24.) Nonetheless, the DEIR does not include any analysis, studies, or surveys to disclose the extent of these impacts on sensitive populations. The failure to include such analysis is a serious error in the DEIR, given that the Project involves the installation of a freeway within a few feet of residential developments and within close proximity to Old Town Temecula. As discussed below, the DEIR indicates that residential development may occur within 45 feet of the "centerline of the Western Bypass" (DEIR at 3.10- 45), meaning that residential development may occur immediately next to the Bypass, with no buffer. The Western Bypass also will be sited in very close proximity to the proposed elementary school, which will be occupied by approximately 700 children. Each of these 700 children are classified as "sensitive receptors." Numerous studies have documented the air pollution and health impacts associated with siting expressways and freeways in close proximity to residential development, particularly upon sensitive receptors such as children and the elderly. (Lin 2000.) Nonetheless, the DEIR fails to offer any analysis of these significant impacts associated with the Project. B. The DEIR does not require all feasible measures to mitigate the air quality impacts of the Project. In light of these major air quality impacts, "the EIR must propose and describe mitigation measures that will minimize the significant environmental effects that the EIR has identified." (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Napa County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 360.) CEQA requires that agencies "mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so." (Pub. Res. Code § 21002. l (b).) Mitigation of a project's significant impacts is one of the "most important" functions of CEQA. (Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41.) Only when the mitigation measures are "truly infeasible" can the lead agency reject mitigation measures for significant impacts. (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341, 369.) Here, despite acknowledging that the Project will result in significant air quality impacts, the Project includes only six mitigation measures (MM -AQ -la through MM -AQ -le and MM - AQ -2), most of which provide few specific details and lack adequate enforcement mechanisms. (DEIR at 3.2-23 — 3.2-28.) Mitigation measures must be "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures" so "that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development." (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass 'ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261.) Potential harmful environmental impacts from the mitigation measures, effectiveness of the mitigation measures and important specifics on implementation of the mitigation measures are all missing from the DEIR. Without the 6 28-J 28-K Comment Letter 28 incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures, the DEIR mitigation measures are insufficient and inadequate. The DEIR also fails to analyze and adopt all feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the admittedly significant air quality impacts of the Project. In particular, the DEIR fails to perform even a cursory analysis of available mitigation measures for reducing air quality impacts, such as those provided by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association and California Office of the Attorney General to reduce GHG emissions, which also facilitate the reduction of criteria pollutants. (Attorney General 2010; CAPCOA 2008). Those mitigation measures, as well as others, should be analyzed as a means to reduce the significant air quality impacts and fully adopted if feasible. For example, MM AQ-ld states that buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that render them 15 percent more efficient than the 2013 Building Standards. (DEIR at 3.2-24.) However, the 2016 Building Standards, which are effective on January 1, 2017 already require that buildings are 28 percent more efficient the 2013 Building Standards.3 Thus, MM AQ -Id is not even as stringent as existing law. MM AQ 2 similarly will do little to mitigate air pollution or protect sensitive populations from health impacts. The DEIR admits that construction emissions may cause significant impacts to sensitive receptors, but does not attempt to quantify these impacts. (DEIR at 3.2-27.) The DEIR claims that MM AQ 2 — which requires watering of the construction site — will render these impacts less than significant. The DEIR fails to cite any studies or analysis supporting this conclusion that mere watering will reduce such impacts to less than significance. C. The DEIR fails to cite substantial evidence in claiming that consistency with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan renders the Project consistent with the AQMP. The DEIR claims that (I) because the Southern California Association of Governments' ("SCAG") regional growth forecasts are based upon regional land use plans, then a project that is consistent with regional land use plans is consistent with SCAG; (2) if a Project is consistent with SCAG, then it is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP"). (DEIR at 3.2-15 & 3.2-20.) The FEIR fails to cite any authority supporting the proposition that mere consistency with regional land use plans equates to consistency with the AQMP. Even if compliance with regional land use plans equated to compliance with the AQMP, the DEIR still is required to disclose, explain, and analyze such purported consistency. 'See California Energy Commission, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions, (available at httn://www.energy.cagov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2016 Building Enerev Efficiency Standar ds FAQ.ndf). 7 28-K 28-L Comment Letter 28 V. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze Or Mitigate The Impacts Of The Project On Biological Resources. The DEIR must analyze and mitigation all impacts on special status species, including CDFW species of special concern. The CDFW defines a species of special concern as a species that, among other things, "is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status."4 CDFW aims to "achieve conservation and recovery of these animals before they meet California Endangered Species Act criteria for listing as threatened or endangered." (Id.) CDFW states that species of special concern "should be considered during the environmental review process." (Id.; CEQA Guidelines § 15380(b)(B).) An impact to wildlife is significant where it "substantially reduce[s] the number or restrict[s] the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) CDFW interprets this provision to apply to species of special concern. The City must mitigate significant effects whenever feasible. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 2 I 080.5(d)(2)(A).) The DEIR fails to adequately mitigate impacts to special status species because it does not even analyze or disclose those impacts. For example, the DEIR lists various special status species that were "not detected during various biological surveys" even though suitable habitat occurs the site. (See Table 3.3-3.) The DEIR never explains whether the surveyors were searching for these species or whether they were qualified to identify them. The DEIR even admits that many of these species have a "high" potential to occur on the Site; thus, there is a high potential they inhabit the site even if they were not observed during a survey. A. The DEIR fails to disclose, analyze, or mitigate the Project's impacts on special status plant species. San Diego ambrosia. The DEIR claims that suitable onsite habitat for the San Diego ambrosia is "limited," but concedes that 300 San Diego ambrosia individuals were mapped on the central portion of the site. (DEIR 3.3-12.) The DEIR claims these plants will be "transferred," but does not indicate to where they will be transferred. (DEIR 3.3-36.) This mitigation measure is therefore impermissibly vague. More importantly, this mitigation measure is unenforceable because the DEIR characterizes this translocation effort as a "voluntarily" commitment. (DEIR at 2-20.) Paniculate tarplant. The DEIR reports that Paniculate tarplant were observed on the Northern portion of the site, but does not provide any detail on how many individuals were observed. (DEIR 3.3-12.) The DEIR claims that impacts will be "less than significant" even though the Project will be destroying an unspecified number of Paniculate tarplant individuals. ((DEIR 3.3-36.) This conclusion is not based upon substantial evidence because destruction of a special status species or its habitat qualifies as a significant impact. Nonetheless, the DEIR offers absolutely no mitigation measures to limit this impact. ° See California Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Species of Special Concern (available at httos://www.wildli fe.ca. gov/Conservation/SSC/). 28-M 28-N Comment Letter 28 The DEIR also lists various special status plants that were "not found during various biological surveys." (See Table 3.3-2.) However, the DEIR does not indicate whether the surveyors were looking for these specific types of plants or qualified to identify them. This is a serious problem with the DEIR, given that the DEIR concedes that the site contains suitable habitat for these special status plants. (See Table 3.3-2.) B. The DEIR fails to set forth adequate or enforceable mitigation measures to protect special status birds. The DEIR concedes that the Project will have significant impacts on special status birds such as Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark. (DEIR at (3.3-36.) However, MM -BIO -1 only requires that clearing activities take place outside of breeding season "to the extent feasible." (Id.) As a preliminary matter, the DEIR fails to state whether the specified February 1 to September 15 date range is in fact the breeding season for all four special status bird species. Moreover, if clearing activities do take place during breeding season, the claimed 300 -foot construction setback can be altered to any length decided by a "qualified biologist." This does not specify what qualifications a biologist will have, or whether the biologist will be an expert on the bird species at issue. Even these setbacks can be ignored if "not feasible," in which case "noise attenuation devices may be installed ..... (DEIR at 3.3- 37.) MM -BIO -1 thus makes every accommodation for the developer if protection of special status birds is "not feasible," but nonetheless comes to the false conclusion that impacts would be "less than significant." More importantly, the broader issue that the Project will be destroying the habitat of these birds is never adequately addressed. Likewise, the DEIR sets forth weak steps to protect the burrowing owl, even as it admits that burrowing owls may be killed during construction activities. (DEIR at 3.3-37.) The DEIR ignores the fact that the Project would be forever destroying habitat for the burrowing owl. The DEIR claims that any burrowing owls onsite will be translocated, but fails to provide any facts suggesting that such translocation will be successful. (DEIR at 3.3-38.) In fact, there have been very few — if any — successful translocation projects for burrowing owls. In addition, while translocation could minimize immediate direct take of burrowing owls, ultimately the burrowing owls' available habitat is reduced, and relocated birds are forced to compete for resources with other resident burrowing owls and may move into less suitable habitat, ultimately resulting in "take." Additionally, the mitigation measures needs to explicitly include long-term monitoring of passively relocated birds in order to evaluate survivorship of relocated birds. The DEIR fails to take any steps to mitigate impacts on the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and the yellow warbler, which is a species of special concern. (Table 3.3- 3.) This constitutes a serious deficiency in the DEIR because both species have been documented on the Project Site, and will accordingly suffer habitat loss if the Project moves forward. 9 28-N 28-0 Comment Letter 28 C. The DEIR fails to set forth adequate or enforceable mitigation measures to protect other aquatic species, such as the Western Pond Turtle. The DEIR notes the Site's proximity to Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River, but does not contain an adequate discussion of aquatic species that may inhabit the streams or adjacent land. For instance, the DEIR only notes in passing the importance of maintaining water quality for the Western Pond Turtle ("WPT"). The WPT is never mentioned in the DEIR again, even in the section on Riparian/Riverine wildlife. (See DEIR at 3.3-31.) The only mention of the WPT comes in the MSCHP Consistency Report, which claims that no WPT or California red -legged frog ("CRLF") habitat will be impacted because the Project "lies entirely outside Murrieta Creek." (Appx. C at 34.) This is false because the WPT regularly occupy areas outside of creeks, as discussed below. The WPT uses upland habitat for hibernation and refuge. WPT also make wide-ranging use of their aquatic habitat, sometimes migrating more than one kilometer per year. (Pilliod et al. at 207.) WPT are listed as species of special concern because their numbers have decreased due to increasing habitat destruction and disturbance, especially from farming operations, and depredation from invasive species, such as bullfrogs and bass. (Jennings et al. (1994); Spinks et al. (2003); Pilliod et al. (2013).) Despite the WPT's use of both aquatic and upland habitat— which would constitute portions of the Project area — the DEIR fails to analyze, disclose, or mitigate impacts on WPT. Similarly, the DEIR claims that no suitable habitat occurs within the Project area for CRLF, Arroyo Toad ("AT"), or Mountain Yellow Legged Frog ("MYLF"). However, the DEIR does provide any facts, biological opinions, or surveys supporting this claim. Contrary to the DEIR, the Federal Register indicates that the Santa Margarita River and Temecula Creek both contain critical habitat for the toad.5 D. The DEIR's other mitigation measures are vague, unenforceable, and/or illusory. The DEIR does not set forth adequate mitigation measures to protect wildlife from polluted runoff. The DEIR merely states the Project will comply with applicable NPDES permits, and that "measures" shall be implemented to avoid discharge of untreated runoff. (DEIR at 3.3-32.) This is unenforceable and vague. The DEIR also does not comply with the request by the RCA that measures should be implemented to "avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas," including Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. (RCA Letter at 9.) Likewise, the DEIR contains no specific mitigation measures to safeguard wildlife from toxic chemicals generated by the Project. The DEIR again only promises that unspecified "measures" will ensure that toxic chemicals are not discharged into MSHCP Conservation Areas. (DEIR at 3.3-32.) The DEIR contains similarly vague mitigation measures to protect MSHCP Conservation areas from lighting, noise, and invasive species. (DEIR at 3.3-33.) 5 See Department of Interior, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad; Final Rule (Feb. 9, 201 1) 76 Fed. Reg. at 7249, 7264, 7308 (available at https://www. ppo.Rov/fdsys/pkp/FR-201 1-02-09/pd f/20 I I -1703. pd f ). 10 28-P 28-Q Comment Letter 28 By the same token, the DEIR vaguely states that "Project impacts" could result in the Project being inconsistent with Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, and then lists a variety of mitigation measures that have limited or no relevance to the Guidelines. The DEIR should list each Guideline and explain how the DEIR will be complying with it. E. Neither the City nor the Applicant conducted adequate surveys for endangered species. The DEIR states that no surveys were conducted for amphibian or mammal species because the site is not in a Criteria Area Species Survey Area ("CASSA"). (DEIR at 3.3-34.) Whether the site is located in a CASSA is irrelevant to the City's duty to ascertain the environmental baseline under CEQA. The DEIR further states that various riparian plant species — including Lemon lily, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Mojave tarplant, Parish's meadowfoam, Santa Ana River woolly -star, and Brand's phacelia — occur outside the site and were not observed on the site. However, the DEIR does not provide any information as to whether suitable habitat exists on the site for these plant species. In addition, the DEIR does not indicate whether the surveyors were qualified to identify these species, or were looking for them. The DEIR nevertheless discounts the importance of these species and concludes that "These species are not discussed further in this EIR." (DEIR at 3.3-30.) F. The DEIR fails to adequately mitigate impacts on riparian habitat because the City has not prepared a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). The DEIR states that the Project will "permanently impact" 1.24 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat. (DEIR at 3.3-40.) The DEIR does not specify how these impacts would be mitigated, except that the Project would prepare a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation ("DBESP") per the MSHCP and a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan if required by CDFW. The DEIR states that specific mitigation activities — such as offsite habitat restoration of purchase of credits from a mitigation bank — would be determined through "discussions with the City, USFWS, and CDFW." (DEIR at 3.3-41.) This impermissibly defers mitigation. The DEIR similarly claims that MM -BIO -4b would require the preparation of a DBESP to address impacts to riparian habitat, but does not specify how the Project will actually comply with this DBESP. In particular, MM -BIO -4b states that the DBESP will include a "written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects" — this does not provide the public with adequate detail regarding this proposed mitigation measure, or explain whether the author of the DBESP has any authority to require mitigation measures necessary to keep impacts to less than significant levels. The City's refusal to prepare a DBESP is inexcusable because the RCA already requested a DBESP two years ago on November 10, 2014. (RCA Letter at 7.) The RCA also found various deficiencies with the HELIX's report; HELIX's report fails to (a) provide an "analysis of II 28-Q 28-R 28-S Comment Letter 28 the functions and values of the riparian and riverine resources on-site as required by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP" (RCA Letter at 8); (b) analyze the Project's impacts on Conserved Habitats or riparian species listed in section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, which include the AT, MYLF, and CRLF; (RCA Letter at 8); and (c) analyze the "biological equivalency of the mitigation relative to the functions and values of the riparian impacts on-site as is required in a DBESP." (RCA Letter at 8.) The RCA concluded that the failure to submit a DBESP renders the Project inconsistent with section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The Conservation Groups share the RCA's concerns and agree with the RCA's conclusion. MM -BIO -4b also defers specifying any ratios for mitigating riparian habitat and claims such ratios will be determined during the wetland permitting process. (DEIR at 3.3-43.) Similarly, the DEIR does not explain whether any specific mitigation measures will be implemented to protect onsite wetlands, and instead refers back to MM-13IO-4a and MM -BIO - 4b, and generally states that a section 404 permit will be required. G. The DEIR fails to adequately mitigate impacts on sensitive natural communities. The DEIR claims that impacts on sensitive natural communities will be mitigated to less than significant because the developer will be mitigation fees as determined by the City and the Project will "conserve" at least 82.77 acres in Criteria Cells. (DEIR at 3.3-45.) However, there is no evidence in the record indicating that this paltry amount of "conservation" will mitigate the extensive impacts of installing hundreds of houses on undeveloped land. VI. The Project Will Severely Constrict Wildlife Corridors And Interfere With Mountain Lion Movement. Dr. Winston Vickers — a well-known mountain lion expert — has already repeatedly informed the City of the serious impacts on mountain lion movement of the Project as proposed. He sent you an email on November 6, 2014, and wrote: 1 wanted to write to make sure that my professional opinion relating to the proposed Altair development is clear to all the parties.... the development is highly likely to reduce use of the escarpment by mountain lions. Adult resident males and adult females without kittens are expected to be negatively impacted to the greatest degree (significantly reduce use or stop using, especially certain behaviors), with similar negative impacts also expected for females with kittens and young dispersing animals but to a lesser degree than for adult males and females without kittens. Nevertheless, significantly reduced use is expected for a distance of a [sic] least 150 meters from the development for all classes, and for the entire escarpment for some. Development of the southernmost pad area is expected to have the most negative impact, especially on mountain lion use of the escarpment just north of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek. Movement in Temecula Creek toward the Temecula Creek bridge beneath 1-15 may also be negatively impacted by development at the southern -most site. Since this bridge is the only currently (possibly) functional safe passage under 1-15 for mountain lions that is likely to allow introduction of critically needed fresh genetic 12 28-S 28-T 28-U Comment Letter 28 material into the Santa Ana mountain lion population (and genetic exchange the other direction), any further reduction in its potential functionality is unwise at best.... The CDFW wrote separately to you on December 15, 2014 to reiterate the concerns expressed in Mr. Vicker's email. (See DEIR, Appx. A at PDF p. 80.) CDFW further stated that it expected the City to consult with Mr. Vickers. (Id.). The DEIR's conclusions regarding mountain lion movement are not supported by substantial evidence. The DEIR cites a study published by Dr. Vickers which found that impermeable barriers to mountain lion movements result in genetic restriction and demographic isolation of mountain lions. (DEIR at 3.3-47.) The DEIR concedes that both Dr. Vickers and HELIX anticipate reduction in overall suitable of Proposed Linkage 10 due to reduction in linkage width, and that reproductive behaviors would be most negatively impacted, or possibly eliminated. (DEIR at 3.3-49 & 50.) Nonetheless, the DEIR concludes that the Project would not preclude use of the Proposed Linkage 10. (DEIR at 3.3-52.) The only support for this "not preclude" finding is HELIX's "corridor" model. Yet, Figure 3.3-4 shows heavy use by mountain lions of the Project Site, as well as Linkages 10, 13, and 14. The utility of HELIX's corridor model is unclear, given that substantial data already exists which demonstrates that these areas are in fact used by mountain lions. The utility of HELIX's model further is questionable because the model presumes habitat suitability and habitat permeability are synonymous, even though they are not. (DEIR at 3.3-48.) In addition, the HELIX model does not determine whether a linkage is "viable," but merely where the "best locations are" based on the model. (DEIR at 3.3-48.) The conclusions of the HELIX study and model also should be rejected because none of the authors have demonstrated that they have any expertise or experience in studying mountain lions. The need to preserve the existing wildlife corridors is particularly great in light of the threats that the Santa Ana mountain lions are facing. A peer-reviewed study co-authored by Dr. Vickers concluded that Santa Ana mountain (ions have some of the lowest genetic diversity of all mountain lions in California. (Ernest et al. (2014).) The study warned that connectivity between the Santa Ana range and inland ranges may continue to be eroded by development near the 1-15 corridor. (Id.) The genetic diversity of the Santa Ana mountain lions will be further eroded if this Project moves forward, which may lead to the extinction of this population. The Santa Monica mountain lions are already facing imminent extinction because development frustrates their ability to maintain movement and genetic diversity.6 None of the proposed mitigation measures will ensure that mountain lions are able to continue to use the wildlife corridors in Linkages 10, 13, and 14. For example, MM -BIO -3 prohibits the collection of plants and feeding of wildlife, and requires daily trash removal and limiting construction equipment idling to 45 minutes. (MM -Bio -3.) Even if these measures are strictly complied with, they do not address the fact that the Project will bring intensive development into a wildlife corridor. 6 See Los Angeles Times, "L.A.'s mountain lions could be near extinction in 50 years" (Aug. 31, 2015) (available at http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sc i-sn-mountain-lions-threat-20160830-snap-story.html). 13 28-U Comment Letter 28 MM -B10 -7b is unlikely to adequately protect mountain lions and other wildlife. MM- B1O-7b states that permanent fencing along the Western Bypass will keep animals within the wildlife corridor. (DEIR at 3.3-53.) However, the fencing plan has yet been developed, and there is no evidence in the DEIR that the fence will be tall enough to protect mountain lions from jumping over it. The City should require that a fencing system which is similar to the system installed on the 241 toll road be used on the Western Bypass — the 241 toll road fencing is 10 to 12 feet high and runs two feet into the ground to prevent mountain lions from digging under it. The fencing should also have exit points and ramps in the event that mountain lions do find themselves on the Western Bypass. By siting intensive development in a wildlife corridor used by mountain lions, the Project will result in conflicts between mountain lions and people. Such conflicts often result in the killing of mountain lions, which will further reduce the genetic diversity of mountain lions in the area. VII. The Project Cannot Be Approved Because The Wildlife Agencies Have Concluded That This Project Will Violate The MSHCP. The Project should be rejected by the City because the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW all agree that the Project will violate the MSHCP. The Project will significantly interfere with the functionality of MSHCP linkages and therefore frustrate movement of wildlife, including mountain lions. A. The RCA has concluded that the Project will violate the MSHCP. On April 1, 2015, the RCA sent detailed comments to the City on the Project as part of the Joint Project Review ("JPR") process (the "RCA Letter"). The RCA issued the following conclusions regarding the Project: • The Project would preclude Cell Criteria for Cell 7164 from being met by making it impossible to conserve the mid -point amount of 120 acres on the cell. (RCA Letter at 3.) • The Project would preclude Cell Criteria for Cell 7166 from being met by impacting all remaining acreage available for conservation. (RCA Letter at 3.) • The Project would preclude Cell Criteria for Cell 7264 and Proposed Linkage 10 by conserving far less than the mid -point amount of 120 acres on the cell. (RCA Letter at 4.) • The Project would encroach into the negative zone of influence for mountain lion movement — which is one the primary objectives of Cell 7355 and Proposed Linkage 10 — such that it is in conflict with reserve assembly goals. (RCA Letter at 4.) • The Project would preclude the ability to meet the target conservation range for Cell 7356 of 88 acres. (RCA Letter at 5.) The RCA Letter further notes that the City should analyze the cumulative impacts of the I-15/State Route 79 South interchange, but the City has failed to do this. (See id.) 14 28-U 28-V Comment Letter 28 • Proposed Linkage 10 was intended to provide linkage for movement of bobcats and mountain lions, as well as live-in habitat for them. The Project will significantly reduce the viability of Proposed Linkage 10 for these purposes by reducing the width of Proposal Linkage 10 from 1200 to 2700 feet to Tess than 500 feet. The RCA further concluded that (a) the reduction in Proposed Linkage 10 was "particularly critical" because of the concentrated mountain lion use at the southern end of the Project at the confluence of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River (RCA Letter at 6); (b) the City's plan to offer MSHCP fee credits to the Applicant in exchange for 270 acres of offsite land is an "inappropriate use of MSHCP fee credits" since these credits are designed for onsite conservation (RCA Letter at 7); (c) the Project must be conditioned upon fencing of proposed Conservation Areas, and the fencing plan must be reviewed and approved by RCA, USFWS and the CDFW. The RCA's determinations are entitled to deference because, as the DEIR notes, the RCA oversees, administers, and enforces the MSHCP. (DEIR at 3.3-10.) The DEIR claims that the RCA has no authority to prevent the City — a permittee of the MSHCP — from approving a discretionary project. (DEIR at 3.3-10.) While this may be true, failure to comply with the MSHCP means that the City is violating the Federal Endangered Species Act, and — by extension — CEQA. B. USFWS and CDFW have concluded that the Project violates the MSHCP. In ajoint letter to the City dated April 15, 2015 (the "USFWS Letter"), USFWS and CDFW informed the City that that they concurred with the RCA's conclusion: "The Wildlife Agencies concur with the RCA's determination and consider the project to be inconsistent with the MSHCP criteria for reserve assembly in terms of both area and function. (USFWS Letter at 1.) The USFWS Letter further explains how the Project will degrade biological connectivity between Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 14 and preclude MSHCP reserve assembly goals. (USFWS Letter at 2.) Proposed Linkage 10 would be narrowed to 600 feet, which is not sufficient to provide movement for mountain lions and bobcats. (Id. at 2.) Like Dr. Vickers and the RCA, the USFWS Letter contradicts the conclusions of the Applicant's consultant, HELIX. In particular, HELIX ignored existing development in analyzing acreage goals for each Criteria Cell and improperly implied that the reserve assembly criteria can be discounted merely because the Western Bypass is a Covered Activity. (USFWS Letter at 2.) And while the HELIX acknowledges that the Project will inhibit the intended reserve functions, HELIX somehow arrives at the contradictory conclusion that the Project is consistent with reserve assembly and connectivity needs. (See USFWS Letter at 2.) USFWS and CDFW also disagree with HELIX's legal interpretation of MSHCP requirements. While USFWS and CDFW note that the Project would result in a reserve assembly shortfall of approximately 200 acres (USFWS Letter at 3), HELIX and the Applicant have concluded that "acreage requirements are not the only criteria used when determining overall consistency with the MSHCP." (See DEIR, Appx. C at 44.) USFWS and CDFW 15 28-V 28-W Comment Letter 28 rejected this conclusion, and clarified that "the other MSHCP elements are additive to the acreage requirements not substitutes for them." (USFWS Letter at 3, emphasis added.) In other words, neither the City nor the Applicant may evade acreage requirements by claiming that they are fulfilling other MSHCP-related goals. The City and Applicant's efforts to do so violate the law. USFWS and CDFW further concurred with RCA that the Applicant's proposed conservation of 270 acres near Corona (which the Applicant has claimed is "voluntary") will not address the target acreage shortfalls in Subunits 1 and 6. (USFWS Letter at 3.) Moreover, the City's attempts to offset the Applicant's purchase costs with MSHCP credits violates the MSHCP. (Id. at 3.) USFWS and CDFW note in their letter that they already discussed the conflicts with the MSHCP at multiple meetings with the City and "expressed strong reservations" about the Project. Incredibly, the City and the Applicant have ignored the USFWS and CFDW's conclusions, and are attempting to move forward with the Project as proposed. Given that all of the relevant agencies have already concluded that this Project violates the MSHCP, the City's self-serving interpretation of the MSHCP is not supported by substantial evidence. VIII. The DEIR Fails To Demonstrate Consistency With The MSHCP. In addition to the mountain lion movement issues discussed above, the DEIR violates the MSHCP in a myriad of other ways. As a preliminary matter, the DEIR states that compliance with the MSHCP provides assurances that the Project is in compliance with the Federal ESA and CEQA. (DEIR at 3.3-58.) By the same token, non-compliance with the MSHCP indicates non- compliance with the FESA and Federal ESA and CEQA. The Project accordingly violates both the Federal ESA and CEQA for the reasons set forth below: A. The DEIR does not cite facts, evidence, or analysis for its conclusion that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. The DEIR repeatedly claims consistency with the MSHCP, but fails to offer any real analysis or facts supporting this claim. For example, the DEIR claims that the significant impacts on Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 will be mitigated by Tight and glare standards, fencing, conservation of land, and adherence to noise standards. (DEIR at 3.3-62.) The DEIR does not cite any evidence supporting this claim, and the analysis of CDFW, USFWS, RCA, and Dr. Vickers cited above directly contradict this claim. The DEIR claims that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP even though the DEIR concedes that the Project fails to meet specific Criteria Cell acreage goals. (DEIR at 3.3-64.) The DEIR notes that the RCA has concluded that the Project is inconsistent with the MSHCP. (Id.) Nonetheless, the DEIR claims that in light of the "broader analysis set forth above," the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. This claim is not based upon substantial evidence. I6 28-W 28-X Comment Letter 28 The DEIR admits that the Project will have an onsite shortfall of served acres for impacts to riparian and grassland habitat, and states that these impacts are significant such that mitigation is required. (DEIR at 3.3-59.) The DEIR then states that MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, MM -BIO - 6a. and MM -BIO -6a will mitigate these impacts. (Ibid.) Yet, none of these mitigation measures has anything to do with mitigating grassland habitat, such that it is difficult to ascertain how they could mitigate impacts to less than significant levels. B. The Project fails to comply with the MSHCP Planned Roadway Criteria Guidelines. The DEIR incorrectly asserts that the Project is consistent with MSHCP Planned Roadway Criteria Guidelines. (DEIR at 3.3-64.) However, the DEIR concedes that the Western Bypass associated with the Project will result in impacts to wetlands, southern willow scrub, and other habitats. (DEIR at 3.3-65.) The DEIR lists percentages next to the acreage of each impacts, but does not explain what these percentages refer to. The DEIR also does not explain why it was infeasible to avoid these sensitive areas. (Id.) In addition, the Project does not appear to be consistent with MSHCP Planned Roadway Criteria for endemic plant species. The MSHCP states that narrow endemic plant species will be avoided, and if not feasible, then the Project will comply with the Narrow Endemics Plant Policy. The DEIR merely states that San Diego ambrosia will be "voluntarily" be translocated. (DEIR at 3.3-65.) The DEIR's claim that such translocation is "voluntary" is misleading because such relocation is mandatory, not voluntary. In addition, the DEIR fails to provide any explanation as to how the Project will be complying with the Narrow Endemics Plant Policy. The DEIR's position also appears to conflict with USFWS and CDFW's direction that the population of San Diego ambrosia supported on Criteria Cell 7166 must be conserved. The Project fails to comply with the MSHCP Planned Roadway Criteria Guideline for breeding season. The Guidelines provide, "Any construction, maintenance and operation activities that involves clearing of natural vegetation will be conducted outside the active breeding season (March 1 through June 30)." In contrast, the DEIR only promises that this condition will be complied with "to the extent feasible," and provides no explanation as to what constitutes "feasibility." (DEIR at 3.3-66.) The DEIR accordingly does not assure compliance with this Guideline. IX. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze, Disclose, And Mitigate The Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Project will undisputedly result in substantial greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. The DEIR concedes that the Project's 24,953 MTCO2e of GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance, and claims that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR at 3.6-15.) It is unclear, however, whether the 24,953 MTCO2e figure is accurate, as the source of the figure is not described; Table 3.6-2 opaquely lists the "source" as "ESA, 2015." (DEIR at 3.6-15.) The EIR should provide a detailed explanation for the 24,953 MTCO2e figure. 17 28-X 28-Y 28-Z Comment Letter 28 A. The DEIR improperly relies upon the discredited "business as usual" methodology. The Project's GHG emissions impacts analysis impermissibly relies upon the "business as usual" or "BAU" method. When the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ("CAPCOA") issued a "CEQA & Climate Change" white paper intended to serve as a resource to assist lead agencies in analyzing GHG impacts under CEQA, CAPCOA determined that significance analysis relying on reductions from project business -as -usual emissions, had "low" GHG emission reduction effectiveness and consistency with state emission reduction targets. (CAPCOA 2008.) Similarly, the California Resources Agency cautioned against using the Scoping Plan's "business as usual" objective to determine significance under CEQA in its Final Statement of Reasons. The Resources Agency specifically warned that "a comparison of the project against a `business as usual' scenario as defined by [CARE] in the Scoping Plan ... would confuse `business as usual' projections used in [CARB's] Scoping Plan with CEQA's separate requirement of analyzing project effects in comparison to the environmental baseline."7 Additionally, the Attorney General has argued that because the "business as usual" approach "would award emission reduction `points' for undertaking mitigation measures that are already required by local or state law," it results in "significant lost opportunities" to require meaningful mitigation. (See Letter from California Attorney General to SJVACD re: Final Draft Staff Report on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA at 1, 3 (Nov. 4, 2009).) The analysis done in the DEIR flies in the face of the findings in the Scoping Plan, which recognize that local governments "are essential partners" in achieving California's emissions reduction goals, further highlighting the lack of legitimacy of the DEIR's significance criteria. (Scoping Plan at 26; see also Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Dept. of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 (compliance with existing environmental laws or regulations is not sufficient to support a finding that a project will not have significant environmental impacts) [hereinafter "Californians"].) Moreover, the DEIR's approach is not consistent with Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (hereinafter "Newhall"). Newhall held that the EIR must set forth substantial evidence that the project's "project -level" emissions reductions are consistent with achieving the state-wide goal of a 29 percent reduction from business as usual. (Id. at 225.) Newhall further explained that reductions based on "business -as -usual" comparisons do not comply with CEQA unless they are supported by substantial evidence on how the individual project, in its location supports of finding of less than significant. Accordingly, in order to adequately analyze GHG emissions under CEQA, the DEIR must include information and analysis how this Project's emissions fits in with local, regional and state level targets before making its less than significance finding. Moreover, while the significance threshold and analysis may have been based in part of existing thresholds, compliance with the law is not enough to make a finding of less than significant under CEQA. (See Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1107.) Instead "the EIR's discussion of impacts must "provide[] sufficient information and analysis to allow the public to discern the basis for the agency's impact findings. Thus the See California Natural Resources Agency, "Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action" (Dec. 2009) (available at htta://resources.ca.eov/cecla/docs/Final Statement of Reasons.ndf). 18 28 -AA Comment Letter 28 EIR should set forth specific data, as needed to meaningfully assess whether the proposed activities would result in significant impacts." (Sierra Club v. Tahoe Reg'1 Planning Agency (2013) 916 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1146-1147 (Sierra Club).) The DEIR does not contain an adequate analysis of this issue. For instance, the DEIR does not adequately explain why greater emissions reductions are not required for the Project, given that designing new buildings and infrastructure for maximum energy efficiency and renewable energy use is easier than achieving the same savings from older structures. (See Newhall, 62 Ca1.4th 204, 226.) B. The DEIR Fails to adopt any meaningful mitigation measures to reduce the Project's GHG emissions. Mitigation of a project's environmental impacts is one of the "most important" functions of CEQA. (Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41.) Therefore, it is the "policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) Although the DEIR includes a curtailed list of measures directed at reducing emissions and promoting sustainability, these strategies are severely limited and do not include adequate mitigation measures. The meager steps incorporated into the Project do not include effective enforcement mechanisms and omit many feasible mitigation measures completely. Except for assuming that new technology will reduce emissions in the future, the DEIR does nothing to explain or analyze how the Project will meet future reduction targets. For example, MM-GHG-1 states that the applicant will apply for LEED certification; however, the applicant "will be deemed to have exercised best efforts to achieve full certification even if certification is denied, and "no further action" would then be required. (DEIR at 3.6-18; S-19.) The DEIR also proposes to "mitigate" GHG emissions through prohibiting fireplaces, requiring low VOC cleaning supplies, and including an option for onsite renewable energy such that a mere 9% of onsite energy consumption is "offset." (DEIR at S -I9, 3.2-23, 3.2-24.) These limited mitigation measures will not mitigate the Project's GHG impacts, and the DEIR fails to demonstrate that stronger mitigation measures are not feasible. The DEIR similarly claims that the proposed mitigation measures will ensure that the Project does not conflict with applicable plans for reducing GHG emissions. (DEIR at 3.6-19.) Yet, the DEIR only provides general details regarding these plans — such as the CARB Scoping Plan and Temecula Sustainability Plan — and does not explain how the Project is actually consistent with these plans. (See Newhall, 62 Ca1.4th 204, 225.) C. The DEIR should include further mitigation measures to reduce the Project's energy demands and increase use of renewable energy onsite. Mitigation measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled, energy use, waste, water consumption as well as use of solar power could lower the Project's impact on climate change 19 28 -AA 28 -BB 28 -CC Comment Letter 28 (as well as air pollution and water use). CAPCOA has identified existing and potential mitigation measures that could be applied to projects during the CEQA process to reduce a project's GHG emissions. (CAPCOA 2008). The California Office of the Attorney General also has developed a list of reduction mechanisms to be incorporated through the CEQA process. (CAPCOA 2008 at Table 16.) These resources provide a rich and varied array of mitigation measures to be incorporated into the Project. Potential mitigation measures include ease of access to public transit, alternative construction materials, and onsite energy generation, as discussed below: In general, the EIR should consider mitigation measures that will ensure the planned community will use energy efficiently and conservatively. In doing so, it should analyze incorporating "green building" in the development. Green buildings are those buildings that lower energy consumption, use renewable energy, conserve water, harness natural light and ventilation, use environmentally friendly materials and minimize waste. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) Buildings create environmental impacts throughout their lifecycle, from the construction phase to their actual use to their eventual destruction. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) In the United States, buildings account for 40 percent of total energy use, 68 percent of total electricity consumption, and 60 percent of total non -industrial waste. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) Buildings also significantly contribute to the release of greenhouse gases. In the U.S. they account for 38 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) More specifically, residential buildings cause up to 1,210 megatons of carbon dioxide, while commercial buildings create approximately 1,020 megatons. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) This is because buildings require a lot of energy for their day to day operations. Most of the coal-fired power plants — one of the biggest sources of GHG emissions — slated for development in the United States will supply buildings with the energy they need. In fact, 76 percent of the energy these plants produce will go to operating buildings in the U.S. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) Using green building techniques, however, can substantially reduce buildings' influence in increasing GHG emissions. Green buildings help reduce the amount of energy used to light, heat, cool and operate buildings and substitute carbon -based energy sources with alternatives that do not result in GHG emissions. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) Currently green buildings can reduce energy by 30 percent or more and carbon emissions by 35 percent. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) The technologies available for green building are already in wide -use and include "passive solar design, high -efficiency lighting and appliances, highly efficient ventilation and cooling systems, solar water heaters, insulation materials and techniques, high -reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing. Specific mitigation measures for the GHG emissions generated by the Project's energy consumption include, but are not limited to: 20 28 -CC Comment Letter 28 • Requiring that the Applicant seek and obtain the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED or comparable standards for energy- and resource efficient building during pre -design, design, construction, operations and management; • Designing buildings for passive heating and cooling, and natural light, including building orientation, proper orientation and placement of windows, overhangs, skylights, etc.; • Designing buildings for maximum energy efficiency including the maximum possible insulation, use of compact florescent or other low-energy lighting, use of energy efficient appliances, etc.; • Reducing the use of pavement and impermeable surfaces; • Requiring water re -use systems; • Installing light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting • Limiting the hours of operation of outdoor lighting; • Maximizing water conservation measures in buildings and landscaping, using drought tolerant plants in lieu of turf, planting shade trees; • Ensure that the Project is fully served by full recycling and composting services; • Ensure that the Project's wastewater and solid waste will be treated in facilities where GHG emissions are minimized and captured; • Installing the maximum possible photovoltaic array on the building roofs and/or on the project site to generate all of the electricity required by the Project, and utilizing wind energy to the extent necessary and feasible; • installing solar water heating systems to generate all of the Project's hot water requirements; • Installing solar or wind powered electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid vehicle charging stations to reduce emissions from vehicle trips; The Project should further utilize the following mitigation measures related to construction: • Utilize recycled, low -carbon, and otherwise climate -friendly building materials such as salvaged and recycled -content materials for building, hard surfaces, and non -plant landscaping materials; • Minimize, reuse, and recycle construction -related waste; • Minimize grading, earth -moving, and other energy -intensive construction practices; • Landscape to preserve natural vegetation and maintain watershed integrity; • Utilize alternative fuels in construction equipment and require construction equipment to utilize the best available technology to reduce emissions. Rooftop solar power is the most energy efficient, least -environmentally damaging form of renewable energy available for the Project and is ideal for the Project's location. Nonetheless, the Project proposes only limited onsite solar energy. The Conservation Groups urge that on-site renewable energy be used to meet at least 75 percent of the Project's energy use. All other emissions should be reduced to extent possible, offset on-site and if that is not possible, offset using off-site mitigation. New construction, like this Project, has a unique opportunity to fully embrace and incorporate the use of renewable energy in its design, construction and operation. We urge the City to take full advantage of those opportunities, if it chooses to move forward with the Project. 21 — 28 -CC Comment Letter 28 X. The DEIR Fails To Disclose Or Analyze The Environmental Impacts Of The Project's Fuel Modification Plans. The DEIR states that the Project is "near" a "High Fire Hazard Area," but never discloses where this area is in relation to the Project. This fails to inform the public as to the fire dangers associated with the Project. MM-I-IAZ-1 states that the applicant will prepare a "fuel modification plan" prior to issuance of building permits. According to the County's Fire Department, fuel modification plans involve replacing native plants with drought resistant alternatives.s As such, it is reasonable to assume that these fuel modification plans would result in significant impacts on plants, wildlife, and other biological resources. Nonetheless, the DEIR does not provide any information regarding the specifics of these fuel modification plans, nor does the DEIR analyze the environmental impacts on biological resources of implementing these plans. The DEIR should include areas impacted by fuel modification plans as part of the development "footprint" of the Project, and be analyzed as such. Moreover, no fire clearance/thinning activities should occur within the boundaries of any federally designated critical habitat, open -space, natural area or wildlife movement corridor. Finally, fuel modification plans must ensure that no invasive species are planted as part of the plans. XI. The DEIR's Analysis Of The Project's Impacts On Water Quality Is Flawed. The Project will likely result in substantial impairment of the water quality in Murrieta Creek, as well as Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River. The DEIR explains that the Project will cause untreated runoff to flow from the Project site directly into Murrieta Creek. Untreated runoff often contains toxic metals, grease, trash, and other substances that are harmful to water quality and wildlife. Such dumping of untreated runoff is unacceptable, especially given that Murrieta Creek already is an impaired waterbody. While the DEIR claims that runoff from "developed" portions of the site would be treated, the DEIR provides no detail which portions of the site will be considered "developed" or what types of treatment the stormwater will undergo. The DEIR also is unclear as to what extent runoff will discharge directly into Murrieta Creek — on the one hand, it claims that runoff from the development will be "treated," but also states that "the majority of the project discharges directly into Murrieta Creek..." (DEIR at 3.8-19.) The DEIR does not include sufficient data regarding existing water quality conditions to provide adequate baseline information from which to assess Project impacts on local and regional water quality. All that is provided in the DEIR is a list of substances for which the Murrieta Creek is impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. (DEIR 3.8-3.) The DEIR does not provide information regarding any other substances, or provide adequate water quality information regarding Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River, which also are 8 Riverside County Fire Department Fire Protection Planning Section, "Information Bulletin," (April 8, 2008) (available at • http://www.rvefire.ore/stationsAndFunctions/AdminSopt/FireMarshal/Documents/Informational%20BulletinsilB 0 8-05 Fuel Modification Rev 1.pdf). 22 28 -DD 28 -EE Comment Letter 28 adjacent to the Project site. Without this data, the DEIR fails to provide sufficient baseline information that would allow the public to evaluate significant adverse impacts the Plan will have on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § I5125(a); Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.App.4th 310, 3! 5[hereinafter CBE SCAQMD].) The DEIR also understates the impacts on water quality of the Project. For instance, the DEIR concludes that runoff patterns during and prior to construction will be the same. (DEIR at 3.8-18.) This claim is not credible because intensive grading of the site is very likely to change runoff patterns; the DEIR later admits that the Project's grading activities will require four million cubic yards of cut and fill. (DEIR at 3.8-29.) The mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR are not described in sufficient detail to ascertain whether they will be effective. The DEIR states that "BMPs" have been proven effective in reducing construction runoff, such that impacts would be less than significant. This is not an adequate analysis; the types of BMPs that the Project will utilize are not disclosed, nor is the effectiveness of the BMPs. This is a serious inadequacy in the DEIR given the Project's close proximity to three different streams — Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River, all of which are home to aquatic wildlife. The "mitigation" measures set forth in the DEIR impermissibly defer actual development of the mitigation measures. MM HYD -1 states that a drainage study will be prepared and will verify capacity of existing drainage facilities. (DEIR at 3.8-19.) Deferring this study until after the environmental review process is completed leaves the public in the dark regarding the true impacts of the Project, and violates CEQA. Even after this study is conducted, there is nothing in the DEIR that requires the developer to take steps to follow the recommendations of the study. Instead, if the study determines that facilities receiving stormwater are insufficient, then "onsite detention would be considered." (DEIR at 3.8-20.) CEQA requires that mitigation measures legally enforceable, not just "considered." MM -HYD -3 also defers development of the Project's Water Quality Management Plan because the Applicant is not required to submit the Plan until immediately prior to issuance of building or grading permits. (DEIR at 3.8-28.) Furthermore, the DEIR claims that stormwater runoff would not cause a significant impact because MM -HYD -1 requires compliance with the MS4 permit. Such promises are not sufficient to demonstrate that the Project will not have a significant impact. (See Californians, 136 Cal.App.4th at 17 (compliance with existing environmental laws or regulations is not sufficient to support a finding that a project will not have significant environmental impacts).) Likewise, MM -HYD -2 and MM -HYD -3 — which require compliance with a SWPPP, "potential" BMPs, and the MS4 permit — will purportedly render impacts less than significant. (DEIR 3.8-21, Table 3.8-5, 3.8-26.) The Project must already comply with these regulations such that these "mitigation" measures are not additional to actions already required by the Applicant and the City. The purpose of the EIR is not just to explain how the Project will comply with existing laws; the EIR must disclose the Project's specific environmental impacts, and explain how these impacts will be mitigated. The DEIR fails to do this. 23 28 -EE Comment Letter 28 XII. The DEIR Fails To Accurately Disclose The Project's Impacts On Water Supply. The DEIR is the correct place to raise issues regarding adequacy of water supply under CEQA, and the proper occasion for decisionmakers and members of the public to challenge conclusions contained in a water district's Water Supply Assessment ("WSA"). (See California Water Impact Network v. Newhall County Water District (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1488 ("The lead agency has a separate and independent responsibility to assess the sufficiency of water supplies for the proposed project.").) The DEIR does not adequately analyze the impacts of the Project on water supply. On the one hand, the DEIR acknowledges that the local water agency has issued an "Extreme Water Supply Warning" which requires substantial cutbacks in water usage. (DEIR at 3.14-14.) On the other hand, the DEIR myopically claims that adding over 4,000 people to a City of approximately 100,000 (a 4 percent increase in population) will have no significant impact on water supplies. The DEIR indicates that groundwater recharge and "local groundwater" will substantially contribute to the water supplies for the Project. (Table at 3.14-5 and Table 3.14-1.) Yet, there is no analysis in the DEIR as to whether the groundwater basin can sustain continued pumping, especially in the event of prolonged droughts, which will become more common as the impacts of climate change intensify. Furthermore, the DEIR's water supply analysis does not adequately plan for the possibility that the state and regional water agencies will curtail water deliveries to the Rancho California Water District ("RCWD"), which provides water to the City and its residents. As the WSA admits, the Project will rely upon water deliveries from the State Water Project, Colorado River, and groundwater, including through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"). (DEIR, Appx. J at ES -5.) As the WSA further admits, MWD recently reduced water deliveries to RCWD by 15 percent. (DEIR, Appx. J at ES -10.) It is possible that MWD could further reduce water deliveries, or that the State Water Project could reduce or entirely eliminate water deliveries. Nonetheless, there is no discussion in the DEIR or WSA as to whether adequate water supplies exist for the Project in the event that MWD or other agencies further reduce water supply deliveries to RCWD. At a time when Temecula residents are subject to mandatory reductions in water usage, it is unfortunate that the City is pushing forward with a Project that will force Temecula residents to share their limited water allocations with thousands of additional residents. XIII. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Assess Or Mitigate The Project's Noise Impacts. The DEIR concedes that construction operations will result in noise levels of 89 dBA Leq and beyond. (DEIR at 3.10-23.) These noise levels exceed the limit in Temecula Municipal Code section 9.20.040, which prohibits noise exposure to residential of over 70 dBA. The DEIR also mischaracterizes section 9.20.040 by claiming that this section provides that people "should" not be exposed to these noise levels, even though section 9.20.040 actually mandates that people "shall" not be exposed to these noise levels. In any event, the DEIR concedes that 24 28 -FF 28 -GG Comment Letter 28 the Project's generation of these noise levels will result in significant impacts. (DEIR at 3.10-24 & 25.) The DEIR states that the Project will still comply with section 9.20.040 because it will seek a construction exception per section 9.20.070. If such an exception is not approved by the City, then the applicant will install noise barriers, state of the art mufflers, and reduce the amount of concurrently operating equipment. (DEIR at 3.10-26.) The Applicant would not be required to implement these measures if the exception is approved. (Id.) By noting that the Applicant will implement these mitigation measures if the exception is not approved, the DEIR implicitly concedes that these mitigation measures are feasible. Nonetheless, the DEIR claims that mitigation of construction activity noise impacts are "significant and unavoidable." (DEIR at 3.10-27.) Given that the DEIR does not even require all feasible mitigation measures, this conclusion is false. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be implemented in order to reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. The DEIR further concedes that the Project will violate Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) vibration thresholds. (DEIR at 3.10-28.) However, the DEIR's mitigation measures are inadequate and unenforceable — MM -N01 -2b only requires the applicant to refrain from operating jackhammers within 20 feet of institutional structures. (DEIR at 3.10-29.) The DEIR fails to present any evidence indicating that such a meagre buffer will significantly reduce vibration or noise impacts. Likewise, MM -N01 -2b only requires the Applicant to comply with this buffer "to the extent feasible," thus giving the Applicant license to ignore this requirement if the Applicant determines it is not "feasible" to comply. MM -N01-3 impermissibly defers mitigation of noise impacts. This measure only requires the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with noise standards at the building permit issuance stage instead of during the CEQA process. (DEIR at 3.10-30.) This improperly excludes the public from reviewing the environmental impacts of the Project and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. Just as with MM-NOI-2b, MM -N01-3 requires significant mitigation measures only //noise standards are exceeded. (Id.) The DEIR is unclear as to whether the Applicant is permitted to make its own self-serving determination that noise standards are met, or whether the City or some other agency would make this determination. The DEIR also fails to offer any analysis of the impacts on wildlife of the construction and operation noise generated by the Project. Instead, the Biological Resources section generally refers to the noise mitigation measures (DEIR at 3.3-61), which are vague, unenforceable, and do not provide mitigation to the maximum extent feasible. The DEIR generally states that "wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards." (DEIR at 3.3-33.) However, as discussed above, the DEIR concedes that the Project will exceed such noise standards, and does not mitigate these impacts to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the Project's siting of the Western Bypass within close proximity to the Project's residents will significantly impact the residents. The DEIR states that residential 25 28 -GG 28 -HH Comment Letter 28 development may occur within 45 feet of the "centerline of the Western Bypass..." (DEIR at 3.10-45.) Given that each side of the Western Bypass is two lanes (e.g., at least 24 feet), this means that residential development may occur immediately next to the Western Bypass, with virtually no buffer. MM -N01-5 does not even require compliance with this 45 -foot requirement, but gives the Applicant flexibility to install development even closer to the Western Bypass if "other measures" are taken to "ensure compliance" with noise standards. (DEIR at 3.10-36.) The DEIR then baselessly concludes that these unspecified "other measures" will ensure that impacts are less than significant. (Id.) Common sense suggests that siting residential development within a few feet of a highway will cause noise impacts on the residents (as well as wildlife). Finally, the DEIR defers analysis of the noise impacts of the various foreseeable uses for the Project's civic use portion — for example, there is no discussion in the DEIR of the noise impacts of the potential civic uses, such as student housing. Student housing — with its attendant parties, noise, and late-night activities — would presumably have greater noise impacts than a library. However, the failure of the DEIR to set forth specific plans regarding the Project makes it impossible to accurately assess the environmental consequences from implementing it, in violation of CEQA. (Sundstrom v. Canty of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296.) Even if CEQA did permit such non-specific plans to be set forth in the DEIR, the DEIR should have still analyzed the noise impacts of reasonably foreseeable uses, such as student housing. XIV. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Assess The Project's Traffic Impacts. A. The DEIR fails to justify its use the MXD model. The DEIR states that it utilized the "Mixed-use Development" or "MXD" model to estimate traffic impacts. (DEIR at 3.13-14.) The DEIR does not explain whether the MXD model took into account the reality that most Temecula residents commute nearly sixty miles to San Diego for employment. The DEIR does concede that there are only about 42,000 jobs in Temecula with a significant percentage of low-paying retail jobs and an average salary of only $37,178. (DEIR at 3.11-3.) Obviously, such low salaries are likely insufficient to support residents of the Project, such that these will need to commute many miles to other cities in order to afford their residences. Yet, despite Temecula's location far from employment centers, the MXD model used data from Mixed-use Developments in highly urbanized areas with substantial employment centers such as Sacramento and San Diego. (See DEIR, Appx. 1 at 34.) The DEIR accordingly fails to establish that the MXD model was appropriate to assess the traffic impacts of the Project. The DEIR does not disclose the average trip length or average of vehicle miles travelled ("VMT") for the Project. Without further information on how average trip length was calculated, it is impossible to ascertain whether the traffic analysis in the DEIR is accurate. Again, the DEIR fails to adequately disclose the Project's environmental impacts, as required by CEQA. B. The DEIR does not adequately study the traffic impacts of the Project on the surrounding region. 26 28 -HH 28-11 28 -JJ Comment Letter 28 CEQA requires that the EIR analyze the regional impacts on traffic of the Project. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 575.) Unfortunately, the DEIR does not specify the study area for traffic impacts of the Project, nor provide any sort of analysis of the regional traffic impacts of adding thousands of people (and thousands of cars) to the already -congested Temecula/I-15 corridor. C. The Project will result in traffic impacts that violate applicable levels of service. The DEIR concedes that the Project will violate applicable levels of service ("LOS") in the General Plan. (DEIR at 3.13-18.) The DEIR claims that mitigation measures providing for "signal timing optimization" will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. (Id.) Yet, the DEIR does not provide any facts or analysis supporting its conclusion that signal timing optimization will actually reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The Project also may violate Circulation Element Policy 1.1, which requires the City to strive to maintain a minimum LOS of LOS D. The Project admittedly will not maintain such a minimum LOS (see DEIR at 3.13-16 & 3.13-23), and the meagre mitigation measures set forth later in the Traffic Section (MM -TRA -I through MM -TRA -7) do not demonstrate that the City is taking achievement of LOS D seriously. D. The DEIR defers the development of actual measures to mitigation traffic impacts. As with other sections of the DEIR, the DEIR improperly defers mitigation of traffic impacts. MM -TRA -14 only requires development of a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. (DEIR at 3.13-31.) Deferring the development of the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan shuts the public out of the environmental review process. While the description of MM -TRA -14 does state that these Plans "shall" require certain implementation measures, they are vaguely worded ("applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary") or merely require coordination with the City ("contractor shall coordinate with the City ... "). (See DEIR at 3.13-31.) The DEIR also proposes widening roads in order to mitigate the Project's impacts. (See, e.g., DEIR at 3.13-27.) Yet, the DEIR does not explain whether the environmental impacts of these additional road widening projects are considered in the DEIR. It appears they are not. XV. The DEIR Does Not Accurately Disclose Or Analyze The Cumulative Impacts Of The Project. CEQA defines "cumulative impacts" as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355.) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project "when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b).) And while an agency is not expected to foresee the unforeseeable, it is expected to use its "best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably 27 28 -JJ 28 -KK 28 -LL 28 -MM Comment Letter 28 can." (CEQA Guidelines § 15144; see also City of Richmond, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at 96; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 428 [hereinafter "Vineyard"].) The purpose of analyzing cumulative environmental impacts is to assess adverse environmental change "as a whole greater than the sum of its parts." (Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 625.) Absent meaningful cumulative analysis there would be no control of development and "piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the [] environment." (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721.) A. The DEIR lists foreseeable projects, but then fails to analyze the cumulative impacts of the Project in relation to these foreseeable projects. The DEIR refers to a list of additional, foreseeable projects that may contribute to cumulative impacts, but the DEIR does not actually discuss the potential impacts these projects would bring to various resources anywhere else in the cumulative analysis section. (See (DEIR at Table 4-1.) The DEIR does not state whether the list in Table 4-1 constitutes all nearby related projects, nor does it provide any explanation as to how these projects were selected. The DEIR also fails to conduct any analysis regarding the foreseeable cumulative impacts associated with these projects. If the City lacked the information to conduct such an analysis, it should have at least attempted to obtain such information. The DEIR must be re -circulated to include an adequate analysis of additional cumulative impacts resulting from the Project, as well as from the foreseeable projects identified. B. The DEIR does not adequately define the geographic scope used in the cumulative impacts analysis. The DEIR does not properly "define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic area." (See Guidelines § 15130(b)(3)). The DEIR instead states that the projects in Table 4-1 are projects "that could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts within the project area." (DEIR at 4-2.) The term "project area" is never defined. This brief reference to the "project area" does not provide sufficient clarity to the public regarding the geographic scope of the cumulative impacts analysis. C. The DEIR does not disclose the cumulative impacts on air quality of the Project. As described in section IV, the DEIR does not adequately analyze or mitigate the air quality impacts of the Project. Because this analysis is inadequate, the associated cumulative impacts analysis also is inadequate. The DEIR acknowledges that cumulative impacts of the project could violate air quality standards or contribute to existing or projected air quality violations. (DEIR at 4-6.) THE DEIR claims these impacts are "significant and unavoidable," but fails to state whether all feasible mitigation measures have been required of the Applicant. As such, its finding is not based upon substantial evidence. 28 28 -MM '28 -NN 28-00 28 -PP Comment Letter 28 The DEIR also fails to provide any detail regarding the nature and extent of cumulative impacts on air quality, or the approximate number of persons who would be impacted. The DEIR's discussion of cumulative impacts accordingly does not serve its purpose as an informational document. D. The DEIR's analysis regarding the cumulative impacts to biological resources is conclusory and inadequate. The DEIR again fails to define the scope of the cumulative impacts analysis with respect to biological resources. The DEIR states that the geographic scope is the "same watershed" but then fails to identify the watershed. (DEIR at 4-7.) This is a critical deficiency because there are multiple watersheds that will be impacted by the Project and other foreseeable projects, including Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The Biological Resources section of the cumulative impacts analysis does not provide any meaningful analysis of the various existing and planned development that will alter the ecosystems surrounding the Project area. The DEIR instead falls back on the MSHCP, and claims that MSHCP consistency will ensure compliance with all applicable laws. (DEIR at 4-7.) Even if this Project were consistent with the MSHCP (which the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW concludes it is not), there is no guarantee that these other projects will comply with the MSHCP. And even if they did, such compliance is irrelevant to whether these projects along with the Project will cause cumulative impacts. In addition, the DEIR inaccurately implies that the Project's cumulative impacts to biological resources would not be considerable since the Project would implement mitigation measures in the DEIR. (DEIR at 4-4.) This claim is not based upon substantial evidence because the referenced mitigation measures are designed to reduce the Project's direct impacts; they are not designed to alleviate cumulative impacts as required by CEQA Guidelines 15130(a)(3). The DEIR also contains no analysis as to how the Project — combined with the various foreseeable projects listed on Table 4-1 — will impact water quality, water supplies, noise levels, habitat corridors, and protected species. Particular concerns include disturbances to animals, litter, vehicular deaths, off-road vehicle use nearby wildlife habitat, noise disturbances, increased hunting, spread of invasive species and erosion. None of these issues were adequately addressed within the cumulative impacts analysis. E. The DEIR fails to disclose the cumulative impacts on wildlife movement of foreseeable projects, such as the Temecula Creek Inn and the I-15/State Route 79 Interchange. As noted above, the DEIR contains no analysis regarding the cumulative impacts of the Project on biological resources. The DEIR instead references a list of projects in Table 4-1, and notes that the Temecula Creek Inn project could have significant effects on wildlife movement in Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. Nonetheless, there is no further discussion regarding the nature and extent of these impacts. Buried in the MSHCP Consistency Report (Appx. C) is a 29 28 -PP 28-QQ 28 -RR Comment Letter 28 single reference to the proposed Temecula Creek Inn — the Report notes that if mountain lions were travel from the west to Proposed Linkage 10 (which the Project will severely constrain), they would need to traverse a high density residential and commercial development, and the proposed Temecula Creek Inn "would significantly increase residential development in this area, further reducing viability" of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. (Appx. C at 41.) As discussed above, the Project will severely constrain Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. The Temecula Creek Inn project will further squeeze these linkages. Taken together, these two projects will significant — and perhaps completely — limit the ability of mountain lions to travel from the coastal Santa Ana ranges into the inner mountain ranges, and thus undermine the genetic diversity of these animals. By failing to analyze these serious and foreseeable cumulative impacts, the City clearly has violated CEQA. As a final blow to the Santa Ana mountain lion, the I-15/State Route 79 interchange project will impact much of the remaining acreage in Cell 7356, which contributes to Proposed Linkage 10. (See RCA Letter at 5.) The RCA even asked the City to analyze the cumulative impacts of the 1-15/State Route 79 interchange projects, but "no information was provided." (RCA Letter at 5.) The City's pattern of willful blindness to the significant and cumulative impacts of these projects is inexcusable. F. The DEIR does not adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of the Project on hydrology and water quality. The DEIR does not contain any meaningful analysis regarding potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality. Instead, the DEIR suggests that the Project will not contribute to cumulative impacts because all future projects must comply with existing regulations and permits. Such promises of regulatory compliance are insufficient to demonstrate a lack of cumulative impacts. (See Californians, 136 Cal.App.4th at 17 (compliance with existing environmental laws or regulations is not sufficient to support a finding that a project will not have significant environmental impacts).) The inadequacy of pointing to current regulations in claiming that no cumulative impacts will occur is borne out by the DEIR, which concedes that "Murrieta Creek water quality is impaired by metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity..." (DEIR at 4-10.) If compliance with existing regulations were sufficient to ensure that no cumulative impacts to water quality, then why is the water quality of Murrieta Creek already impaired? The DEIR should have analyzed the impacts of residential and commercial pesticide and fertilizer use on Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The RCA warned that the wildlife is at great risk from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. (RCA Letter at 9.) Finally, the DEIR again ignores the foreseeable cumulative impacts on the waterways adjacent to the Project of additional planned development, such as Temecula Creek Inn. 30 28 -RR 28 -SS Comment Letter 28 XVI. The Alternatives Analysis In The DEIR Is Inadequate And Fails To Comply With CEQA. CEQA mandates that significant environmental damage be avoided or substantially lessened where feasible. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Guidelines §§ I5002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), 15126(d).) Moreover, although "an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project ... it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision decision-making and public participation." (Guidelines § I5126.6(a).) Additionally, the "key to the selection of the range of alternatives is to identify alternatives that meet most of the project's objectives but have a reduced level of environmental impacts." (Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1059, 1089.) Accordingly, a rigorous analysis of reasonable alternatives to the Project must be provided to comply with this strict mandate. Unfortunately, the DEIR fails to meet this requirement on two levels: the DEIR analysis of the alternatives proposed is inadequate and the DEIR fails to include a reasonable range of alternatives. In analyzing the No Project Alternative, the DEIR should have discussed the need for the Project and whether the uses that would potentially utilize the Project can be accommodated in existing areas. As CAPCOA states in its white paper, one way local governments can avoid significant increases in GI -IG emissions and help solve the problem of climate change is to "facilitate more efficient and economic use of the lands" already developed within the community. (CAPCOA 2008.) Reinvesting in existing communities is "appreciably" more efficient than new development and may even result in a net reduction of greenhouse gases. (CAPCOA 2008.) The EIR should consider an alternative that relies more on higher -density mixed commercial/residential development projects on existing disturbed lands in order to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and encourage efficient delivery of services and goods. (Office of the California Attorney General 2008.) The DEIR refused to consider any other site locations for the Project because the objectives of the Project require that the Project be sited within "walking or cycling" distance to Old Town. (DEIR at 5-4.) Yet, the DEIR does not disclose whether any other sites within walking or cycling distance of Old Town are potentially available as the Project site. A. The DEIR improperly failed to identify alternatives which allowed for both the civic use and the elementary school. The DEIR "fixed" the result of the alternative analysis by only including one alternative which was comparable to the Project, and refusing to consider even a slightly down -sized version of the Project which could have accommodated both the civic use and the elementary school. More specifically, Alternative 3 mirrors the Project except that Alternative 3 would relocate the civic use from the 55 -acre South Parcel to the elementary site, and remove the elementary school from the Project. (DEIR at 5-14.) The DEIR acknowledges that Alternative 3 would provide for greater wildlife corridor width at the southern end of the Project site in which Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 converge. (Id.) The DEIR also 31 28 -TT 28-UU Comment Letter 28 states that Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, water quality, and water supply. (Table 5-3.) Despite these benefits of Alternative 3, Table 5-2 concludes that Alternative 3 would not meet two Project goals — (1) providing an elementary school accommodating 600-730 students and (2) providing for a civic site of up to 450,000 square feet. Yet, the DEIR does not explain how Alternative 3 fails to provide for a civic site of up to 450,000 square feet; indeed, in the description of Alternative 3, the DEIR states that the civic use of"up to 450,000 square feet" will replace the elementary school site. (DEIR at 5-14.) In addition, the name of Alternative 3 is "Relocate Civic Use Alternative," which confirms that the civic site use objective of the Project will be met under Altemative 3. As such, Alternative 3 clearly would meet the Project goal of providing for a civic use. The DEIR is correct that, as currently proposed, Alternative 3 would not meet the project objective of accommodating an elementary school on the site. Yet, the DEIR could have offered a project alternative that retained the elementary school, but reduced the amount of residential units in order to accommodate the elementary school. In failing to do so, the City "fixed" the results of the alternatives analysis and violated CEQA by including only an unreasonably narrow range of alternatives. (See Save Round Valley Alliance v. County oflnyo (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1456-57.) B. The DEIR "fixed" the results of the alternatives analysis in maintaining that a civic use and elementary school are Project objectives. At the same time, the DEIR employed an improperly narrow objective in order to reject environmentally superior alternatives. The objectives for a project cannot be so narrowly defined so that they essentially preordain the selection of the agency's proposed alternative. Case law under CEQA's federal equivalent, the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") can be helpful in interpreting CEQA. Early CEQA cases relied heavily on NEPA case law. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 80; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 CaI.3d 247, 261. California courts agree that "NEPA cases continue to play an important role in adjudication of CEQA cases, especially when a concept developed in NEPA decisions has not yet been applied to CEQA cases." (Del Mar Terrace Conservancy, Inc. v. City Council (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 712, 732.) The position of the Seventh Circuit in Simmons v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (7th Cir. 1997) 120 F.3d 664, 669, is therefore relevant to this case: The "purpose" of a project is a slippery concept, susceptible of no hard-and-fast definitions. One obvious way for an agency to slip past the strictures of NEPA is to contrive a purpose so slender as to define competing 'reasonable alternatives' out of consideration (and even out of existence). The federal courts cannot condone an agency's frustration of Congressional will. Applied here, the DEIR states that the Project objectives include both the 450,000 square foot civic center and an elementary school. By including these elements as required objectives of the 32 28-UU 28 -VV Comment Letter 28 Project — and then refusing to analyze reduced size alternatives — the DEIR essentially preordains the development of the Project as proposed, in violation of the authorities cited above. C. The DEIR should have analyzed a range of alternatives and included meaningful analysis of the impacts of these alternatives. As illustrated above, the DEIR did not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives including, but not limited to, the following: increased density with a substantially smaller project footprint; transportation -oriented design surrounding existing transit nodes or transit corridors within or adjacent to the Project area; a low carbon alternative that would actually result in lower emissions; conversion of the land into a conservation or mitigation bank; and mixed use development combined with greater preservation and enhancement of existing wildlife habitat. As courts have made clear, "[a] potential alternative should not be excluded from consideration merely because it would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." (Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Bryo (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1456-57 (quotations omitted).) The DEIR should also include quantitative and meaningful comparisons between the Project's impacts and proposed alternatives' likely impacts, including analysis of estimated GHG emissions, quantified impacts to biological resources, water resources including water quality and water availability, and traffic resulting from each proposed alternative. Under CEQA, "the public agency bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that, notwithstanding a project's impact on the environment, the agency's approval of the proposed project followed meaningful consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures." (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997), 16 Cal. 4th 105, 134.) The DEIR's general statements regarding these topics are insufficient. XVII. The DEIR Does Not Adequately Analyze The Growth -Inducing Impacts Of The Project. EIRs are required to provide a detailed discussion regarding the growth -inducing impacts of a project. (Guidelines §§ 21100(6)(5); 21156.) Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 369 sets forth three factors to determine the level of detail required in a growth -inducing impacts analysis: (a) the nature of the project; (b) the directness or indirectness of the contemplated impact; and (c) the ability to forecast the actual effects the project will have on the physical environment. (Id.) Applying these factors here, the DEIR should have contained a detailed analysis regarding growth - inducing impacts because (a) the Project at issue is extremely large, is sited in an area with no existing development, and includes infrastructure that will undoubtedly act as a catalyst for future development in the area; (b) the Project will result in direct impacts in the area by paving the way for future development through infrastructure; (c) the City already has lists of potential proposed developments (see Table 4-1), such that the City can forecast the nature and extent of growth inducing impacts. Despite these requirements, the DEIR spends less than two pages analyzing the growth -inducing impacts of the Project. This is plainly inadequate under Napa Citizens. 33 t 28 -VV 28 -WW 28 -XX Comment Letter 28 The DEIR's failure to disclose the growth -inducing impacts of expanding the Western Bypass is a violation of CEQA. The Western Bypass will literally pave the way for future development in the City and beyond by easing traffic on Interstate 1-5. Nonetheless, the DEIR does not even mention the Western Bypass in the growth -inducing impacts section. The DEIR also fails to discuss how the Project will lead to an increase in population and will likely require the construction of new or expanded public facilities. In turn, these expanded facilities will cause additional significant impacts on the environment, wildlife, air quality, traffic, etc. XVIII. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze The Energy Conservation Mitigation Measures Set Forth In Appendix F Of The CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR is required to analyze whether the energy conservation mitigation measures in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines could be adopted as part of the Project. (See California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 209 (an EIR is defective when it fails to include a detailed statement setting forth the mitigation measures proposed to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy in accordance with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines) [hereinafter "CCEC'].) Nonetheless, the DEIR fails to include any mention or analysis of the conservation mitigation measures in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR also fails to adequately describe the transportation energy impacts of the Project. (See Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 256, 264 (EIR invalid because it failed to disclose the transportation energy impacts of vehicle trips generated by the project).) Perhaps most importantly, Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines requires the DEIR to analyze the viability of adding renewable energy systems to the Project in order to mitigate its impacts and "increase[e] reliance on renewable energy sources..." Yet, the DEIR contains no discussion of the appropriateness of renewable energy options for the Project. Instead, MM - AQ -Id states that buildings must either exceed the energy efficiency of the 2013 Building Standards or offset energy use with 9 percent renewable energy. As noted above, the 2016 Building Standards already exceed the energy efficiency of the 2013 Building Standards by a substantial margin. As such, mere compliance with current law would equate to compliance with MM -AQ -1d, such the Applicant can entirely avoid incorporating any renewable energy into the Project. By omitting any discussion or analysis of renewable energy options for the Project, the City has violated CEQA. (See CCEC, 225 Cal.App.4th at 213.) This omission is particularly unfortunate because onsite solar energy could power most — if not all — of the Project's energy needs. XIX. Conclusion Given the possibility that the Conservation Groups will be required to pursue appropriate legal remedies in order to ensure enforcement of CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the 34 28 -XX 28 -YY 28 -ZZ Comment Letter 28 "administrative record." As you may know, the administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications which relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes "pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency's compliance with CEQA ...." (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further contains all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City's representatives or employees, which relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City's representatives or employees and the Applicant's representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Project. We look forward to working to assure that the Project and environmental review conforms to the requirements of state law and to assure that all significant impacts to the environment are fully analyzed, mitigated or avoided. In light of many significant, unavoidable environmental impacts that will result from the Project, we strongly urge the Project not be approved in its current form. Please do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number listed below. We look forward to reviewing the City's responses to these comments in the Final EIR for this Project once it has been completed. Sincerely, J.P. Rose Staff Attorney Center for Biological Diversity PMB 447, 8033 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90046-2401 Ph: (408) 497-7675 irose@biologicaldiversity.org 7cs+.219A Kim F. Floyd Conservation Chair San Gorgonio Chapter Sierra Club /s/ Vicki Long President Cougar Connection 35 28 -ZZ Comment Letter 28 References (Attached on USB Drive) California Energy Commission, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ.pdf). CAPCOA. 2008. California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Cayan 2007, California Climate Change Center, Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California CEC-500-2006-077 (2006). http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/CA climate Scenarios.pdf. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Greenbuilding in North America: Opportunities and Challenges (2008) http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/2335-green-bui ld i ng -i n-north-america- opportun ities-and-chal len ges-en.pdf. Ernest et al., 2014, Fractured Genetic Connectivity Threatens a Southern California Puma (Puma concolor) Population, PLUS ONE. http://iournals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.137 1 /iourna I. pone.0107985 Jennings et al. (1994), Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California, CAL. DEP'T. OF FISH & WILDLIFE 101, 102 (1994). https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?Document1D=83971 Lin et al., 2002, Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic, 88 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2 (2002). Los Angeles Times, "L.A.'s mountain lions could be near extinction in 50 years" (Aug. 31, 2015) http://www.latimes.com/sc ience/sc iencenow/la-sc i-sn-mou ntai n-lions-threat-20160830- snap-storv.html. Pilliod et al. (2013), Terrestrial Movement Patterns of Western Pond Turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in Central California, 8 HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION & BIOLOGY 207, 207. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Thresholds. h ttp://www.agmd.gov/home/regu l ati on s/cega/a it-qual i ty-ana l vsi s-handbook/local ized- signiticance-thresholds. 36 Comment Letter 28 Spinks et al. (2003), Survival of the Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata) in an Urban California Environment, 113 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 257, 257. 37 Comment Letter 29 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE DEDICATED TO ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE LAND USE February 12, 2017 Mayor Maryann Edwards City of Temecula 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Item 12, February 14, 2017, Altair Specific Plan Southern Parcel (Civic Site) Dear Mayor Edwards and Councilmembers Endangered Habitats League (EHL) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) appreciate the opportunity to provide input as you discuss the uses of the Civic Site. We have appreciated the thoughtful workshops you have held on wildlife movement and the MSHCP. We also recognize the positive urban design features of the Altair project. While there are several aspects to achieving MSHCP consistency, certainly foremost is the effect of the project on the main linkage via Temecula Creek. We and others have expressed concern that the distance from Civic Site uses to the corridor is not sufficient to overcome the inhibitory effects of a large and intense use, particularly one that would involve nighttime activity, traffic, and lighting. Uses like a hospital or university are problematic. However, less intensive civic uses that are compatible with biological values are viable. For example, a readily accessible nature center at this location comes to mind, with associated trails and interpretive facilities. It could serve as a take off point to trails to surrounding attractions. If the Council wishes to move in this direction, EHL and TNC would be happy to provide scientific input on appropriate parameters. In addition, if the Civic Site use can be resolved, FHL and TNC offer to help build consensus around the project, to address the remainder of the MSHCP issues, and to work on a mitigation package. We have much to do on linkages going forward—across Temecula Creek and in regard to 1-15 itself—and we can only succeed in the bigger picture through collaboration. Thank you for considering our views. Dan Silver, MD Executive Director Endangered Habitats League Sincerely, Cara Lacey, AICP Project Director The Nature Conservancy 29-A 29-B 29-C 29-D 8424 SANTA MONICA BLVD SUITE A 592 Los ANGELES CA 90069-4267 ♦ WWW,EHLEAGUE.ORG ♦ PHONE 213.804.2750 US. FtSli •wunlne SERVICE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 Palm Springs, California 92262 760-322-2070 FAX 760-322-4648 CALIFORNIA FISH & WILDLIFE Comment Letter 30 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, California 91764 909-484-0167 FAX 909-481-2945 In Reply Refer To: F W S/CDF W -W RI V-1560192-17CPA0093 February 14, 2017 Sent by email Mayor Maryann Edwards City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Agenda Item #12 for Feb. 14, 2017, City Council Meeting: Altair Specific Plan's South Parcel (potential location for a "Civic Site") Dear Mayor Edwards and Councilmembers: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department), hereafter referred to jointly as the Wildlife Agencies are writing regarding Item #12 on the February 14, 2017 City Council Meeting agenda — a request from Staff for direction from the City Council on future uses and/or activities on the 55 -acre South Parcel of the Altair Specific Plan in order to complete the Final EIR. We are writing in support of preserving the 55 - acre parcel in a natural state. The conservation of the 55 -acre parcel would provide several benefits including: • Consistency with the MSHCP cell criteria and MSHCP Permittee responsibilities; • Reduced impacts to MSHCP Proposed Linkage 10, and its utility for mountain lion use. • Preserving the connectivity function of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 in the presence of the development proposed for the rest of the Altair Specific Plan; • Preservation and continued use of the mountain lion cub -rearing territory on the South Parcel; • Avoidance of impacts to mountain lion use of the 1-15 underpass inside MSHCP constrained wildlife corridor #14; and • Conservation of pond turtle nesting and overwintering habitat. We appreciated the opportunity to comment and have provided a fuller discussion of our reasoning and position below. The Wildlife Agencies previously reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Altair Specific Plan (Project), and have expressed our concerns about the project to the City, both in writing (see enclosed) and in multiple meetings with City staff and elected officials. The I 30-A 30-B 30-C Comment Letter 30 Mayor Edwards and City Councilmembers (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-17CPA0093) 2 DEIR was prepared to identify the proposed project's direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts, to discuss alternatives, and to propose mitigation measures that avoid, minimize, or offset significant environmental impacts. South Parcel Development is Not Consistent with the MSHCP The Altair project was found to be inconsistent with the MSHCP by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), the Service, and the Department, mainly because it proposes development in an area primarily described for conservation and is therefore inconsistent with the MSHCP's Reserve Assembly Criteria. The size and location of the Project significantly narrows Proposed Linkage 10 (Linkage 10) and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 (Linkage 14) at critical points and has the potential to significantly negatively affect the movement of mountain lions between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges and would negatively affect the MSHCP Conservation Area as a whole. An MSHCP Criteria Refinement is required if the project is to developed as proposed. As the RCA stated in its JPR findings on the Project, the development of the Altair South Parcel in MSHCP Cells 7355 and 7356 "will significantly reduce the viability of the MSHCP's Linkage 10 as movement and live-in habitat for mountain lions." Per Section 6.2 of Helix's MSHCP Consistency Report for the Project, construction of the Project would generate a Zone of Negative Influence which would completely overlap the residual mountain lion habitat corridor remaining after development of the South Parcel "where nearly all mountain lion activities (i.e., breeding, hunting, transit) would be affected, which is in direct conflict with what the MSHCP intended for this Linkage." The Proposed Project would reduce the width of Linkage 10 from the MSHCP-planned width of 1,200 to 2,700 feet within the Project area to less than 500 feet at its narrowest point (RCA 2015). The linkage post - development has been described by City Staff as remaining up to a mile wide after the project is built, however, this is misleading because the mile -wide distance overlaps developed rural areas with homes and agriculture that are not conserved, are not described for conservation, and do not provide suitable live-in or movement habitat. The linkage is intended to consist of natural habitat with long-term conservation values. The constraint on mountain lion movement and use that would be created in the vicinity of the South Parcel where the most concentrated mountain lion use currently occurs. This concentrated use results from the linkages merging at the confluence of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The crossing underneath 1-15 at Temecula Creek (Linkage 14) and Linkage 10 are necessary for mountain lion movement between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Cleveland National Forest. Maintaining the two Linkages in conservation. as described by the Cell Criteria in the MSHCP, is critical to the functioning of the wildlife Linkages and the long-term viability of the mountain lion population of the Santa Ana Mountains. Narrowing Linkage 10 will force mountain lions westward into a rural - residential area where they will come into conflict with rural residents, traffic, livestock and pets. Human land use decisions have resulted habitat fragmentation which has increased mountain lion contact with humans. Contact with humans and human activities is a significant cause of mountain lion mortality in southern California (vehicle collisions (28%), 30-C 30-D 30-E 30-F Comment Letter 30 Mayor Edwards and City Councilmembers (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-17CPA0093) 3 depredation permits (17%), illegal killings (11%), and public safety removals (3%)) (Vickers et al., 2015). As Dr. Winston Vickers, a highly respected mountain lion researcher, put it (Vickers e-mail, November 6, 2014, as cited in Sierra/CBD 2016): "Development of the southernmost pad area is expected to have the most negative impact, especially on mountain lion use of the escarpment just north of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek. Movement in Temecula creek toward the Temecula Creek Bridge beneath 1-15 may also be negatively impacted by development at the southern- most site. Since this bridge (spanning Temecula Creek) is currently the only (possibly) functional safe passage underneath 1-15 for mountain lions that is likely to allow introduction of critically needed fresh genetic material into the Santa Ana mountain lion population ... any further reduction in its potential functionality is unwise, at best ...". Conservation of the 55 -acre South Parcel would reduce the overall impacts of the entire Altair Specific Plan. Approval of the Altair Project requires a criteria refinement to achieve MSHCP consistency because the proposed development is in an area largely described for conservation. Preservation of this site would aid in reducing serious project impacts on the linkages and contribute to any analysis seeking to demonstrate that the alternative conservation proposal (criteria refinement) provides equivalent or superior benefit to Covered Species than the conservation described in the cell criteria. Pond Turtle Impacts The South Parcel location proposed for the Civic Site is within 36 meters of Murrieta Creek. Development of the South Parcel has the potential to remove suitable upland western pond turtle habitat. The Western Pond Turtle is a MSHCP Planning Species for MSHCP Linkages 13 (Murrieta Creek) and 14 (Temecula Creek and portions of Pechanga Creek). MSHCP Conservation Objectives #2 and #5 for the pond turtle specify maintaining occupancy in 75% of 8 listed Core Areas; Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek are two of the Core Areas listed for this species. The turtle Core Areas include a 2 -km buffer of upland habitat surrounding each waterway. Upland habitat is important during both the overwintering period, and to provide nesting requirements. Pond turtles have been known to spend over half the year in upland habitat, and nesting females may travel 100 to200 meters away from water to find suitable nesting habitat. The proposed grading for a development pad on the southern parcel would extend nearly to the edge of the creek and would remove nesting and overwintering habitat. Nature Center and Trails Hub We have heard interest in replacing an urban Civic Site/institutional development with an interpretive nature center which would serve as a hub for hiking trails. Facilities, such as trails and interpretive centers, need to be placed so as not to degrade or compromise the 30-F 30-G 30-H 30-1 Comment Letter 30 Mayor Edwards and City Councilmembers (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-1560192-17CPA0093) 4 ecological functions of the conserved habitats and should be placed in the least environmentally sensitive area. The Wildlife Agencies support environmental education in the MSHCP Conservation Area and recognize that public access was contemplated during MSHCP development. The locations of potential trails and interpretative centers were identified on Figure 7-4 of the MSHCP. An interpretive center and trails were not identified on the South Parcel in the MSHCP. The South Parcel location at the confluence of Linkage I 0 and Linkagel4 makes it a poor site for an interpretive center. Wildlife corridors (MSHCP "Linkages") are not appropriate locations for trail placement and the MSHCP specifically states that recreational trails should not be placed in wildlife crossings. The primary purpose of conserving and maintaining a wildlife corridor is to provide a connection for species sensitive to human presence to be able to cross safely through the larger regional landscape dominated by human activities while transiting from one MSHCP Core Reserve to another. Ongoing trespass issues and the development of unauthorized trails by the public are already having negative impacts on both Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. The development of an interpretive center and hiking trails on the South Parcel, while less damaging than an institutional campus, would still attract human use into an area that currently provides sensitive live in habitat for pond turtles and mountain lions and that is intended to act a linkage in the MSHCP conservation configuration. The presence of human activity would discourage mountain lions from approaching the crucial wildlife crossing underneath the 1-15. Therefore, placement of an interpretive center and trails hub on the South Parcel would not be consistent with the goals of the MSHCP to protect wildlife habitat and movement. Draft EIR Conclusions for South Parcel The Draft EIR for the project concludes that the impacts to wildlife can be mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level, and development will not irreversibly sever any wildlife corridors or linkages. However, as discussed in the attached previous Wildlife Agency comment letters, the increased noise, lighting, traffic, human activity, and risk of trespass are not adequately analyzed or mitigated by the proposed mitigation measures of berms, directional lighting, and vegetation for development of the site. The long-term impacts to pond turtle, mountain lion viability, and potential severing of the linkage by the project were not adequately addressed or mitigated in the Draft EIR. Conclusion The development of the South Parcel would interfere with the junction of two MSHCP wildlife corridors (Linkages 10 and 14) whose width and distance from human activity are critical for the mountain lion population in the Santa Ana Mountains. This area is also important for maintaining the population of the western pond turtle in the Temecula area and in the MSHCP Conservation Area. The South Parcel is described for conservation by the MSHCP's Reserve Assembly Criteria (MSHCP Sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.15); its development would not be consistent with the MSHCP. Development of the South Parcel would further limit mountain lion use of the existing bridge underneath 1-15, thereby completing the 30-1 30-J 30-K 30-L Comment Letter 30 Mayor Edwards and City Councilmembers (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-I7CPA0093) 5 isolation of the Santa Ana Mountains cougar population and further compromising its long- term persistence. The currently proposed Project configuration would result in significant permanent damage to the MSHCP conservation strategy for mountain lion and pond turtle. The Wildlife Agencies support conservation of the site to meet MSHCP goals and maintain the integrity of the Linkages 10 and 14 in the presence of the larger proposed Altair project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this matter. We hope to continue working with the City to resolve these issues. If you have any questions regarding these comments or would like to schedule a meeting, please contact Karin Cleary -Rose of the Service at 760-322-2070, extension 406, or Heather Pert of the Department at 858-395-9692. Sincerely, KARIN Digitally signed by KARIN CLEARY-ROSE CLEARY—ROSED� s9 2017.02.14 for Kennon A. Corey Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Leslie MacNair Inland Deserts Region Regional Manager CA Department of Fish and Wildlife cc: Charles Landry, Director, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Matt Rahn, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Temecula JeffComerchero, Council Member, City of Temecula Michael S. Naggar, Council Member, City of Temecula James Stewart, Council Member, City of Temecula Dan Silver, Executive Director, Endangered Habitats League Cara Lacey, Project Director, The Nature Conservancy Enclosures Wildlife Agencies joint letter to the City of Temecula regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula 's project #PRI3-0043, the Altair Specific Plan. June 17, 2016. Wildlife Agencies Joint Project Review Letter to the City of Temecula regarding MSHCP JPR 14-05-27-01 for the City of Temecula 's project #PRI3-0043, the Altair Specific Plan. April 15, 2015. 30-L 30-M Comment Letter 30 Mayor Edwards and City Councilmembers (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-17CPA0093) 6 References Beier, P. 1993. Determining Minimum Habitat Areas and Habitat Corridors for Cougars. Conserv Biol 7: 94-108. Burdett, C. L., K. R. Crooks, D. M. Theobald, K. R. Wilson, E. E. Boydston, L. M. Lyren, R. N. Fisher, T. W. Vickers, S. A. Morrison, and W. M. Boyce. 2010. Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat. Ecosphere I :art4. Dickson, B. G. and P. Beier. 2002. Home -range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66:1235-1245 Ernest, H B. et al. 2003. Genetic structure of mountain lion (Puma concolor) populations in California." Conservation Genetics 4(3):353-366. Ernest HB, T. W. Vickers, S. A. Morrison, M.I R. Buchalski, W. M. Boyce. 2014. Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a southern California puma (Puma concolor) population. PLoS ONE 9(10): el 07985. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107985. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. 2015. Altair Project Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Report. Prepared for Ambient Communities, January 2015. Kerston, B. N. R. D., Spencer, J.M. Marzluff, J. Hepinstall-Cymerman, C.E. Grue. 2011. Cougar space use and movements in the wildland-urban landscape of western Washington. Ecological Applications. 21(8):2866-2881. [ RCA ] Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (Riverside County Government). 2015. Joint Project Review Document Package Joint Project Review 14-05- 27-01 for City of Temecula, PR13-0043, Altair Specific Plan, analyzing the proposed Altair project's consistency with the terms and conditions of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Riverside, California. April 1, 2015. [ Sierra Club/CBD ] The Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Cougar Connection. 2016. Letter to the City of Temecula commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Altair Specific Plan, SCH no. 20141 1 1029. June 2016. Vickers T.W., Sanchez J.N., Johnson C.K., Morrison S.A., Botta R., Smith T. 2015. Survival and Mortality of Pumas (Puma concolor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131490 Zeller, K.A., K. McGarigal, P. Beier, S.A. Cushman, T.W. Vickers, W.M. Boyce. 2014. Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecology 29: 541-557. Comment Letter 31 From: Dan Silver <dsilverla@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:31 PM To: Maryann Edwards; Jeff Comerchero; Matt.Rahn@citycouncil.org; Mike Naggar; Michael.McCracken@citycouncil.org Cc: Luke Watson; Matt Peters; Stuart Fisk, AICP; Robert Honer; Robert Anselmo; Heather Pert; Karin Cleary -Rose; Charles Landry; Laurie Correa; Pam Nelson; Cara Lacey; Ray Johnson; Abby Smith; Kim Foy; Lynn Cullens; Vicki Long; winston vickers; Paul Beier Subject Agenda Item 12, February 14, 2017, Altair Civic Site - ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY Dear Mayor Edwards and Members of the City Council: Endangered Habitats League wishes to provide a response to the letter of February 14, 2017 from US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Dept of Fish and Wildlife. We most respectfullyreach a different conclusion as to the compatibility with the Temecula Creek corridor of a small and peripherally -sited interpretive center and trails for day time use. This conclusion 31-A is based on two considerations. First, based upon conversations with mountain lion specialists, it is the intrusion of noise, light and activity during nocturnal hours which is most inhibitory on corridor use by lions. We would not anticipate use of an interpretive facility at night. Second, as pointed out to me today by Dr. Paul Beier, the elimination of recreational use in a natural area immediately adjacent to a medium-sized city is not a realistic option. Rather, the real choice is between unregulated regulation or regulated recreation (properly designed trail system, signage, education, and interpretation). In EHL's view, the open space uses under consideration would provide an opportunity to achieve the latter, preferred goal. In our experience, with proper outreach and education, it is possible to work successfully with groups such as mountain bikers as long as some trails are provided. We agree that in an ideal world, little or no recreation or human activity would occur within important corridors, but carefully controlled use is actually the better way to go in this peri -urban location. If you do proceed with such limited open space uses, we urge ongoing coordination with the Regional Conservation Authority and the wildlife agencies on procedures for MSHCP consistency. Thank you once again for considering our views and please let me know of any questions. I am sorry that 1 will be unable to attend tonight's hearing. With best regards, Dan Silver Dan Silver, Executive Director Endangered Habitats League 8424 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite A 592 Los Angeles, CA 90069-4267 213-804-2750 1 I 31-B 31-C 31-D dsilverla(cilme.com www.ehleague.org 2 Comment Letter 31 CENTER Ia: BIOLOGICAL Because hle is good December 6, 2017 SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 1842 Via Electronic Mail and FedEx (w/attachments) Mayor Maryann Edwards and City Council City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Cougar Connection Re: Altair Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2014111029 Dear Mayor Maryann Edwards and City Council: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the "Center"), the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Cougar Connection (collectively, the "Conservation Groups") regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Altair Specific Plan (the "Project"). The FEIR does not cure the City's failures in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") to adequately analyze a range of environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives; and to adequately describe the Project, its impacts, and mitigation. Indeed, the vast majority of the Conservation Groups' comments on the DIER have not been effectively addressed in the FEIR and responses to comments. Some of the continuing errors are detailed below but most other issues raised in the Conservation Groups' DEIR comments remain outstanding and so those comments are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the related project approval documents released by the City demonstrate further inconsistencies between the Project and state and federal laws. I. Background on the Conservation Groups. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with 1.5 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Riverside County. The Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization of over 800,000 members dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; to educating and enlisting humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful Alaska. Arizona. California. Florida. Minnesota . Nevada. New Mexico. New York. Oregon. Vermont. Washington, DC P.O. Box 710. Tucson, AZ 85702-0710 tel: (520) 623.5252 fax: (520) 623.9797 www.BiologicalDiversity.org means to carry out these objectives. The Sierra Club reports that over 180,000 members reside in California. The San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club focuses on issues within the inland empire, including Riverside County. Cougar Connection is a non-profit, public interest organization that is dedicated to the preservation of Puma concolor, Cougar populations, open space, wildlife connectivity, and public education. II. The Development Agreement Is Unenforceable Because It Is Contrary To Public Policy. California law provides that the object of a contract must be lawful and not contrary to public policy. (Russell v. Soldinger (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 633, 641-642, citing Civ. Code, §§ 1607, 1608, 1667, 1596.) Courts will void any contract that is contrary to public policy or otherwise illegal. (Id. at 642.) In enacting the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the legislature set forth a policy that public agencies shall regulate activities "so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage..." (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000.) Towards this end, CEQA sets forth a policy of ensuring public participation in the environmental planning process. (See Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, 949 ("CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process.").) Furthermore, CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.), the State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code § 65300 et seq.) both provide for judicial review of agency actions through Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and/or 1085. The Development Agreement clearly is designed to subvert this framework for public participation and judicial review in the CEQA and Planning and Zoning law process. In particular, the Development Agreement reduces the amount of funds designated for mitigating the Project's impacts in the event that anyone seeks judicial review of the Project's approval documents. (Development Agreement at p. 30.) III. The Development Agreement Violates The First Amendment Rights Of The Public. The Development Agreement violates the United States and California constitutions because it is designed to frustrate the "right of access to the courts," which is one of the "most precious" liberties protected by the First Amendment. (See BE&K Constr. Co. v. NLRB (2002) 536 U.S. 516, 524-525.) Courts have further recognized that "government action designed to keep a citizen from initiating legal remedies sometimes infringes upon the First Amendment right to petition the courts." (Western Nat'l Mut. bis. Co. v. Lennes [In re Workers' Compensation Refund] (8th Cir. 1995) 46 F.3d 813, 823.) The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals further noted: 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 2 This right of court access cannot be impaired, either directly or indirectly...Indirect impairment may include "retaliatory action /taken) against an individual designed either to punish him for having exercised his constitutional right to seek judicial relief or to intimidate or chill his exercise of that right in the future. (Id. at 823, emphasis added.) Here, the Development Agreement seeks to punish any person—specifically persons with environmental concerns—who attempt to petition the courts to enforce California laws. The Development Agreement does this by preventing certain conservation activities from occurring if such a petition is brought. The Development Agreement attempts to require stakeholders to make a false choice between (1) enforcing California's environmental laws against the City and Project; and (2) ensuring adequate funds associated with the project go towards conservation. t The Development Agreement also improperly seeks to prevent courts—including the California Courts of Appeal and California Supreme Court—from ever reviewing the legality of the project or interpreting state law as applied to the project. The City and Ambient's offensive scheme to prevent the public from seeking enforcement of the law is unconstitutional, contrary to public policy, and has no place in a democratic system governed by the rule of law. The City needs to immediately remove this provision from the Development Agreement. IV. The FEIR's Responses To Comments Are Inadequate. CEQA provides that where "comments from responsible experts or sister agencies disclose new or conflicting data or opinions that cause concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, these comments may not simply be ignored. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response." (Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813, 820.) CEQA further requires that when there is a difference expert opinion, the EIR needs to summarize the main points of disagreement and explain the agency's reasons for accepting one set of judgments instead of another. (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391; CEQA Guidelines § 15151.) In addition, an EIR may not rely upon conclusory or evasive responses to comments or fail to support its statements with scientific or objective data. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1371.) The Supreme Court has likewise held that "there must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response [to the comments received]. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112, 1124.) As a related issue, the City cannot rely upon any mitigation based upon the $500,000 payment since the City is claiming that such payment will be significantly reduced in the event that any litigation is filed or other settlement reached regarding the various legal deficiencies with the Altair project. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 3 Unfortunately, the FEIR consistently fails to address the comments submitted by various stakeholders, including environmental and citizens groups and expert agencies. For example, Winston Vickers and Dr. Kathy Zeller sent a detailed letter explaining how the Project would be harmful for the Santa Ana mountain lions. (See FEIR Comment Letter 17.) Mr. Vickers and Dr. Zeller offered their "scientific opinion that the proposed Altair development will not only negatively impact mountain lion and other wildlife connectivity between the Santa Rosa Plateau and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Linkage 10 – upland linkage) and Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek connection), but will also negatively impact Constrained Linkage 14 (start of Santa Margarita River – Temecula Creek – Pechanga Creek connection) which is critical to mountain lion movement between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Palomar Mountains east of Interstate 15 (I-15)." (Comment 17-D.) In responses to comments, the FEIR does not directly respond to the analysis offered by Mr. Vickers and Dr. Zeller, and but instead generally refers to various "mitigation measures" in the FEIR. Similarly, the FEIR does not directly respond to the expert opinions offered by the Wildlife Agencies, and instead merely refers the reader to general responses. Mr. Vickers and his team at the UC Davis Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center submitted another letter on November 14, 2017, which noted that the responses in the FEIR to their comments were inadequate. (See UC Davis Letter at 2.) Likewise, the City has not published any response to the November 30, 2016 letter submitted by the Conservation Groups. Notably, the Planning Commission staff materials reference a "technical memo" (Attachment 12) that purportedly responded to the issued raised in the November 30, 2016 letter submitted by the Conservation Groups. However, Attachment 12 is merely a cover page stating "TECHNICAL MEMO ON DEIR COMMENTS AND NATURE CENTER TO BE PROVIDED." Because the technical memo appears not have existed at the time the Planning Commission decided to recommend approval of the Project, it is unclear how the Planning Commission could have "reviewed and considered the entire record" including "staff reports" and "technical studies," as the Planning Commission resolution claims. Indeed, based on the available information, it is not even clear that the Planning Commission even read or considered the letter submitted by the Conservation Groups, despite having over a year to do so. V. The FEIR Does Not Contain A Stable Project Description. The FEIR and staff materials vacillate between stating that the South Parcel will include a "nature center" or some other "institutional land use." (See, e.g., FEIR at 1-2.) By refusing to identify what the actual project under consideration is, the City fails to include a stable project description in the FEIR, thereby violating CEQA. Because there is no stable project description, the impacts of the Project—and appropriate mitigation measures to alleviate those impacts—are not identified in a manner that encourages informed decision-making and public participation. Moreover, as long as the FEIR and conditions of approval leave open the possibility that the South Parcel may be subject to some more "intense" civic/institutional use, the FEIR needs to disclose all impacts of such use, and adopt all feasible mitigation measures. The FEIR has not done this. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 4 VI. The Science Is Clear That The 1-15 Corridor Crossing Is Critical To The Survival Of The Santa Ana Mountain Lions. The Santa Ana mountain lions have the lowest genetic diversity of any population in California and show signs of inbreeding. (Zeller 2017.) This means there is a more critical need for connectivity between this population and other mountain lion populations. (Id.) In April 2017, the Royal Society Open Science published a study that confirmed that the Interstate 15 corridor is vital to the continued survival of the Santa Ana mountain lions. (Gustafson 2017.) The study noted that large residential developments—including Altair—"are proposed to be constructed within the two primary puma travel corridors between the Eastern Peninsular and Santa Ana Ranges." (Id.) The study concluded that these developments are "likely to further degrade the ability of pumas, especially dispersing males who are essential for gene flow, to move between the Eastern Peninsular and Santa Ana Mountain Ranges." (Id.) The study urged that the successful migration, reproduction, and long-term persistence of the Santa Ana mountain lions be considered in the planning process for any development near these crossing points. (Id.) The 2017 study is consistent with earlier research showing that Interstate 15 and associated development "have created a nearly impermeable barrier to puma movements, resulting in severe genetic restriction and demographic isolation of the small puma population." (Vickers 2015.) Despite this peer reviewed scientific evidence, the City disclaims responsibility for addressing the serious wildlife movement problems which will be caused and exacerbated by the Project, claiming that a wildlife crossing for Interstate 15 is a "regional issue." The City's position is striking because the City is insisting upon $28 million of "regional infrastructure" highway as part of the Project. (Staff Report at 14.) The City cannot on the one hand claim it has no money to address the wildlife connectivity problems caused by the Project while also stating that the Project will involve a $28 million highway, which will undoubtedly cause further wildlife movement problems. It is precisely this "build first, ask questions later" attitude to development and freeway building that has generated the sprawl, air pollution, wildlife connectivity problems that we have today in Southern California. The science shows that this Project may be the final straw that sets the Santa Ana mountain lions on a permanent path towards extinction. The City cannot move forward with business as usual in light of these profound and permanent impacts on California's wildlife. VII. The City's Claim That A Nature Center Is Needed Is Misleading. The Conservation Groups strongly support nature centers and other civic amenities designed to increase public appreciation and access to the outdoors. The Conservation Groups also understand that Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER") and San Diego State University ("SDSU") already operate an interpretive center to educate the community. In addition, the Conservation Groups have been informed by the SMER reserve manager that additional funding has been secured for upgrades and improvements to increase capacity at the interpretive center. The South Parcel — a critical wildlife corridor — is not an appropriate location for development. Mr. Vickers and the team at the UC Davis Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center submitted their expert opinion, which directly contradicts the findings of Ambient's consultant: 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 5 It is our opinion that prohibiting development of any kind of the southern parcel, with adequate fencing and other measures employed to prevent human intrusion into and impacts on the linkages and SMER, remains the best method to assure that these linkages function as well as possible. (UC Davis letter at 2.) The Specific Plan would fundamentally transform approximately half of the South Parcel, which is already a very constrained wildlife corridor subject to development pressure on all sides. The Specific Plan (at 3-70) shows that in addition to the actual development pad, a significant portion of the property would be "revegetated open space with trails..." (See also FEIR at Figure 2-1.) The City has not demonstrated that "revegetated open space with trails" will have the some species and wildlife movement benefits as undeveloped open space. Moreover, the "pedestrian circulation" diagram shows that virtually every corner of the South Parcel will be impacted with trails, roads, parking, and development. (See Specific Plan at Figure 3-38.) The FEIR later states that these trails will be ten feet wide, which is very wide for a walking trail (and wide enough for vehicles). (Appx. A at A-16.) Again, while the Conservation Groups strongly support nature centers, it is unwise and unnecessary to site a nature center and trail network in a regionally -significant wildlife corridor that is already under intense pressure from human development and related activities. This is particularly true when the Santa Ana mountain lion population is hanging on by a thread and needs a functional wildlife corridor in this area if it is to survive. Moreover, numerous stakeholders have informed the City that sensitive areas on the South Parcel and SMER already suffer from trespass. Adding a network of trails, a parking, and development to this area will likely increase such trespass. This is especially true given that the City and Ambient have thus far refused to agree to fund or implement 24-hour ranger service of the area to prevent trespass. In any event, the "Nature Center" option is not even a proposal to necessarily build a nature center. Buried deep in the FEIR (Table 1-2) is the striking admission that the permitted uses for the "Nature Center" option include "Conference Rooms, Library, Museum and Galleries, Restaurant, Offices, Parking Lot." (FEIR at 1-6.) These additional uses—particularly restaurants—will have impacts above and beyond a mere nature center, including attracting higher numbers of visitors, and visitors during evening hours. Nonetheless, the FEIR's Appendix A only analyzes impacts to aesthetics, air quality, GHGs, biological resources, and other areas in relation to a "nature center". For example, the FEIR states that "[t]he Nature Center use does not propose nighttime activities, and there would be no impacts from lighting in the conserved area adjacent to the South Parcel other than lighting needed for security." (Appx. A at A-24.) Restaurants, galleries, and offices could all involve night-time activities. CEQA requires that any "reasonably foreseeable" impacts be analyzed and mitigated — here, if the FEIR authorizes the development of any of the above listed types of development, than the FEIR needs to analyze the impacts of each type of development. In addition, the FEIR is misleading because while it repeatedly claims there would be no "night-time uses," the FEIR elsewhere states that operating hours would extend to "two hours after dusk..." (FEIR at 1-5.) "Night" begins at dusk or shortly thereafter. The FEIR also misleadingly refers to the Nature Center option as a "low intensity" use (FEIR at 3-9) even though the FEIR estimates that it will draw approximately 7,000 visitors per month. (Appx. A at A-37.) 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 6 The "Nature Center" option would not preserve any more of the South Parcel area than the originally proposed Civic Center use — Appendix A of the FEIR states that the Nature Center option would only preserve 37.24 acres of the South Parcel as natural open space, which "is the same as provided under the Civic Site use." (Appx. A at A-5.) The FEIR further concedes that the grading footprint of the Nature Center is only 0.7 less acres than the Civic/Institutional use. (Appx. A at A-13.) The FEIR concludes: "As concluded by the Draft EIR, given the distance of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 from the project site (approximately 1,800 feet) and its location (east of I-15), similar to the Civic/Institutional use, the Nature Center use would have no direct or indirect effect on this linkage." (Appx. A at 18.) This assertion is at odds with the expert opinions of the Wildlife Agencies and the wealth of evidence demonstrating that human activities can interfere with wildlife behavior (some of this evidence is discussed above and below). The Nature Center would reduce the width of Proposed Linkage 10 to only 980 feet and further impair the usability of the corridor. (Appx. A at A-18 and A-19.) Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 would be reduced to only 255 to 450 feet. (Appx. A at A-19.) Such narrow linkages will certainly impair the usability of these corridors for mountain lions and other species. The FEIR similarly states that the Nature Center would not generate "noise that exceed[s] residential noise standards." (Appx. A at A-25.) The FEIR fails to acknowledge that wildlife using the South Parcel may be adversely impacted by noise that is far below "residential noise standards" and that even small amounts of noise can deter wildlife from using the corridor. Similarly, the document authored by Helix consulting attached to the FEIR claims that the "hiking trails are expected to have minimal impact on overall wildlife movement, especially with the limitation of no nighttime use of the Nature Center." (Appx. B at 6.) The FEIR does not provide any evidence to support this claim, which is undermined by the admission that the development will be open at two hours after dusk. A. Development adjacent to habitat is known to impact wildlife behavior, particularly for mountain lions. There is a wealth of evidence documenting the known effects of human activity on wildlife behavior. (See, e.g., Slabbekoorn 2008.) Field observations and controlled laboratory experiments have shown that traffic noise can significantly degrade habitat value for migrating songbirds. (Ware et al. 2015.) This finding followed a lab results indicating that subjects exposed to 55 and 61 dBA simulated traffic noise exhibited decreased feeding behavior and duration, as well as increased vigilance behavior. (Id.) Such behavioral shifts increase the risk of starvation, thus decreasing survival rates. By including development in and adjacent to wildlife habitat, the Project will significantly increase noise in the area, both during construction and through increases in off-site traffic. A recent study also highlighted the detrimental impacts of siting development near areas protected for wildlife. The study noted that "Anthropogenic noise 3 and 10 dB above natural sound levels . .. has documented effects on wildlife species richness, abundance, reproductive success, behavior, and physiology." (Buxton, et al.) The study further noted that "there is evidence of impacts across a wide range of species [] regardless of hearing sensitivity, including direct effects on invertebrates that lack ears and indirect effects on plants 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 7 and entire ecological communities (e.g., reduced seedling recruitment due to altered behavior of seed distributors)." (Ibid.) Moreover, human transportation networks and development resulted in high noise exceedances in protected areas. (Ibid.) There also is strong evidence documenting the effects of human activity specifically on mountain lions. One study found that mountain lions are so fearful of humans and noise generated by humans that they will abandon the carcass of a deer and forgo the feeding opportunity just to avoid humans. (See Smith 2017.)' The study concluded that "non - consumptive forms of human disturbance may alter the ecological role of large carnivores by affecting the link between these top predators and their prey." In addition, the study found that mountain lions respond fearfully upon hearing human vocalizations. Another study demonstrates that mountain lions exposed to other evidence of human presence (lighting, vehicles, dogs) will impact mountain lion behavior. (Wilmers 2013.) Other studies documented diet shifts in mountain lions near human development, and recommended minimizing any development in mountain lion habitat. (Smith 2016; see also Smith 2015.) Additional studies similarly documented that mountain lions avoid "urban, agricultural areas, and roads and prefer[] riparian areas and more rugged terrain." (Zeller 2017; see also Vickers 2015.) One study found that over half (55 percent) of radio collared mountain lions in urban areas did not survive, and the majority were killed by humans either by vehicle strikes or using depredation permits. (Vickers 2015.) There is therefore strong evidence that the Project as proposed will have significant impacts on the wildlife corridors in the Project area. CEQA defines an impact as "significant" where the Project may "substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community..." (CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(1).) Here, all of the experts that have weighed in on the issue (except for the developer's consultant) agree that the Project may threaten to eliminate an animal community — the Santa Ana mountain lions. The FEIR has failed to acknowledge, analyze, or mitigate this profound impact of the Project. B. The FEIR needs to disclose that development on the South Parcel is included in the FEIR as a means to accommodate dirt generated by the Altair development. Over the last few weeks, it is come to the attention of the Conservation Groups that there are no actual plans or funding to construct a nature center on the South Parcel. Instead, the Conservation Groups now understand that the FEIR allows for unspecified future development on the South Parcel so that Ambient can store massive amounts of dirt generated by the project, thereby avoiding the need for Ambient to spend money to transfer the dirt to an offsite location. Stockpiling hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of dirt on a wildlife corridor in order to reduce costs of a residential and highway development project is an egregious abuse of California's natural resources. The FEIR needs to be honest with the public and decision -makers about the true impacts of the Project and why certain development is being proposed. 2 See also Sean Greene, "How a fear of humans affects the lives of California's mountain lions," Los Angeles Times (June 27, 2017), available at http://beta.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-pumas-human-noise-20170627- story.html. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 8 Whether or not anything is ever built on the South Parcel, stockpiling dirt will harm the ecological values of the South Parcel. If the City and Ambient cannot afford to dispose of the dirt generated by the Project in a responsible manner, then the City and Ambient should downsize the project so it produces less dirt, including by removing the Western Bypass and/or Village G. In short, the City cannot hide by an empty promise to build a "nature center" while pillaging a wildlife corridor to accommodate a highway project. In any event, the FEIR concedes that the Nature Center option will have similar impacts on MSHCP conservation areas as the Civic/Institutional uses. (Appx. A at A-26.) These impacts are impermissible under the MSHCP for the same reasons the Civic/Institutional uses are impermissible. The FEIR similarly claims that "overall human activity" will be reduced with the Nature Center, but does not provide any evidence that this is actually true. In addition, the FEIR removes the 10 -foot high berm and "living walls" from the Nature Center option even though such features are likely to reduce impacts in either the Civic/Institutional or Nature Center options. (See FEIR at 3-16 & 17.) Moreover, as noted by the Wildlife Agencies, the FEIR fails to compare the Nature Center option to "baseline" conditions and instead compares it to the Civic/Institutional use alternative. If a component of the Project is the Nature Center, than the FEIR needs to analyze impacts of the Nature Center in light of existing (baseline) conditions. The "comparison" analysis misleads the decision -makers and public. VIII. The FEIR Fails To Analyze or Mitigate Impacts To the Western Pond Turtle. The FEIR fails to include sufficient mitigation for the western pond turtle ("WPT")—a species of special concern. CDFW defines a species of special concern as a species that, among other things, "is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status." (California Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Species of Special Concern (last visited Oct. 9, 2014), http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc/.) CDFW aims to "achieve conservation and recovery of these animals before they meet California Endangered Species Act criteria for listing as threatened or endangered." (Id.) CDFW states that species of special concern "should be considered during the environmental review process." (Id.; CEQA Guidelines § 15380(b)(B).) An impact to wildlife is significant where it "substantially reduce[s] the number or restrict[s] the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) CDFW interprets this provision to apply to species of special concern, such as the WPT. (California Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Species of Special Concern, supra ("[Section] 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, which address how an impact is identified as significant, are particularly relevant to SSCs.").) The City must mitigate significant effects whenever feasible. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080.5(d)(2)(A).) WPT are listed as species of special concern because their numbers have decreased due to increasing habitat destruction and disturbance, especially from farming operations, and depredation from invasive species, such as bullfrogs and bass. (Jennings et al. (1994); Spinks et al. (2003); Pilliod et al. (2013).) WPT make wide-ranging use of their aquatic habitat, sometimes migrating more than one kilometer per year. (Pilliod et al.) WPT are known to nest as far as 400 meters away from streams (Id.). Other studies have found that WPT spend as much as seven months in terrestrial habitat and can be found overwintering up to 500 meters from 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 9 aquatic habitat, as well as migrating over 1 km. (Holland 1994). WPT that inhabit non -permanent bodies of water exclusively overwinter in terrestrial habitat, whereas aquatic overwintering occurs in populations inhabiting permanent ponds (Zaragoza 2015.) Here, the City has claimed that "steep terrain" will ensure that WPT stay in Murrieta Creek and are not impacted by development in the Project area. (FEIR at 3-336.) This claim is inconsistent with the studies cited above. Notably, no surveys have been conducted during breeding season to assess whether the City's speculative claim has any merit. The City needs conduct proper surveys for WPT and/or limit the development to areas outside of the dispersal zones for WPT. IX. The FEIR's San Diego Ambrosia Plan Is Inadequate. The FEIR contains the same inadequate San Diego ambrosia mitigation measure as the DEIR. Even if the FEIR did not impermissibly defer development of mitigation, the proposed mitigation measure may still not be effective. A report submitted to CDFW concluded that a mere 32 percent of translocation efforts were successful. (Fiedler 1991.) The report concludes that agencies should be "extremely cautious" in any mitigation agreement allowing for translocation. (Ibid.) A CDFW comments document entitled "Plant Translocation Database Summary" similarly stated that "translocation appears to be an unsuccessful form of mitigation."3 The document further stated any translocation activities "should always establish biologically justifiable success criteria and long-term monitoring plans." (Id.) A similar CDFW comment document stated that "CDFW, in general, does not recommend translocation of rare plants as a mitigation/minimization measure to reduce adverse effects from a project. Successful implementation of translocation is rare with minimal documented success. Even if translocation is initially successful, translocated species typically fail to persist over time.s4 The City has not offered any evidence or analysis that translocating San Diego ambrosia is an effective mitigation measure. The FEIR needs to either (1) avoid development in areas containing San Diego ambrosia or (2) provide a plan for translocation with success criteria and a contingency plan in the event that successful translocation and establishment of the new population does not occur. Such a plan needs to acknowledge that existing studies X. The Project Is Still Inconsistent With The MSHCP. The Wildlife Agencies have already repeatedly informed the City in detail about the various ways in which the Project violates the MSHCP. Accordingly to the Wildlife Agencies, the currently estimated acreage shortfall for the Project is 163 acres, although the exact amount could be slightly higher or lower. The FEIR's responses to comments on these issues are completely inadequate. If the City approves the Project as proposed, it will be in violation of the MSHCP, which is a permit issued pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act ("NCCP") (Cal. Fish & Game Code §§ 2800-2840.) Accordingly, the City will also be in violation of both these laws if the City approves the Project as proposed. 3 See email chain re Tri Valley Land Exchange at PDF p. 151. " Id. at PDF 147. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 10 If the City wishes to approve a project that is inconsistent with the conservation goals in criteria cells outlined MSHCP (as is the case here), the City needs to obtain approval of a Criteria Refmement or amendment to the MSHCP, and undergo appropriate public process and CEQA review of such an activity. The Criteria Refmement process requires the preparation of (1) Project Information and (2) an Equivalency Analysis. Project Information must contain: (1) a description of the planning area for the project; (2) a narrative and graphic description of the project; (3) a narrative and graphic description of biological information, including vegetation mapping and species surveys; (4) a narrative and graphic description of the project's efforts to be consistent with the MSHCP Criteria and an explanation as to why consistency is infeasible; and (5) a quantification and characterization of the effects/benefits of the proposed project with the proposed Criteria Refinement on habitats, species, and overall MSHCP Conservation Area design and function, among other items. Moreover, the Equivalency Analysis must address the effects of the project on: (1) Habitats; (2) Covered Species; (3) Core Areas; (4) Linkages and Constrained Linkages; (5) Non -Contiguous Habitat blocks; (6) MSHCP Conservation Area configuration and management; (7) Ecotones and other conditions affecting species diversity. (AR 003641.). The Equivalency Analysis must also demonstrate equivalent or greater acreage contributed to the MSHCP Conservation Area. If a project is determined to be "biologically equivalent or superior," then no amendment to the MSHCP is required; if the project is not determined to be "biologically equivalent or superior," then the project is an "unacceptable deviation" from the MSHCP such that an amendment to the MSHCP is required. Among other qualities, for substitute MSHCP acreage to be "biologically equivalent or superior," it must have similar wildlife connectivity values. The FEIR does not acknowledge or abide by this process — a process to which the City agreed when it became a permittee of the MSHCP. Instead, the FEIR misleadingly refers to such substantive revisions to conservation requirements and acreage in the MSHCP as "possible procedural steps." (FEIR at 3-11.) Given that the Criteria Refinement process implicates discretionary decision-making by agencies, it should undergo appropriate CEQA review. This would necessarily require circulating a revised EIR to addresses these issues, as discussed further below. XI. The Project's Inconsistency With The MSHCP Renders The Project Inconsistent With The General Plan. In addition to violating the MSHCP (and by extension the state and federal Endangered Species Acts and the NCCP Act), the Project violates the General Plan. One of the components of the General Plan is consistency with the MSHCP: The City will continue to participate in multiple -species habitat conservation planning efforts in western Riverside County, and will ensure that City land use policy and decisions are consistent with the recommendations of adopted habitat plans (General Plan at LU -40, emphasis added.) More specifically, OS -9 states: "Require development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 11 and Game, and the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, to provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts, and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance." (General Plan at OS -34, emphasis added.) The General Plan further provides in OS -35 that development -associated impacts must be reviewed for consistency with MSHCP reserve and buffer requirements, as well as various other MSHCP policies and requirements, including MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines. (See General Plan at OS -35 — 36.) Here, the City has refused to respect the MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the Wildlife Agencies, as well as other MSHCP policies outlined in previous letters by the Wildlife Agencies. Even if the MSHCP were merely a "recommendation" as referenced in LU -40 (which it is not), the General Plan requires that land use decisions are consistent with such "recommendations." Here, the Project is inconsistent with such "recommendations," as well as other MSHCP policies. Because the Project is clearly inconsistent with policies described in the General Plan (and General Plan EIR), the City has violated California law. (See Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (201 1) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1552, 1562-1563; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336; Gov. Code, § 65300 et seq.) XII. The City Should Consider Recirculating The FEIR After Revising The FEIR To Demonstrate Consistency With The MSHCP. The Conservation Groups understand that there is a possibility that the City will substantially revise the FEIR prior to December 12 in order to "cure" some of incorrect analysis and conclusions in the FEIR regarding the MSHCP. The Conservation Groups fully support the City revising the EIR to cure these and other defects in the FEIR. However, the Conservation Groups respectfully urge the City to recirculate the FEIR for public review after such revisions, or—at a minimum—delay the December 12 hearing to allow the environmental community, the Wildlife Agencies, and other stakeholders to adequately assess such revisions and provide comments and feedback. Such major revisions to the FEIR without recirculation may be inconsistent with Public Resources Code section 21092.1. This section states that "[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21 153 before certifying the environmental impact report." CEQA Guideline 15088.5 further clarifies that "As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information." Significant new information includes "a disclosure that (1) a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or a new mitigation measure; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted; (3) a feasible alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the project's significant impacts but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; or (4) the draft EIR 'was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 12 precluded." (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors, 216 Cal. App. 4th 614, 654-655.) Applied here, if the FEIR is revised to truthfully disclose the inconsistency between the proposed project and the MSHCP, then the revised FEIR likely would disclose a "substantial increase in the severity of an environment impact," given that inconsistencies with applicable plans are significant impacts under CEQA. Similarly, the Draft EIR's serious errors regarding MSHCP consistency—and a myriad of other topics—arguably rendered the Draft EIR (and current version of the Final EIR) so "inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." In addition, the FEIR has already been revised such that conservation requirements in the DEIR have now been removed— such as a donation of a conservation easement for 269.6 acres for conservation. While courts have not required recirculation in some instances in which additional studies were added to support the analysis in an EIR, this is not the case here—the EIR is in need of major revisions, thereby militating in favor of recirculation. The Wildlife Agencies joined in this request in their most recent letter of November 14, 2017: A correct project -specific analysis of MSHCP Cell Criteria and reserve assembly goals has not been done by the City or Project Applicant. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) also concluded that the project is not consistent with the MSHCP Cell Criteria. The Wildlife Agencies request that this analysis be developed and presented for public review in a revised and recirculated FEIR. Given that the Project, as proposed, is not consistent with the MSHCP Cell Criteria (even when selecting the Nature/Cultural Center Use variant of the Project), a Criteria Refinement (as described in MSHCP Section 6.5) is also required and should be included in the revised and recirculated FEIR. Moreover, as discussed above, a Criteria Refinement or amendment to the MSHCP are arguably discretionary projects necessitating CEQA review. In addition, the MSHCP functions as a permit under both the ESA and the NCCP Act. Notably, the NCCP Act expressly states that projects undertaken within an NCCP area are not exempt from CEQA, and the NCCP Act does not alter the applicability of the CEQA. (Cal. Fish & Game Code § 2826.) Even if CEQA did not require recirculation, the City can demonstrate it is making a good faith effort to address the problems with the Project by recirculating the FEIR. At a minimum, the City should delay certification of the FEIR for at least 30 days so that the public, the Wildlife Agencies, and the environmental community can participate in the process by providing comments and feedback. XIII. The FEIR Fails To Accurately Disclose The Project's Impacts On Water Supply. The FEIR does not remedy the DEIR's failure to address the impacts of the Project on water resources. As noted by the Conservation Groups' letter of November 30, 2016, the DEIR did not analyze how the impact of adding 4,000 people to the service area of the Rancho California Water District ("RCWD") will affect its ability to supply adequate water. (Conservation Groups' Comment letter on DEIR, 11/30/16, p. 24.) Adding 4,000 new residents to Southern California will increase the strain on California's extremely limited water resources, and the City must analyze the impacts therefrom. The California Supreme Court has held that 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 13 that "[tjhe ultimate question under CEQA, moreover, is not whether an EIR establishes a likely source of water, but whether it adequately addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project." (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412, 434, emphasis added.) The FEIR does not provide information regarding the supply challenges posed by a growing population. The Project's strain on RCWD's supply capabilities has been magnified as the FEIR states that RCWD serves 185,105 people, revised up from the DEIR's number of 134,000. (FEIR at 2-23.) The FEIR provides an accounting of its current supply, but offers no information concerning how it will supply an increased service population other than a brief reference to water transfers exchanges to "help alleviate water shortages in the region." (FEIR at 2-24.) The recent drought in California has highlighted the perilous nature of Southern California's water supply system. The FEIR summarizes the origins of RCWD supply, with 36% coming from groundwater in the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin ("TVGB"); 58% imported by Metropolitan Water District ("MWD"); and 6% coming from recycled water. (FEIR at 2-24.) The FEIR does not address the current status of the TVGB, nor its capacity to maintain pumping into the future. Nor does the FEIR address the possibility of water imports from Metropolitan Water District being curtailed, which occurred in 2015, and could occur in the near future given the pressure on California's water supply from climate change and population increase. (DEIR, Appx. J at ES -10.) The DEIR notes the RCWD Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which demonstrates the district's ability to meet demands under a supply shortage of up to 50%. (DEIR, Appx. J at ES -10.) However, the FEIR fails to address whether this plan would be adequate given the increase in RCWD's service population from what was listed in the DEIR. (FEIR at 2-23.) The Project would increase the strain on an already stressed water supply system in the Temecula area. The FEIR fails to adequately assess the impact on limited water supplies by the Project's increased population. The Project's environmental documents rely on a continuation of the water supply status quo, failing to consider a future where decreased precipitation in the State will constrain water deliveries and further exhaust groundwater stores. XIV. The FEIR Does Not Adequately Analyze Project Impacts On Air Quality. The FEIR's air quality impacts analysis is flawed because it fails to take into account all sources of air quality impacts resulting from the Project and fails to adopt all feasible measures to reduce the Project's significant air quality impacts. The Project will further degrade the region's air quality by generating considerable emissions from the construction phase, ongoing operations, and the many miles of vehicle trips generated by the Project. The FEIR does not address the air quality impacts that will be felt by residents living in homes next to the proposed four -lane Western Bypass. The FEIR relies on the DEIR finding of no significant impacts due to exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants ("TACs") emitting sources, the significance level determined by being within 500 feet of freeways with 100,000 or more vehicles per day. (DEIR at 3.2-29.) The DEIR found no significant impact because the Project site is not within the zone of influence of a major TACs source, but it did not consider the Bypass to be a major source of TACs, nor did it analyze the impact of the Western Bypass in 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 14 regards to other pollutants. The FEIR incorrectly fmds no significant impact based only on analysis of a single pollutant, without further assessment of Bypass -related emissions. The Bypass Project development may occur within 45 feet of the "centerline of the Western Bypass." (DEIR at 3.10-45.) Numerous studies have documented the air pollution and health impacts associated with siting expressways and freeways in close proximity to residential development, particularly upon sensitive receptors such as children and the elderly. (Lin 2012.) A review of 700 studies concluded that pollution causes asthma attacks in children, the onset of childhood asthma, impaired lung function, premature death and death from cardiovascular diseases, and cardiovascular morbidity.5 The study concluded that the most affected area was 300 to 500 meters from the highways (984 feet to 1640 feet). Other studies have reached similar conclusions. (Anderson 2011.) Living near expressways also increases the likelihood that residents will suffer from dementia. (Chen 2017.) The University of Southern California's Environmental Health Centers have also collected data and studies showing risks and health impacts to pregnant women, babies, children, teenagers, adults, and seniors of living by a freeway.6 Based on this research, the 500 11. threshold cited by the DEIR is insufficient to properly assess the air quality threats posed by the western bypass to the Project area. The FEIR does not include analysis or attempt to quantify the significant impacts of reactive organic gases ("ROGs") and oxides of nitrogen ("NOx") emissions that the DEIR claims are "unavoidable." (DEIR at 3.2-24.) The Project is located within an air basin that is already out of attainment for ozone, the Project would only exacerbate the problem. Despite the severe health effects of such pollutants on sensitive receptors, there is no attempt to implement mitigation measures to lessen the impact. The DEIR only recommends that individuals stay indoors on unhealthy days to escape the health hazard to which the Project will directly contribute. The FEIR fails to offer appropriate mitigation measures, in addition to ignoring the possibility of alternatives that do not site an expressway in close proximity to sensitive receptors such as children and the elderly. The FEIR analysis is also deficient in that it does not properly analyze construction impacts. The DEIR applies Localized Significance Threshold ("LST") to assess project impacts. (DEIR at 3.2-15.) This is improper as the LST methodology is meant for projects of 5 acres or less, as noted in the Conservation Groups' Comment Letter at page 5. The FEIR clarifies its use of the LST methodology, saying the 5 -acre emissions limit will be used as a screening tool for projects larger than 5 acres, as emissions below the 5 -acre LST threshold would clearly be acceptable from a site greater than 5 acres. (FEIR at 3-276.) If a project emits more than the 5 - acre LST threshold, the FEIR indicates a "refined analysis" will be performed. (FEIR at 3-276.) Aside from an improper implementation of the SCAQMD methodology, the FEIR also fails to describe in any detail the "refined analysis" of pollutant emissions. Without a clearly established method for assessing the air quality impacts of Project construction, the FEIR does not satisfy its 5 Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic -Related Air Pollution, Traffic -Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure. and Health Effects. Health Effects Institute: Boston (2010). 6 See http://envhealthcenters.use.edu/infogranhics/infographic-living-near-busy-roads-or-traffic- pollution/references-living-near-busy-roads-or-traffio-pollution (collecting studies); see also http://www.latimes.com/oroiects/la-me-freeway-pollution/. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 15 mandate as an informational document. (County of lnyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 201.) XV. The FEIR Alternatives Analysis Does Not Comply With CEQA. CEQA mandates that significant environmental damage be avoided or substantially lessened where feasible. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Guidelines §§ I5002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), 15126(d).) Moreover, although "an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project ... it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision decision-making and public participation." (Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) Additionally, the "key to the selection of the range of alternatives is to identify alternatives that meet most of the project's objectives but have a reduced level of environmental impacts." (Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1059, 1089.) The CEQA process "is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project," it must allow for revision based on unforeseen revelations during the investigative process. (County oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 CaLApp.3d 185, 199.) The FEIR fails to include a reasonable range of altematives while lacking sufficient analysis of those proposed alternatives. The FEIR and responses to comments "fixed" the results of the alternatives analysis by including a civic center and elementary school as project objectives, limiting the range of alternatives considered. (FEIR at 3-346.) "Fixing" the analysis in such a way by unreasonably narrowing the range of alternatives is a violation of CEQA. (See Save Round Valley Alliance v. County oflnyo (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1456-57.) The FEIR, in defending its narrow choice of alternatives, asserts that CEQA guidelines have been satisfied because the alternatives "would feasibly attain most of the Project Objectives." (FEIR at 3-346.) This interpretation is based on the assumption that the civic center and elementary school are legitimate project objectives, though in reality such uses are more likely to be concessions to the local authorities overseeing the approval of a proposed residential development project. By including these objectives, the FEIR does not analyze alternatives with a smaller footprint, a transportation - oriented design built around existing transit nodes, or a mixed-use development combined with greater habitat preservation and enhancement for wildlife. The FEIR and responses to comments provides insufficient comparative analysis of the proffered alternatives, failing to satisfy the CEQA requirements. The absence of a quantitative, comparative analysis of data prohibits meaningful consideration of an alternative in the CEQA process. (Kings County Farm Bureau v.' City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 735.) The FEIR relies on the alternatives comparison in table 5-3 of the DEIR. (DEIR at 5-18.) This table lists impacts of each alternative and whether the impact is reduced, similar to, or increased relative to the proposed Project. (DEIR at 5-18.) Such a lack of empirical specificity is hardly a quantitative and meaningful comparison of the alternatives. The goal ofCEQA's alternative analysis is to best inform the decision -maker of potentially less -harmful alternatives, this task is made unreasonably difficult when levels of harm are not clearly quantified. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 16 XVI. The FEIR Fails To Demonstrate That A Smaller Project is Infeasible. CEQA provides that a lead agency cannot "simply rely on evidence proffered by the project's proponent regarding infeasibility; instead, the agency 'must independently participate, review, analyze and discuss the alternatives in good faith.'" (Sierra Club v. Tahoe Reg? Planning Agency (C.D.Cal. 2013) 916 F. Supp. 2d 1098, citing Save Round Valley Alliance v. Cnty. q/Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1460.) In addition, whether a project is economically unfeasible "is not measured by increased cost or lost profit, but upon whether the effect of the proposed mitigation is such that the project is rendered impractical." (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 600 (internal citation omitted).) Moreover, in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180, the Court agreed with the trial court that the record did not contain analysis of the project alternatives in terms of comparative costs, comparative profit or losses, or comparative economic benefit to the project applicant or the community at large. The Court held that the "scant figures" in the record were insufficient to demonstrate that the additional costs of downsized project rendered it infeasible to proceed with the project. (Id. at 1181.) Here, the City and Ambient have rejected smaller versions of the project on "feasibility" grounds Yet, neither the City nor Ambient have offered any evidence that a smaller version of the Project is infeasible, as required by the above authorities. To the extent Ambient is claiming that the large size of the Project is mandated in order to fund the Western Bypass, then the City should consider removing the Western Bypass from being a condition of the development. What the City and Ambient cannot do is play a "shell game" in which each claims its hands are tied in downsizing the scale of the project. XVII. The FEIR Should Incorporate Rooftop Solar And Demonstrate Compliance With Other GHG Policies. The Conservation Groups appreciate the revisions to the FEIR, which strengthen MM GHG 1. However, the Conservation Groups again request that at least 75 percent of the Project's energy generation needs be offset by onsite renewable energy and/or energy efficiency measures. Furthermore, the City and Ambient have an opportunity to be a leader in fighting climate change by including a project requirement of zero net energy ("ZNE") for GHG emissions. ZNE projects intend to achieve that goal through reducing onsite GHG emissions to the greatest extent practicable, but also by offsetting any other emissions through local emissions reductions projects. The Project should implement such measures because CEQA requires the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. Such measures could include more robust EV charging requirements, more onsite renewable energy, and a program to offset the remaining GHG emissions locally. 7 See, e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newhall Ranch Resource and Development Management and Development Plan. Final Additional Environmental Analysis, Appendix 2.1, available at htto://planning.lacountv.gov/assets/upl/case/tr 53108 appendix-2-0-cdfw-final-aea-excerpts.pdf. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 17 If the City approves the Project with a ZNE requirement, any associated offset program must ensure "additionality." California law establishes specific standards for greenhouse gas offset credits used in the AB 32 cap -and -trade system. Health and Safety Code section 38562(d) requires, in relevant part, that: (1) The greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable by the state board. (2) For regulations pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with Section 38570) [i.e., regulations implementing the market-based cap -and -trade system], the reduction is in addition to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that otherwise would occur. (3) If applicable, the greenhouse gas emission reduction occurs over the same time period and is equivalent in amount to any direct emission reduction required pursuant to this division. In particular, the two-part definition of"additional" under subdivision (d)(2) requires not only that credited reductions are not otherwise legally required, but also that credited reductions would not otherwise occur in the absence of the offset project. This definition of "additional" also applies in the CEQA context, as the regulatory history of the relevant CEQA Guidelines makes clear. The CEQA Guidelines specify that only GHG reductions that are "not otherwise required" may be used to offset project emissions. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (c)(3).) However, as the California Resources Agency's Final Statement of Reasons for adopting this Guideline explains, the "not otherwise required" language was intended to make clear that only "additional" emissions reductions—that is, reductions not otherwise required by law or likely to occur anyway—may be used to generate offsets for CEQA mitigation.8 The Final Statement of Reasons explicitly interprets CEQA's mitigation requirements, including requirements governing use of offsets, as "consistent with the Legislature's directive in AB32 that reductions relied on as part of a market-based compliance mechanism must be 'in addition to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that otherwise would occur.' (Ibid.) There are key GHG policies and plans that should be analyzed in a recirculated FEIR (or at least in an addendum). For instance, there does not appear to be any analysis of consistency with Executive Order ("EO") 5-3-05. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 497, 515 ("SANDAG") stated that it is not dispositive whether EO S-3-05 is an "adopted GHG reduction plan" or accepted threshold of significance. Instead, SANDAG observed that EO S -3-05's "goal of reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels expresses the pace and magnitude of reduction efforts that the scientific community believes necessary to stabilize the climate. This scientific information has ° California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97 at 48, 87-90 (December 2009). 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 18 important value to policymakers and citizens in considering the emission impacts of a project like SANDAG's regional transportation plan." (Ibid.) SANDAG also approvingly cited a letter from the California Attorney General noting that infrastructure and land use decisions "may lock in transportation inefficiencies and preclude any realistic possibility of meeting the Executive Order's goal of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions." (Id. at 509, emphasis added.) A recirculated FEIR should analyze and disclose whether the Project will lock in such transportation inefficiencies and potentially frustrate the state's ability to meet the long-term goal in EO S-3-05. Similarly, the FEIR does not appear to analyze how the Project meets the state's 2050 GHG targets set forth EO B-16-2012, which (1) directs state agencies to facilitate the rapid commercialization of zero -emission vehicles and (2) establishes a goal of an "80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector in California by 2050 as compared to 1990 levels." (Bay Area Citizens v. Association of Bay Area Governments (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 966, 980.) The FEIR also does not consider whether the Project is consistent with Health & Safety Code § 38566. This section states: "In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state board shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030." Applied here, this section indicates there is a state-wide policy that all projects must demonstrate at least a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions by December 31, 2030. Accordingly, the City must consider whether the Project is consistent with Health & Safety Code § 38566, the various scoping plans published by the California Air Resources Board, and the various plans and policies discussed in the other letters submitted by the Conservation Groups. In addition, applying the principles set forth in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 225, the City not demonstrated that any purported "project -level" reduction in GHGs associated with the Project is consistent with the state-wide goal of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent by December 31, 2030. Finally, the FEIR does not appear to comply with the guidance in Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1012 (Nov. 16, 2017) ["Cleveland HP']. Cleveland III held that an EIR that did not include an alternative that could significantly reduce total vehicle miles travelled did not comply with CEQA. (Id. at 26- 27.) Here, because all of the studied alternatives involve the same site location—the VMT for each alternative is likely to be very similar. The FEIR does not disclose specific VMT figures for each alternatives. Such an omission of an alternative with a significantly reduced VMT is "inexplicable given ... that the state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on -road transportation will not succeed if the amount of driving, or vehicle miles traveled, is not significantly reduced." (Id. at 27.) XVIII. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is Conclusory And Inadequate. The Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC") fails to provide substantial evidence supporting its claim that the Project's benefits outweigh impacts on air quality GHGs, noise, and traffic. The SOC merely contains the bare statement that such impacts are outweighed 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 19 without any analysis. (See SOC at 2.) The SOC contains a similar conclusory claim that all feasible mitigation measures have been adopted. CEQA requires substantial evidence supporting this claim with respect to each area of significant impacts. XIX. Other Problems Remain With The Project. The environmental community and other stakeholders have submitted numerous letters describing various other problems with the Project. Some of the villages suffer from inadequate fencing around all areas adjacent to wildlife habitat, which will lead to conflicts between people and wildlife. While language in the Specific Plan might call for fencing, the Project lacks specific and enforceable measures requiring such fencing as a condition of project approval. The City should coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies to development specific conditions of approval/mitigation measures to require the fencing called for by the Wildlife Agencies. XX. Conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Project. In light of many significant, unavoidable environmental impacts that will result from the Project, we strongly urge the Project not be approved in its current form. We ask that the City and Ambient work collaboratively with stakeholders to scale back the size of the Project to alleviate the impacts on wildlife corridors. In furtherance of that goal, we request that the City postpone the hearing set for December 12 so that the City can work Ambient, the Wildlife Agencies, and the environmental community to develop an acceptable solution. Sincerely, J.P. Rose, Staff Attomey Ileene Anderson, Senior Scientist Center for Biological Diversity 660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California, 90017 (213) 785-5400 jrose(a,biologicaldiversity.org Kim F. Floyd Conservation Chair San Gorgonio Chapter Sierra Club /s/ Vicki Long President, Cougar Connection 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 20 References (Attached on CD) Andersen, Z.J. et al., Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Long -Term Exposure to Traffic -related Air Pollution: A Cohort Study, Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 183: 455-461 (2011). Benson, J.F., J.A, Sikich, S.P.D. Riley, Individual and Population Level Resource Selection Patterns of Mountain Lions Preying on Mule Deer along an Urban-Wildland Gradient, PLoS ONE 11(7): e0158006 (2016). Buxton, R. T. et al., Noise Point on is Pervasive in U.S. Protected Areas, Science 356, 531-533 (2017). California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDWF), Department Bulletin: Policy and Procedures for Conservation Translocations of Animals and Plants (Nov. 2017). California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97 at 48, 87-90 (December 2009). Chen, H. et al., Living near major roads and the incidence of dementia, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis: a population -based cohort study, Lancet, 389: 718-726 (2017). Email chain re Tri Valley Land Exchange (2014). Fielder, P.L., Final Report: Mitigation Related Transplantation, Relocation and Reintroduction Projects Involving Endangered and Threatened, and Rare Plant Species in California, (1991). Greene, S., How a fear of human affects the lives of California's mountain lions, LA Times (2017). Gustafson, K.D., et al., A single migrant enhances the genetic diversity of an inbred puma population, R. Soc. Open Sci. 4: 170115 (2017). Holland, D.C., The western pond turtle: habitat and histoty. Final Rep. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power Adm. Proj. 92-068, Contr. DE-BI79-92B62137 (1994). Jennings, M. et al., Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California, CAL. DEP'T. OF FISH &WILDLIFE 101, 102 (1994). Lin, S. et al., Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic, Environmental Research Section A, 88: 73-81 (2002). Pilliod, D. et al., Terrestrial Movement Patterns of Western Pond Turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in Central California, 8 HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION &BIOLOGY 207, 207 (2013). 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 21 Slabbekoorn, H. and E. A. Ripmeester, Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation, Molecular Ecology 17, 72-83 (2008). Smith, J.A. et al., Fear of the human 'super predator' reduces feeding time in large carnivores, Proc. R. Soc. 13284: 20170433 (2017). Smith, J.A., Y. Wang, C.C. Wilmers, Spatial Characteristics of Residential Development Shift Large Carnivore Prey Habits, Journal of Wildlife Management. 80(6):1040-1048 (2016). Smith, J.A., Y. Wang, C.C. Wilmers, Top carnivores increase their kill rates on prey as a response to human -induced fear, Proc. R. Soc. B 282: 20142711 (2015). Spinks, P. et al., Survival of the Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata) in an Urban California Environment, 113 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 257, 257 (2003). Vickers, T.W. et al., Survival and Mortality of Pumas (Puma concolor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape, PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490 (2015). Vickers, T.W. and K.C. Drayer, Wildlife Health Center, Letter re Planning Commission Agenda Item #2, Altair Project Final EIR (Nov. 15, 2017). Ware, H. E. et al., A Phantom Road Experiment Reveals Traffic Noise is an Invisible Source of Habitat Degradation, PNAS 112, 12105-12109 (2015). Wilmers, C.C. et al., Scale Dependent Behavioral Responses to Human Development by a Large Predator, the Puma, PLoS ONE 8(4): e60590 (2013). Zaragoza, G. et al., Terrestrial habitat use by western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in the Sierra foothills. Journal of Herpetology, 49(3):437-441 (2015). Zeller, K.A. et al., Sensitivity of resource selection and connectivity models to landscape definition, Landscape Ecol, DOI 10.1007/s10980-017-0489-8 (2017). Zeller, K.A. et al., Multi-level, multi -scale resource selection functions and resistance surfaces for conservation planning: Pumas as a case study, PLoS ONE 12(6): e0179570 (2017). 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 22 11 IMPLEMENTATION 11.6 Lot Reconfiguration or Consolidation Lots within the Altair Specific Plan area may be consolidated, subdivided or otherwise adjusted as allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Temecula and other applicable codes. Such adjustments do not require an amendment this Specific Plan, as long as the resultant lot(s) comply with the intent and guidelines of this Specific Plan. All lots shall meet the minimum lot dimensions outlined in Section 10, Development Standards. This Specific Plan does not limit construction of buildings over lot lines of contiguous lots under the same ownership. 11.7 Financing Strategies Funding for the construction of the infrastructure and facilities at Altair may be provided by a variety of potential sources, such as Developer Financing; Development Impact Fees (DIF); Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF); Federal, State or Local Grant Funding; or revenue from any Community Facilities District, Assessment District, Infrastructure Financing District, Gasoline Taxes, or the General Fund. In several instances including but not limited to the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge, the sewer facilities, parks, etc., the developer shall utilize fee credits and/or reimbursements from the various agencies, including the City of Temecula, to directly off -set the costs expended by the developer. Some of these credits and reimbursements are outlined in the Development Agreement described below. The Master Developer and the City of Temecula will enter into a Development Agreement for Altair Specific Plan and Related Entitlements to enable adequate and timely funding of the infrastructure necessary to Altair's success. The Agreement will outline public and private improvement cost responsibilities, project related costs, credits and/or reimbursements and corresponding agencies. The Development Agreement lays out the timing of infrastructure improvements relative to project phasing. A Community Finance District (CFD) will be formed which will include special taxes to fund public infrastructure related to the project as well as the projected annual deficit for the cost of City Services. 11.8 Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. ESE PLAN November 2017 11-9 IMPLEMENTATION 11 11-10 8. The owners and their successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 11.9 Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, each Occupied Residential Property in the Specific Plan area shall pay Forty -Three Dollars (543.00) per dwelling unit per year, to be increased each fiscal year by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's payment, to fund the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs. R. For the purposes of this provision, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. The proceeds of the Wildlife Conservation Fee shall be used for the following purposes ("Wildlife Conservation Costs"): (1) The initial six million dollars (56,000,000.00) of the Initial Wildlife Conservation Fee and the Wildlife Conservation Fee shall be held in an account by the City for the purposes of acquiring one hundred (100) acres of conservation lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the Property and/or in Riverside County and within ten (10) miles of the Property. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, a Joint Powers Agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. ("RCA") shall acquire such land and City shall reimburse RCA for the cost of its land purchase and associated closing costs, with interest, from the initial 56,000,000.00. The land acquisitions shall be in accordance with the equivalency standards for the acquisition of land submitted to the RCA and the City prior to the City Council's approval of the Project. Once this objective has been satisfied, then the City shall use such funding thereafter for one or more of the conservation activities described below in subsections (2), (3) or (4). The interest rate for the reimbursement shall be compound interest at the rate equal to the average interest rate paid on deposits in the State Local Agency Investment Fund, Government Code Sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, during the year prior to July 1 of each year. Owner, its successors to the property within the Project, including End Users, shall fulfill this obligation of the Specific Plan with the proceeds of Special Tax C of the CFD(s), provided, however, that the obligation under this Section and Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan remains regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it or whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN It J 11 IMPLEMENTATION (2) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the RCA along Interstate 15 between the Property and the San Diego County Line whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lion) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or (3) Reimbursement to the RCA of its costs, with interest, for the acquisition of lands south of the Project for conservation (the interest rate for the reimbursement shall be compound annual interest at the rate equal to the average interest rate paid on deposits in the State Local Agency Investment Fund, Government Code Sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, during the year prior to July 1 of each year); and/or (4) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (1) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Project Site undertaken by the City or RCA. (5) Owner shall not be entitled to any fee credits in connection with such conservation funding. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 11.10 Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or portion of this specific plan, or any future amendments or additions hereto, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this specific plan, or any future amendments or additions hereto. The City hereby declares that it would have adopted these requirements and each sentence, subsection, clause, phrase or portion or any future amendments or additions thereto, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, portions or any future amendments or additions thereto may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. °PECI°IC PLAN November 2017 10.15 Multifamily Walk -Up 10.16 Multifamily Podium 10.17 Micro -Units 10.18 Mixed -Use 10.19 Iconic Tower 10.20 Civic Buildings / Nature Center 10.21 School Buildiings 10.22 Community Buildings 11 IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Regulations that Administer the Specific Plan 11.2 Capital Improvements 11.3 Phasing 11.4 Maintenance 11.5 Density Transfer 11.6 Lot Reconfiguration or Consolidation 11.7 Financing Strategies 11.8 Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments 11.9 Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee 11.10 Severability APPENDICES Appendix A - Plant Lists PEC FIC PLAN November 2017 10-51 10-55 10-58 10-60 10-63 10-64 10-66 10-68 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS v Altair Development Agreement Section change to 4.4.50), Onsite Conservation revised to more accurately identify the lot numbers (in the appropriate tract phase) for permanent conservation. 4.4.5. Open Space Acquisition and Conservation. OWNER agrees to contribute to and construct several conservation features as part of the Project that will further aid in the conservation of sensitive habitats and the enhancement of wildlife movement and genetic diversity of mountain lions in the region. These conservation features are: (i) Onsite Conservation. OWNER shall convey to the Regional Conservation Authority ("RCA") for permanent conservation Lot 8 of Tentative Tract Map 36959- 1, Lot 25 of Tentative Tract Map 36959-2, Lot 20 of Tentative Tract Map 36959-3, and Lots 8 and 9 of Tentative Tract Map 36959, consisting of approximately 84.60 acres. Lot 10 of Tentative Tract Map 36959 may also be conveyed to the RCA subject to the provisions in Section 4.4.3 herein, which would then result in approximately 87.20 acres. Randi Joh! From: Aaron Adams Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 10:57 AM To: Peter Thorson; Randi Johl Cc: Luke Watson; Matt Peters; Greg Butler Subject: FW: Altair Project: Protest MCC - Original Message From: Aaron Adams Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 10:56 AM To: 'Brent Morris' < ; Greg Butler <greg.butler@TemeculaCA.gov> Subject: RE: Altair Project: Protest Received. Will make sure it is shared with the Mayor and City Council and part of administrative record. Original Message From: Brent Morris [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 10:38 AM To: Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>; Greg Butler <greg.butler@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Altair Project: Protest Good Afternoon, I am writing to voice my concerns regarding the AltAir Project. As a resident of Temecula, I strongly disagree with the AftAir project. In the past 5 years, the planning and development has been sub -par and the design of the developments have been poorly negotiated in the developers' favor. As a result of the Council members poor decisions, the community has suffered as a result of unsustainable population growth which has severely impacted our schools, infrastructure and quality of life. This is unacceptable. The bottom-line should not be based on profits. Instead the focus should primarily be on the Quality of life. It is very troubling council members are not holding the values they promised during their campaign.. The Alt Air project does not benefit the community as a whole, instead it compounds the issues the City has neglected in the past. Sustaining one of the greatest droughts in State history and controlling record fires should be the City's primary focused. Why is the City not looking out for it's residents. The constant increase in water rates and utilities should not be the burden on it's residents as a result of the poor negotiations by the City's developments. Please forward my concerns to the Council members. Kind Regards, Brent Morris t Randi Johl From: Aaron Adams Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 8:53 PM To: Randi Johl; Peter Thorson Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item 19. December 12, 2017, Council Meeting: Altair specific Plan Attachments: 1560192-18CPAXXXXjt Comments FE1R Altair Specific Plan_20171211.pdf; ATT00001.htm Sent from my iPad Aaron Adams Begin forwarded message: From: Betsy Lowrey <betsy.lowrey(a�temeculaca.gov> Date: December 11, 2017 at 8:12:26 PM PST To: Luke Watson <luke.watson(a,temeculaca.gov>, Greg Butler <greg.butler(c�temeculaca.gov>, Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item 19. December 12, 2017, Council Meeting: Altair specific Plan Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Cleary -Rose, Karin" <karin Cleary -rose @@,fws.gov> Date: December 11, 2017 at 7:38:08 PM PST To:<iames.stewart(@,temeculaca.gov>, Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@citycouncil.org>, <jeffcomerchero@citycouncil.org>, Mike Naggar <mnaggar @ citycouncil.org>, "Edwards, Maryann"<maryann.edwards@citycouncil.org>, <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Cc: Heather Pert <Heather.Pert@wildlife.ca.gov>, Shawn Nicholson <shawn nicholson@,fws.gov>, Mendel Stewart <mendel stewart(aifws.gov> Subject: Agenda Item 19. December 12, 2017, Council Meeting: Altair specific Plan Mayor Edwards and Councilpersons, Please find the Wildlife Agencies Comments attached. A hard copy will not follow unless requested. Thank you, Karin Cleary -Rose 1 Inland Division Chief U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 Palm Springs, CA 92220 (760) 322 2070 ext 406 - Please note new extension. 2 U.H. YOB • WILDLIFE SERVICE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 Palm Springs, California 92262 760-322-2070 FAX 760-322-4648 CALIFORNIA AVM' FISH LI WILDLIFE California Department of Fish and Wildlife Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, California 91764 909-484-0167 FAX 909-481-2945 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFW-W RIV-1580192-18CPAXXXX December 11, 2017 Sent by email Mayor Maryann Edwards City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Subject: Agenda Item 19 for December 12, 2017 City Council Meeting: Altair Specific Plan Dear Mayor Edwards and Councilmembers: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, collectively the Wildlife Agencies, are providing the following comments on the Altair Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). We recognize that the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) has issued a letter on December7, 2017 documenting the change in MSHCP implementation strategy for the project. We applaud the work done by the RCA, City, and Project Proponent to resolve issues with the project's MSHCP consistency. We support the approach described in the RCA's letter, and are seeking additional clarification and follow up on the items below. Additionally, the Wildlife Agencies have not seen the agreed upon equivalency analysis, and request that the project be continued one month until we have reviewed and approved the equivalency analysis. We remind the City that while the MSHCP contemplates the flexibility in implementation represented in the RCA's letter via the Criteria Refinement Process, the MSHCP gives the Wildlife Agencies approval of conservation exchanges outside of the criteria area. A continuance would also provide time for the items below to be addressed. 1. Project Subunit Analysis and Impacts on Reserve Assembly a. Our calculation is that the conservation shortfall from the proposed development is approximately 165 acres. We appreciate that Project Applicant and City have identified a path to address this shortfall and make the MSHCP whole. However, the 165 acres was an estimate based on older project information, which may not accurately represent the actual project impacts. i. There needs to be an accounting of the project impacts and conservation achieved from the project for the Criteria Cell Analysis. We request that the City, Project Applicant, RCA, and Wildlife Agencies meet and identify a final accounting of projects impacts and conservation shortfall. 2. Reserve Assembly and Replacement Acreage. a. The proposed solution to resolving the acreage 165 -acre shortfall is for the Project Applicant to purchase 66 -acres and the RCA will purchase approximately 100 acres replacement acres to make up the difference. The RCA will be reimbursed Mayor Edwards (F W S/CDF W- W R I V-15 B0192 -18C PAXXXX) 2 with interest from the CFD funds for the replacement acres. The Wildlife Agencies have the following request to ensure consistency with the MSHCP. i. Approval and review the replacement acres. ii. Condition the project so that no blading or ground disturbance is allowed on Phase 3 until the replacement acres are secure. iii. The Project cannot cause the MSHCP Rough -step unit 5 to be out of step for coastal sage scrub. 3. Linkages and Mountain Lion Movement a. The Wildlife Agencies find the FEIR responses to mountain lion movement and linkages inadequate as they rely on weak tools to evaluate project impact, do not evaluate project impacts relative to existing conditions and provide insufficient mitigation measures. The Wildlife Agencies strongly urge the City and Project Applicant to use relevant scientific mountain lion information and wildlife movement models to adequately address project impacts to Proposed Linkage 10. We request that appropriate measures to minimize impacts to mountain lions are implemented such as: i. We still recommend and request the elimination of Village G and the Nature Center from the development footprint. Village G only provides 130 units and represent approximately 7% of the total units yet results in disproportionally large acres of grading for 7 -acre pad. Those 130 units can be absorbed into the Villages in earlier project Phases without affecting the description of the Specific Plan or its environmental analysis. The development in Village G and south parcel areas could then be subtracted from the area the RCA is going to purchase. Notably, the south parcel and Village G also support coastal sage scrub, which would help the City maintain Rough Step. ii. Adopt measures to protect the critical linkage/ movement area near the Temescal Creek crossing and adjacent stream areas from trespassers and associated degradation by conditioning the project to provide enforcement and fencing/gates on the South Parcel. If the specific Plan is adopted as proposed, we request that the City begin regular park patrol of the area and control access to the site immediately after project adoption. iii. Any developed trails on the south parcel should coincide with MSHCP covered trails and those that do not must be included in the total Project impact acreage. iv. The City should commit to preventing re-establishment of homeless encampments under and around the Temescal Creek crossing to protect Mayor Edwards (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-1560192-18CPAXXXX) 3 the function of that crossing and reduce the human presence around the crossing. v. Use the CFD funds for public education about the conservation areas and specifically mountain lions. vi. Use the CFD funds to provide funding to replace livestock taken by mountain lions or improve fencing or enclosures for livestock in Subunit 6. 4. Pond Turtle a. The Wildlife Agencies disagree with the unsupported project statement that the upland habitat does not provide important nesting habitat for Pond Turtles. The RCA monitoring program has tracked turtles that use habitat with steep slopes for nesting in Western Riverside County. We have the following requests: i. Reduce project impacts to the South Parcel by finding another location to store dirt. The stored dirt will smother existing vegetation and destroy upland nesting habitat for pond turtle. ii. Reduce the excess dirt generated by the project by eliminating Village G. iii. Identify an alternate location for dirt storage. iv. Reduce the amount of dirt stored on the site by placing some on the disturbed areas on the eastern edge of Murrieta Creek on city -owned property. This could also be shaped to form a berm near the interchange to mitigate lighting from the interchange. v. If the southern parcel is used to store dirt the project should restore slopes adjacent to the South Parcel so that pond turtle can use the upland habitat for nesting. These areas should be protected from disturbance and habitat degradation by limiting or removing trails. vi. Conserve habitat on the west side of the Murrieta Creek to make up for the loss of upland pond turtle habitat from the Altair Site. 5. San Diego Ambrosia Population. a. The project as proposed, affects the single largest San Diego Ambrosia population in Southern California. The affected Ambrosia population is in area that is described for MSHCP conservation. The FEIR stipulates translocation of the Ambrosia population, but provides no specifics regarding methods or success criteria. i. We request that the Ambrosia translocation plan be approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies prior to ground disturbance. it The Ambrosia translocation should occur in the first appropriate season after Wildlife Agency and RCA approval of the Translocation plan. Mayor Edwards (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-1560192-18CPAXXXX) 4 Agreed upon success criteria should be met prior to groundbreaking on Phase III. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the FEIR and reiterate our request that the FEIR not be adopted until there is a final accounting of project impacts and we have review the equivalency analysis, as required by the MSHCP. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Karin Cleary -Rose of the Service at 760 322 2070 ext. 406 or Heather Pert of the Department at heather.pert@wildlife.ca.gov. Heather can also be reached at 858 395 9692. Sincerely, KARIN , G E'ARY-ROSEtally d by KARIN CLEARY-ROSE -0800017.12."'932:53 for Kennon A. Corey Assistant Field Supervisor Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cc: Laurie Correa, RCA tof Leslie MacNair Inland Deserts Region Regional Manager CA Department of Fish and Wildlife Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 4:31 PM To: 'Gene Wunderlich'; Aaron Adams; Greg Butler; James Stewart; Jeff Comerchero; Maryann Edwards; Matt Rahn; Mike Naggar Cc: Judy Zulfigar; Luke Watson; Matt Peters; Peter Thorson Subject: RE: Altair Project Thank you Gene — your comments were received for the record. Randi Johl, JD, MMC City Clerk, City of Temecula ( Legislative Director, California City Clerks Association randi. iohl(Wtemeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 O Sr e 4Laltikr Community Pride 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: Gene Wunderlich [mailto:genewunderlich@srcar.org] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:56 PM To: Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>; Greg Butler <greg.butler@temeculaca.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jeff Comerchero <jcomerchero@citycouncil.org>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@citycouncil.org>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Mike Naggar <mnaggar@citycouncil.org>; Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov>; Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov> Cc: Judy Zulfigar <judy@watermarkassociates.com> Subject: Altair Project Members of the City Council, Unfortunately I will not be able to join you tomorrow during your review of the Altair Project but I wanted to provide some comments in support of the project for inclusion into the record. As you are aware, the State of California, as well as our local region, is suffering a severe housing crisis brought about by a decade when few homes were being built. It is estimated that today we are approximately 1,000,000 homes short of what we require to house our growing population. There are numerous reasons for this, starting with the housing recession back in 2009-2010, increasing regulations at the state level, increasing fees including local DIF and TUMF, a shortage of construction workers, and increasing NIMBY action. In spite of the fact that the City of Temecula, and most other local cities, have continued slow progress toward build -out, the effect of the housing shortage is most noticeable in a lack of inventory. In November, Temecula had just two months supply of re -sale homes on the market with many of those being higher end properties. This lack of availability is a major factor in the median price escalation we've experience the past five years, which has had a multiplier affect. That means we not only have fewer homes for buyers, but we have fewer affordable homes on the market. This lack of affordable housing impacts our local workforce most deleteriously 1 - our teachers, public safety, veterans and our children, who have all but given up on the dream of owning a home in California. That's why I am in full support of the Altair Project as presented. I have had the opportunity to review their plans and believe this project is the right project, in the right place, and at the right time. The mix of single and multi -family homes addresses the demand of buyers coming to our area. The price point is another factor in providing an entry -to -mid-level product that should prove very attractive to those Millenials just entering the market for the first time, to young families and to retirees. The inclusion of parks, a school, and the overall walkability of the design makes it even more appealing to the targeted demographic and a good fit for the City. The project design is also attractive from an aesthetic perspective. It doesn't dominate the hillside, it won't be an eyesore, and it leaves 80% of the hillside as natural habitat. Even the walkways and roadway have been designed in such a way as to minimize visual blight while preserving the natural landscape and enhancing the view from downtown. It appears the developer has been most accommodating and considerate in advancing this particular plan. Over the years I've seen other plans for 'the Firestone property that, while defensible from a zoning perspective and would have added more homes, were not nearly as attractive and would have had a far greater impact on the habitat and view. Even the Western Bypass has been scaled back to a very modest impact on the entire western ridge line. I know you'll hear from an assortment of NIMBY's (Not In My Backyard) and BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) and those are your constituents as well. We heard from some of them the evening of the Planning Commission review - folks who moved here a scant five years ago and now want to grab the welcome mat off the front door. There are times when I sympathize with them. It was easier to get around 30 years ago before most of them came. We might have had to drive to Escondido or Riverside if we wanted to buy shoes, but the traffic wasn't bad. We could get from one side of town to the other in 10 minutes - that was convenient. And it's true that traffic has become a major headache in the region right now and there is a point to their concerns that this project will only exacerbate the problem. But this isn't just a Temecula problem - it's a regional issue and the City has already embarked on a venture with regional partners to develop solutions to mitigate the traffic situation. Holding back much needed residential development that's in line with your long-term projections isn't going to solve the traffic problem. Besides, Altair isn't going to drop those residents on us next week. It will be a phased and controlled process that will make it easier to integrate into our base. From a housing perspective, I wish those homes could come online tomorrow because they would be sold by next week. But that's not what's happening. Similarly your efforts to continue to add local employment opportunities will lessen the need for so many of our residents to get on the freeway every morning and evening. Rancho California and the 1-15 is not a fun place to be at 5:30 each evening - but simply not building Altair will not solve that problem. Keeping more residents employed locally will help ease that situation. Temecula hasn't achieved it's level of prominence in the region by sitting still, by not being a welcoming City, by stifling progress and development, or by letting others lead the way. There's a reason other cities aspire to 'be like Temecula' even as Temecula aspires to greater heights. We enjoy a quality of life here that is the envy of many throughout Southern California and the state. People will continue to be attracted to our communities because of that quality of life, because of the Wine Country and Pechanga, because we are a growing technology hub and medical resource, and because we provide housing to meet the requirements of our future residents as well as those already benefiting from our success. I know you will fairly and honestly evaluate the proposal before you tonight and encourage you to join me in supporting what appears to be a very well conceived and designed project for the future of Temecula. Thank you for your consideration. 2 Gene Wunderlich Vice President of Government Affairs Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors® SRCAR®... the trusted resource for REALTORS® 951-205-1911 http:llsrcar.orgl We ask that you consider an investment in your Realtor® Party when paying your 2017 REALTOR® dues. Every dollar benefits our industry and your clients while protecting Real Estate Initiatives. 3 Randi Johl From: City Council Assistant Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:32 PM To: Aaron Adams; Greg Butler; Luke Watson; Matt Peters; Randi Johl Subject: FW: Ambient FYI - for the record Original Message From: Church Jim [mailto: Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 7:27 PM To: Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@citycouncil.org> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Ambient Are you people totally out of touch with what is going on in the area. Do you ever come out of your caves to see the traffic congestion???? 1750 new housing units is absolutely absurd. Get your heads out of your butts and do some RESPONSIBLE governing instead of just looking at the money someone is giving you to screw the rest of us. Randi Johl From: Aaron Adams Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 12:18 PM To: Randi Johl; Peter Thorson Subject: FW: Altair Project Aaron Adams City Manager City of Temecula (951) 694-6419 aaron. adam sCWTem ecu IaCA. gov TemeculaCA.gov Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the Califomia Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: City Council Assistant Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 10:53 AM To: Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>; Greg Butler <greg.butler@temeculaca.gov>; Luke Watson <luke.watson@temeculaca.gov>; Matt Peters <matt.peters@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Altair Project MCC/Staff: Received a telephone call from Ms. Miller ( caller ID) opposing the Altair project and expressed her disappointment/anger that the City for would even consider this project. Erika Ramirez City of Temecula (951) 694-6416 erika. ramirez{&TemeculaCA.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 CI OP 4frattnr Community Pride 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. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Consider the Altair Project Including a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan, a Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Agreement (Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, PA14-0159, PA14-0160, and PA14-0161) PREPARED BY: Matt Peters, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and consider the Altair Project including a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan, a Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Agreement (Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, PA14-0159, PA14-0160, and PA14-0161) and adopt related resolutions and introduce ordinance: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310- 016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO REVISE THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED WESTERN BYPASS, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPOSED LAND USES IDENTIFIED IN THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN BY REPLACING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP), OPEN SPACE (OS), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (H), AND HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) WITH SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (SPI) ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 3. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940- 320-007) Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36959 TO SUBDIVIDE 270 ACRES INTO 63 NUMBERED LOTS TO DEFINE THE OPEN SPACE AND THE VILLAGE AREAS, AND 20 LETTERED LOTS TO DEFINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310- 016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 5. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) BACKGROUND: The proposed project, referred to as "Altair," includes four Planning Applications for a 1) General Plan Amendment; 2) Specific Plan; 3) Tentative Tract Map; and 4) Development Agreement for subsequent permits such as grading, infrastructure improvement permitting for on-site and off-site utilities, and resource agency permitting to allow for development of up to 1,750 residential units, limited neighborhood -serving commercial, civic/institutional uses. elementary school, parks, and open space within a 270 -acre area in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, west of Old Town. In addition, the proposed project would construct the Western Bypass that would link Temecula Parkway with Diaz Road, including widening Vincent Moraga Road. The proposed project site is located within the Murrieta Creek and Santa Rosa Plateau Subunits of the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Southwest Area Plan_ An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to evaluate the project's impacts on seventeen (17) environmental factors as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029. Staff presented the Project to the Planning Commission on November 15, 2017, with the recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the project, subject to the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures contained in the EIR. There were thirty-one (31) speakers for the Project at the hearing. Nineteen (19) public speakers spoke in favor of the project while twelve (12) spoke in opposition. The majority of those who spoke in favor of the project support the City's past planning efforts in and around Old Town. They also expressed a desire for additional housing units, infrastructure (Western Bypass), and general enhancement of the community and downtown. Those who spoke against the project cited concerns for traffic impacts and the environment, specifically; wildlife movement corridors (mountain lions), impacts of the proposed Nature Center on Linkage 10, acreage calculations and consistency with the MSHCP. The following two sections are intended to address the two main concerns expressed by residents: A) traffic and B) consistency with the MSHCP. A. With regard to traffic impacts, the Traffic Impact Analysis analyzed twenty-five (25) intersections, and eleven (11) roadway segments to determine existing operation and to measure the effect of project traffic on these facilities during the morning and evening peak periods. The analysis included intersections located as far north as Winchester Road and Ynez Road, and as far south as Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road. The traffic impact analysis was prepared by an independent, third -party consultant, Fehr and Peers, consistent with the City's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineering Staff. The results of the analysis were further reviewed by the City's EIR Consultant, ESA, and incorporated into the EIR. The project's trip generation assumptions for the proposed land uses was determined using standard rates developed by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) and published in the Trip Generation Manual, 9'h edition. The projected traffic was assigned to the roadway network based on distribution assumptions derived from Riverside Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) forecasts. The RIVTAM forecasts are consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) traffic modeling data, which establishes guidelines for forecasting traffic data and traffic modeling in Riverside County. In addition to the project's internal circulation roadways, the project proposes to construct the Western Bypass Corridor and bridge over Murrieta Creek. The Western Bypass has been identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element since 1993. The Western Bypass is a regional facility as identified by the Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG), which is eligible for Transportation Uniform Mitigation (TUMF) funding. The Western Bypass was identified in the MSHCP as a "covered activity," generally defined as infrastructure/circulation projects previously authorized and contemplated for development. The Western Bypass, which is located west of the 1-15 Freeway, serves as an alternate north -south route through the City of Temecula. The analysis indicates that approximately sixteen (16) percent of the Altair project's daily trips will utilize the Western Bypass, which means that the remaining 84 percent of projected daily trips on the Western Bypass are attributed to local and regional traffic. The Western Bypass will connect at Temecula Parkway, cross Murrieta Creek to the west via the proposed bridge, and continues north connecting at Vincent Moraga Drive. The Western Bypass extends north across Rancho California to Diaz Road, which becomes the extension of the bypass, and continues to the northern boundary of the City, where it will cross over Murrieta Creek and eventually connect with the French Valley Interchange at Date Street. The future completion of the Western Bypass and French Valley Interchange will result in a loop around the City that includes the Western Bypass, French Valley Parkway, Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Butterfield Stage Road, and Temecula Parkway. The Western Bypass is an important roadway facility of the City's circulation network, that is yet to be completed. Once the entire roadway network has been completed, as shown on the Circulation Plan, traffic is expected to flow more efficiently through the City. As a condition of approval of this project, Ambient Communities is required to mitigate all traffic impacts associated with project generated traffic. Mitigation measures include: system -wide traffic signal timing optimization during each phase of construction, installation of intersection improvements and traffic signal modification on Rancho California Road at Vincent Moraga Drive/Diaz Road, intersection improvements on Vincent Moraga Drive at Ridge Park Drive. installation of a traffic signal improvements on Pujol Street at First Street, intersection improvements on Santiago Road at Ynez Road, and fair -share payments for intersection improvements at various locations, including Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, Temecula Parkway at La Paz Street and Margarita Road. Thus, while the project results in increased trips, the required mitigation measures will increase capacity, reduce intersection delays, and provides the ability to improve traffic flows along various street segments and intersections, so that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. It should be noted that a Statement of Overriding Consideration is necessary for traffic impacts at the existing 1-15 southbound ramps, as the Specific Plan will cause the level of service to degrade from Level of Service (LOS) D to LOS F and LOS E during AM and PM peak hours, respectively, prior to construction of the "Ultimate Interchange" improvements. This is a conservative approach to the impact assessment in the EIR as the ultimate interchange improvements are under construction. However, once completed. the interchange improvements will reduce the project's impact to less than significant, and a statement of overriding consideration would not be necessary. B. Concerning the environment, and as a result of ongoing meetings with Ambient Communities, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Federal and State Wildlife Agencies, and other environmental groups concerning acreage calculations, and consistency with the MSHCP, the City received a Letter of MSHCP Consistency from the RCA on December 7, 2017. The letter concludes that agreement was reached regarding the project's MSHCP consistency analysis conclusions subject to the following: 1. Final EIR, Chapter 2 (Errata) will be revised to acknowledge RCA's documented findings on the project's conflict with Cell Criteria and the need for 165 acres of replacement lands to ensure MSHCP consistency. 2. Partial replacement lands totaling 65 acres (APNs 918-080-008 and 009) will be transferred to the RCA prior to any project grading. An equivalency analysis will be prepared for this property prior to City Council approval of the Project. 3. Acquisition of an additional 100 acres of biologically equivalent or superior replacement lands by the RCA and funded by the proposed Altair Wildlife CFD. All CFD funding up to 6 million dollars will be directed to the RCA until the 100 acres is acquired. Equivalency standards will be prepared for the conservation lands prior to City Council approval of the Project. 4. The project applicant, Ambient Communities, will complete facilitation of the transfer of APN 940-090-010, 8.97 acres, described for Linkage 10. 5. Approximately 49.96 acres of onsite conservation along the west edge of Altair will be conveyed to the RCA prior to any project grading. Conservation acres may not include manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas or maintained facilities. The 45.5 -acre South ParcellNature Center may be conveyed to the City of Temecula and must be managed consistent with the MSHCP. The conservation easement over the South Parcel will be offered either to the RCA or an entity with a management agreement with the RCA. 6. MSHCP Additional Reserve Lands onsite based on TTM 36959 and the FEIR Nature Center acreage calculations is 83.8 acres: 49.96 acres along the western project boundary and 33.84 ungraded acres on the Southern Parcel\Nature Center. The FEIR and Development Agreement list onsite conservation of up to 87.2 acres. Actual onsite conservation acres must be agreed on prior to conveyance and\or fee credit agreement. 7. The City of Temecula will include conditions of approval for RCA review and approval of Urban Wildlands Interface measures (fencing, lighting, access control, plant palette, drainage etc.) for development adjacent to conservation areas (Western Bypass, Villages A and G, Nature Center). 8. The City of Temecula will require a Riparian/Riverine Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) be submitted to the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval prior to any impacts to riparian/riverine resources. 9. Nature Center trails will be reviewed and approved by the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies to comply with Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines and MSHCP Section 7.4.2, Conditionally Compatible Uses. 10. MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees will be paid for the project. Fee credits for onsite conservation acres will be consistent with RCA Resolution 2016-003, Fee Credit and Waiver Policy. 11 _ Consistent with Section 4.4.3(i)(c) of the draft Development Agreement, which allows reversion of the South Parcel to "any other civic use" if a CEOA lawsuit if filed with a Specific Plan Amendment, such approval of a Specific Plan Amendment must occur within six months of a lawsuit being filed, at which time RCA's consistency determination is automatically revoked for the entire project. 12. The Applicant will hold harmless and indemnify the RCA in the event of any legal challenges against the RCA related to the Project. The items listed above have been incorporated into the Development Agreement, Conditions of Approval and Final EIR. The Altair Subcommittee, consisting of Mike Naggar and Jeff Comerchero have met with City Staff, consultants, and attorneys' numerous times over the last four years concerning site design, housing and density, traffic and the Western Bypass, construction phasing, the Development Agreement, mitigation and the EIR, and MSHCP consistency. The project has been thoroughly vetted by the Subcommittee. As a result, the Subcommittee strongly recommends approval of the project. As previously mentioned, Staff presented the project to the Planning Commission on November 15, 2017, The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project by unanimous approval, 5-0. The following information was provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report and is presented again for further consideration by the City Council. PROJECT HISTORY The City of Temecula has a long history of planning for the area west of Old Town, along the escarpment of the foothills. This section includes a summary of past planning efforts to provide context for the proposed Altair Specific Plan in relation to the 1993 General Plan (and 2005 update), Old Town Specific Pian, Westside Specific Plan, 1998 Keyser Marston Associates Market Study for Old Town (and 2015 Update), Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and the Quality of Life Master Plan 2030. After incorporation on December 1, 1989, the City adopted its first General Plan in 1993. Policy 6.1 of the General Plan states, "prepare a Specific Plan for Old Town, including any transition or expansion areas, to preserve and enhance the historic character. economic viability, and address community facility and service needs in the area." Figure 2-5 of the 1993 General Plan, Specific Plan Overlay, identifies the land west of Old Town for a future Specific Plan area, "to provide complementary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of housing opportunities west of I-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." In addition, Figure 3-1 of the 1993 General Plan identifies the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor, which is described as, "Designation of a new four - lane Westside Corridor facility extending from 1-15 at State Route 79 (south), along the west side foothills, to beyond the northwestern City limit." In 1994, the City of Temecula adopted the Old Town Specific Plan, which "establishes a vision for guiding the future development of the heart of Temecula, Old Town." As further stated in the Specific Plan. "the document provides a comprehensive plan for land use. development regulations. design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives, and other related actions aimed at implementing the goals and objectives set forth in the General Plan as it relates to Old Town and the surrounding area." The Altair Specific Plan is proposed to replace the existing Westside Specific Plan, which was adopted in 1995 to ensure developments surrounding Old Town were compatible and complementary with the vision for Old Town Temecula. The Westside Specific Plan proposed a mixed use development that would include 50,000 square feet of special event commercial (allowing tourist and hotel uses), 45,000 square feet of commercial, and 20.000 square feet of mixed-use space, as well as up to 302 dwelling units and approximately 70 acres of open space. In 1998, the City hired Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) to prepare a Market Study for Old Town. The resulting document contained recommendations for creating a "downtown," which included: • Promote arts and culture • Enhance Murrieta Creek • Create a uniform shopping environment • Encourage civic uses and activities • Promote housing to support retail It should be noted that the KMA study specifically recognized the Westside Specific Plan, and anticipated 2,000 homes in and around Old Town in the analysis, and in making their recommendations for creating a downtown. A successful downtown requires a critical mass of residents "living" in the area. as visitors and tourists alone cannot support a downtown. As a result, the City has made significant investments in Old Town in order to implement the City's General Plan, the OId Town Specific Plan, and the KMA Marketing Study. Examples of projects and events include, but are not limited to, the new Main Street bridge, OId Town Front Street Sidewalk and Beautification Improvements, Hot Summer Nights, Rod Run Events, the Fourth of July Parade, the Old Town Theatre, the Murrieta Creek flood control channel widening and trail project, Temecula Chilled and ice skating rinks during the Holidays, the award-winning Pennypickle's Workshop and Children's Museum, and Sam Hicks Park. Other noteworthy improvements or programs include The "Merc" and Old Town Community Theater, the Temecula Community Center on Pujol, mixed use Redevelopment Agency projects including the Dalton Building, Warehouse at Creekside, and Front Street Plaza, strategic acquisition of surface parking areas for future parking structures, the Saturday morning Farmer's Market in the Sixth Street parking lot, Taste of the Valley, and Temecula Reality Rally. Most notably, the City completed the Civic Center, parking garage, conference facility and acquired two parcels north and south of the town square for a future marketplace. The City has made a concerted effort to implement the recommendations from the KMA Market Study. In 2004, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) was created to implement the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The plan protects 146 native species of plants, birds, and animals and preserves a half -million acres of their habitats. The Altair project is within Subunits 1 (Murrieta Creek) and 6 (Santa Rosa Plateau) of the MSHCP's Southwest Area Plan. When the MSHCP was adopted, the plan recognized the Western Bypass as a "covered activity," or planned roadway. As a result of the planning for this proposed project, the Western Bypass Corridor has been redesigned to be located in the least environmentally sensitive location feasible to accommodate its circulation purpose. The redesign would eliminate 7,700 linear feet of roadway from the northern portion of the project site to its previous connection to Via Industria. The new alignment, connecting to existing Vincent Moraga Drive and then Diaz Road, reduces the length by 50 percent, and avoids approximately 55 acres of sage scrub. chaparral, and other habitats. Unfortunately, when the MSHCP was approved, it did not recognize the City's previous planning efforts and did not consider the City's General Plan or the Westside Specific Plan, which were in place almost ten years prior. As a result, criteria cells (with targeted acres of preservation) were placed over property previously planned for urban density development adjacent to Old Town. With the Western Bypass approved as a covered activity, its construction would result in a fragmented "island of habitat" between a four lane regional roadway and Old Town, In 2008, the City's Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP 2030) was adopted. The plan identifies six core values including: 1. A Healthy and Livable Community 2. Economic Prosperity 3. A Safe and Prepared Community 4. Transportation Mobility and Connectivity 5. A Sustainable City 6. An Accountable and Responsive City Government Key priorities identifed in the QLMP and the proposed Altair project include: constructing the Murrieta Creek Phase 11 improvements; commencing construction of the Temecula Parkway/ 1-15 Interchange Project; western escarpment land acquisitions; increasing road connectivity to job centers in the west to residents in the east; commencing construction of the Western Bypass Corridor; expansion of higher education, and facilitating construction of a hotel/conference center. In 2013, Ambient Communities submitted Pre -Application PR13-0043, for Village West (later renamed Altair). The planning for this included review by the City's Development Review (DRC) Committee, which consists of representatives from Planning, Public Works, Building and Safety, Fire Prevention, and the Police Department. This effort involved "big picture" analysis including land use planning, density and number of units, circulation, access, and preliminary environmental analysis. On November 24, 2014, Ambient Communities submitted the Altair Specific Plan project consisting of: • PA14-0158. General Plan Amendment • PA14-0159. Specific Plan • PA14-0160, Tentative Tract Map • PA14-0161, Development Agreement The proposed project also includes a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA), which informed the Development Agreement and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment The City's General Plan is the citizens' "blueprint" for development and the guide to achieving our vision for the built environment. California law requires each local government to adopt a local General Plan, which must contain at least seven elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Noise, Open Space, and Safety. The project proposes to amend the Land Use Element, Figure LU -3, to replace the Westside Specific Plan and surrounding land use designations with the Altair Specific Plan on 270 acres west of Old Town, In addition to the proposed Land Use Element change, the proposed project will amend the Circulation Element, Figure C-2, to change the alignment of the Western Bypass Corridor from its connection to the north at Via Industria to Vincent Moraga and Diaz Road, north of Ranch California Road. Previous planning efforts and traffic studies recognized the efficiencies of a reduced corridor length while still achieving efficient circulation of vehicles throughout the City. Thus, the revised alignment of the Western Bypass, a proposed four -lane thoroughfare. would be constructed as part of the proposed project, and would link Temecula Parkway across Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road (north of Ranch California Road) via Vincent Moraga Road. Specific Plan A Specific Plan is a comprehensive planning and zoning document for a defined geographic region of the City. Altair is proposed to develop primarily as a residential, mixed-use development with supporting civic uses and open space. A maximum of 1,750 dwelling units are proposed on 270 acres. Different housing types are proposed to meet the needs of a range of age groups, and household sizes. The proposed project is located to take advantage of the shopping, dining, and entertainment venues of Old Town and is designed to encourage a strong pedestrian connection to both Old Town and planned open space within the development. An extensive network of bike lanes and trails are proposed to connect to the City's overall and regional network. The vehicular circulation system is influenced by the linear shape of the proposed project site. The backbone of the street network would consist of four major streets: the Western Bypass, Altair Vista, Levant Trail, and "B" Street. The main offsite connections would be at Vincent Moraga Drive on the north, First Street on the east, and Temecula Parkway on the south. Altair Vista would be an internal, north -south two-lane road that connects the planned villages and elementary school site. Its cross section would vary to slow traffic and provide on street parking, depending on the its location and the character of each village. Altair proposes a form -based code using building types clustered in villages as the organizing principle. No specific architectural styles are identified in the Specific Plan. Instead, the design guidelines discuss building form and elements such as proportion, massing, roofline variation, enhanced entries, building materials, window placement, and balconies, which all contribute to high quality architecture and urban design. This approach is already being implemented in Old Town and the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan areas. Also, building placement will require entrances facing the street with porches and stoops to create active streets. which reinforce the connection of the road and the community. Building placement is intended to create meaningful and pleasant open spaces between them, such as courtyards, paseos, and plazas. This approach creates a "Smart Growth" development that concentrates growth in a compact, walkable, urban neighborhood to avoid sprawl. Furthermore, the Villages have been designed around a 1/4 mile radius with small block lengths to facilitate 5 -minute walking distances between Old Town, neighborhood parks, the community center. elementary school, and a proposed Nature Center at the south end of the proposed project. The Altair Specific Plan proposes the following building types: • Detached, single-family housing — Consists of individually owned, multi -story dwellings arranged around or along a common outdoor space. • Multiplex — Combines two to six dwelling units into one structure; the individual dwelling unit is not distinctly expressed in the multiplex type. • Rowhouse — Attached dwelling units arranged side-by-side, typically in a linear manner. • Live/work — Combines residential and commercial uses into a single dwelling unit, and are then repeated side-by-side to create a commercial strip that serves as the focus of a neighborhood. • Multifamily walk-up — Buildings of two to four stories combining stacked dwelling units. • Multifamily podium — Combines four or five stories of stacked dwelling units over a subterranean or partially subterranean enclosed parking garage. • Micro -unit — Efficiency dwelling units that provide affordable housing for smaller households. • Mixed-use — Combines two or more distinct uses into a single structure or group, typically residential in combination with neighborhood -serving commercial, service or office uses. These building types are assigned to seven neighborhood "villages" which. in turn, are overlaid with one of three proposed residential uses (Residential, Mixed-Use/Residential, or Mixed -Use), in combination with an Active Open Space zone. Building heights could range from two to five stories depending on the building type. All residential uses would allow a small amount of accessory commercial use to support the neighborhood. with the majority focused in Village C. which is centrally located to the proposed project and in line with Main Street in Old Town. Neighborhood commercial uses may include a corner coffee shop, ice cream parlor, or live/work units with ground floor offices. Each village is centered on a node or focal point separated by landscape terrain. The open space between the villages preserves the existing appearance of ravines extending from the upper hillside through the development, allowing similar drainage patterns and maintaining existing views. The non-residential uses include an elementary school site covered by the Educational zone. and a civic area ("South Parcel") covered by the Institutional zone. The majority of land west of the Western Bypass, and the southernmost portion of the proposed project are zoned Natural Open Space. The proposed project will be built from north to south in four main phases; 1) north phase, 2) central phase, 3) south phase, and 4) civic phase. Consistent with previous City direction on other projects such as Wolf Creek and Harveston, there are very specific requirements for the installation of public infrastructure (streets, traffic signals, parks, trails, etc.) in advance of the City issuing building permits to the developer. The grading (cut/fill) for each phase balances so as to be efficient with the movement of dirt, and to avoid unnecessary prolonged visual scarring of the green hillside if mass grading were to take place prior to a slowdown in the economy, or other construction delays. A detailed phasing plan has been included with the Tentative Tract Maps exhibits. Given the proposed density associated with this proposed project, generally ranging from 18-30 units per acre, staff took extra effort to address quality of life issues, which can become magnified if not dealt with properly, and more important to consider at higher density. A few of these aspects include parking (residents and guests), trash service, private open space (balconies/courtyards), sidewalks, trail connections and public open space. Staff has ensured the development standards in the Altair Specific Plan will meet or exceed the same high standards established by the City's other planned developments, which are predominantly single family. Furthermore. a Condition of Approval has been included, and agreed to by the applicant, which limits the number of apartments to 750 units, thus ensuring a substantial number of owner - occupied units, which is intended to ensure 'pride of ownership" and investment in the community. Village A contains approximately 16 gross acres, and is located at the northern end of the proposed project. It is bounded by existing business parks on the north, the proposed Western Bypass on the east, and natural open space on the south and west. Housing would be arranged around a formal green space that would allow for passive sports play. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 9 to 18 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a maximum of 280 dwelling units allowed. Village B contains approximately 12 gross acres, and is located at the northern end of the development. Like Village A, it would function as a gateway site to the community. It is bounded by the proposed Western Bypass on the north, existing single and multifamily development on the east and south, and the proposed Altair Vista Road on the west. Similar to Village A, Village B is primarily on a previously graded pad, elevated well above the surrounding existing development. This village is located across from the proposed elementary school site, making it a convenient location for families with young children. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 9 to 18 du/ac with a maximum of 220 dwelling units allowed. Village C is the core of Altair. It is approximately 21 acres in size (not including the elementary school site) and located in the heart of the proposed project. This village includes a five -acre central park, community center and clubhouse, high density residential dwelling units, and would allow up to 7,000 square feet of neighborhood -serving commercial development. It is bounded by the proposed elementary school on the north, single and multifamily development and religious facilities of Old Town Temecula on the east, Village D on the south, and the proposed Western Bypass on the west. The focal point of the proposed project and Village C is a promontory plaza that sits atop the high point of the central park and that visually and physically connects the proposed project with Old Town Temecula, emphasizing a strong axis aligning with Altair, Main Street in Old Town Temecula, and City Hall. The clubhouse and residential development with front doors/porches or patios/balconies will provide "eyes on the park," which will create synergy between the surrounding homes and central park. which is anticipated to receive the most visitors from outside the community to use the park and elementary school. A similar development comparison would be the residential cottages surrounding Harveston Lake. which is open to the public. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 18 to 29 du/ac, with a maximum of 225 dwelling units for the north core: and 21 to 33 du/ac, with a maximum of 440 dwelling units for the south core. Village D is approximately nine gross acres in size and visually located on the axis with the First Street entrance into Altair. The village is on a stepped plateau defined by two open space ravines to the north and south. It is bounded by Village C on the north, multifamily development on the east, Village E on the south, and the proposed Western Bypass on the west. Vehicular access would be from Altair Vista Road, which bisects the site and splits into one-way segments encompassing the park. Up to 15,000 square feet of ground floor accessory office, live/work or retail commercial development would be allowed along Altair Vista, oriented towards the neighborhood park. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 8 to 18 du/ac, with a maximum of 160 dwelling units allowed. Village E is approximately eight gross acres in size and is located on steep terrain that is most suitable for lower density residential development to minimize grading. The neighborhood park is on an east -west alignment to take advantage of the mountain views south and east of the site. The village is bounded by Village D on the north, multifamily development on the east, Village F on the south, and the proposed Western Bypass on the west. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 5 to 15 du/ac, with a maximum of 115 dwelling units allowed. Village F is very linear and has a steep slope along the eastern edge. It is approximately nine gross acres in size and is bounded by Altair Vista Road and Village E on the north, proposed "B" Street North and multifamily development on the east, and the proposed Western Bypass on the south and west. There are two small park locations in Village F. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 7 to 20 du/ac, with a maximum of 180 dwelling units allowed. Village G is south of the proposed Western Bypass on terrain that steeply slopes to the southeast. As such, a lower density development of clustered, detached homes is most appropriate. The South Parcel is recommended to be developed as a Nature/Culture/Sustainability Center, but if it were to develop as a higher education institution, some type of student housing would also be appropriate. The village is approximately seven gross acres in size and is bounded by the proposed Western Bypass on the north, "B" Street South on the east, "C" Street on the south, and open space on the west. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 4 to 18 du/ac, with a maximum of 130 dwelling units allowed. The Elementary School Site is approximately seven gross acres in size and would be dedicated to the Temecula Valley School District to serve the residents of Altair and nearby neighborhoods. It is anticipated that the school would accommodate 600 to 730 students in a two-story building. The site is bounded by the proposed Western Bypass on the west, proposed Altair Vista Road on the north and east, and Village C and the community center on the south. Significant effort has gone into the design of the driveways and circulation in and around the elementary school to avoid disruption to the neighborhood, and backups on the Western Bypass. Dual stacking lanes several hundred feet long, a right turn entry off Altair Vista Road. and a roundabout at the entry/exit are intended to move traffic safely and efficiently during peak pick-up and drop-off times. Also, several pedestrian and bicycle paths converge on this location to allow safe, non- vehicular access to this site from all directions. If the School District elects to not receive the land, the land may be developed with residential uses. Allowable residential density for the school site would be transferred from other villages, so that the total dwelling units for the entire Altair Specific Plan area shall not exceed 1,750 residential units. The "South Parcel" or "Civic Site" is located at the southern end of the Specific Plan area and contains approximately 55 gross acres, most of which (approximately 37 acres) would be conserved as natural open space. The parcel is bordered by "B" Street South, "C" Street, and Metropolitan Water District pipeline property on the north, Murrieta Creek on the east and south, and Camino Estribo and natural open space on the west. The development area is approximately 16 acres, including a 3.7 -acre buildable pad for a Nature/Culture/Sustainability Center building and parking lot, herein referred to as "Nature Center." The balance of the development area surrounding the Nature Center would be revegetated with natural vegetation on undulating slopes of 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1 slopes to provide a natural landscape appearance. The remaining approximately 37 acres would be left as natural open space and offered for dedication to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), while another two acres consists of "B" and "C" Streets and detention basins. Trails will be developed along the eastern slope of the development area, and in the open space utilizing siting guidance in the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Nature Center and associated trails would fulfill the City's goal of providing benefits to the public associated with trails and environmental education. The trails would be limited to on-site, and are not proposed to access the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which has had several trespass and vandalism issues. It is intended that the Nature Center would accommodate an office for City Park Rangers, and/or Code Enforcement. The presence of a nature center with "eyes on the creek" will help police the area and limit trespass violations, while protecting the area and its value for habitat. The South Parcel has been the subject of much discussion and debate with regard to the MSHCP and wildlife corridor movement, specifically for mountain lions. Following circulation of the Draft EIR ending June 17, 2016, the City Council held two public workshops in July and September. and then put the South Parcel/Civic Site on the February 14, 2017 agenda for discussion by the City Council. Based on input from the environmental community, and numerous meetings with wildlife agencies, the RCA, and representatives from the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, and Endangered Habitat League, a decision was made at that meeting to direct staff to evaluate the impacts of a Nature Center as the preferred, Tess impactful use. Although the proposed Nature Center is the recommended land use for the South Parcel of the Specific Plan, the City Council retains the right to consider the previously proposed institutional land use on the South Parcel (evaluated in the Draft EIR) in their public hearing deliberations. Resolutions and Ordinances with findings for both options have been prepared, along with two versions of the Specific Plan, and are included as attachments to the Agenda Report. Tentative Tract Map No. 36959 The proposed Tentative Map 36959 will subdivide 270 acres into four phases (36959, 36959-1, 36959-2. and 36959-3) corresponding to the phasing and infrastructure improvements plan outlined in the Development Agreement. The map will create sixty three (63) numbered lots, which will subdivide the property into smaller areas consistent with the proposed Altair Specific Plan. This results in creating open space Tots for dedication to the RCA, public and private park areas, and lots for financing and marketing to merchant builders. Consideration has been given to areas for maintenance by the Homeowners Association (HOA) or City as identified in the attached Developer Responsibility Map, Exhibit 10E. The proposed tentative map will also create twenty (20) lettered lots, which identify public and private streets. In general, the public streets include the Western Bypass, portions of Altair Vista in front of the proposed Elementary School, "B" and "C" Streets for accessing the South Parcel/Civic Site, and transitions into the proposed project from public right-of-way at First Street and Pujol Street. The proposed lot sizes, access points, and circulation are all consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the City's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) regulations. It should be noted that the Altair Specific Plan will require subsequent tract maps and/or condo maps at the time of submittal for each home product review application. Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) and Development Agreement (DA) In accordance with the City's fiscal policies, a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) has been completed for the proposed project to evaluate any projected deficit (revenues from taxes and spending by new residents in comparison to the cost of providing municipal services) to the City's General Fund. The City's fiscal policies require FIAs to be completed for development that proposes an increase in residential density from what is currently allowed in the General Plan. The FIA was used to inform the Development Agreement between the City and Ambient Communities, and will also be used to inform the creation of a Services Community Facilities District (CFD). The services to be financed by the CFD include, but are not limited to, police protection, fire protection, and municipal services. A Development Agreement (DA) is a voluntary contract between a local jurisdiction and a person who owns or controls property within the jurisdiction, detailing the obligations of both parties and specifying the standards and conditions that will govern development of the property. The following are the significant elements of the DA: • The term of the agreement is for twenty years with the potential for a ten-year extension; • Construction will be phased from north to south, and each phase has requirements for the installation of public infrastructure (streets, utilities, parks, etc.) before issuance of building permits and any related impacts; • Fee credits are provided for infrastructure constructed and land preserved consistent with the DIF, TUMF, and MSHCP programs; • Land Conservation and funding consistent with the RCA MSHCP Consistency Letter dated December 7, 2017 • The proposed project receives full credit (100%) for Quimby fees (parkland dedication) based on the public and private parks proposed at Altair; • The City will receive the 55 -acre South Parcel for a civic use and public benefits via land dedication. In exchange, the developer will be reimbursed from the CFD fair market value for the cost of the land and public improvements: and • The developer will form a Services Community Facilities District (CFD) to cover the deficit in the General Fund resulting from the provision of municipal services to higher density residential. In the Development Agreement, the City agrees to work with bond counsel to establish a CFD, which is proposed to fund three components of the proposed project. Special Tax A will be used to fund public infrastructure (parks, roads, utilities, etc.). Special Tax B is for City services such as police and fire protection, at a rate of $237/per unit/per year with 5.6% inflator ("City Services Deficit"). Special Tax C is for wildlife conservation at a fee of $43 per unit per year to include maintenance of open space, land acquisitions, and construction of future crossings of the Interstate 15 Freeway ("Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee"). Both Special Tax B and C include rates of adjustment for inflation. The effective tax rate will not exceed 2.1%. Owners and their successors are responsible for payment to the City of the City Services Deficit payment and the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. Growth Management Plan and Extraordinary Public Benefits On March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted the Growth Management Program, which is intended to serve as the policy for the study and implementation of growth management measures in the City of Temecula. A policy of the plan is to consider approving residential projects at the lowest allowable density in each density category. Projects may be approved above the lowest density if the project provides onsite amenities that benefit the community as a whole. Given the proposed General Plan Amendment, and Specific Plan for higher density, the proposed project is proposing the following to comply with the City's Growth Management Plan: • An estimated $28 million dollars of regional infrastructure (Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge over Murrieta Creek), and improved east-west/north-south connectivity in the City: • A 5 -acre Central Park and "Grand Staircase" connection to Main Street in Old Town on the west side of 1-15 for public use; • An elementary school site to serve existing and future residents on the west side of 1-15; • Approximately 84 acres of natural open space (nearly one-third of total proposed project acreage) will be deed transferred to the RCA; • Another 20 acres of graded slopes will be revegetated and offered for additional acreage dedication to the RCA; • Over eight miles of pathways and trails connecting to the City's bike lane and trail network; • Per the Development Agreement, the applicant will provide $150.000 dollars of "start-up" funding for a shuttle connecting to RTA transit stops and/or a bikeshare program; • Further financial contributions to preserve 8.9 additional acres along the escarpment west of Altair to add to the 128 acres previously dedicated by the City to the RCA: • A 55 -acre Civic Site for a Nature Center/Culture/Sustainability Center and trails to provide environmental education and protection of natural resources at the confluence of the Santa Margarita River: • A Wildlife Conservation Fee proposed as part of a Community Facilities District (CFD) at $43/unit/per year to fund maintenance (graffiti and trash removal), land acquisition within the Santa Ana Palomar Mountain Special Linkage Area, and engineering and feasibility studies for construction of a wildlife crossing at Interstate 15. The extraordinary public benefits listed above are required by Conditions of Approval, and in the Development Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: In accordance with the City's fiscal policies, a fiscal impact analysis (FIA) has been completed. The City's fiscal policies require FIAs to be completed for development that proposes an increase in residential density from what is currently allowed in the General Plan. The FIA has been used to inform the creation of a City Services Community Facilities District (CFD). The services financed by the services component of the CFD include, but are not limited to, police protection services. fire protection, and municipal services. The fiscal impact for the project is anticipated to be $237.00 per unit. The estimated base rate of $237 may be escalated at a rate of up to 5.6% per year. This rate is estimated to offset the increase in the cost of municipal services that the City will incur as a result of the proposed development. The CFD will be assessed on each property and collected through taxes in perpetuity. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Altair Vicinity Map 2. Altair Property and Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 3. Altair Site Plan 4. Altair Zoning Map in Specific Plan 5. City Council Resolution Certifying the EIR and Actions Related Thereto (Nature Center) Exhibit A - CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Exhibit C - Statement of Overriding Considerations 6. City Council Resolution Certifying the EIR and Actions Related Thereto (Civic Use) Exhibit A - CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Exhibit C - Statement of Overriding Considerations 7. City Council Resolution Approving a General Plan Amendment Exhibit A - Proposed Land Use Map Exhibit B - Revised Alignment to Western Bypass Corridor 8. City Council Ordinance Adopting Altair Specific Plan (Nature Center) Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Altair Specific Plan 9. City Council Ordinance Adopting Altair Specific Plan (Civic Use) Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Altair Specific Plan slip sheets for Civic Use 10. City Council Resolution Approving Tentative Tract Map 36959 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Related Document - Tentative Tract Map 36959 Related Document - Conceptual Grading Plan Related Document - Construction Phasing and Improvements Exhibit Related Document - Developer Responsibility Map 11. City Council Ordinance Adopting Altair Development Agreement Exhibit A - Altair Development Agreement Related Document - Fiscal Impact Analysis Related Document - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) with Appendices can be downloaded at: https://temeculaca_gov.!DocumentCenter/Home/View/1214 Related Document - Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) with Appendices can be downloaded at: https:/terneculaca.gov!DocumentCenter/Horne/View.!4513 12. Public Correspondence 13. Notice of Public Hearing 14. Planning Commission (PC) Staff Report November 15, 2017 15. Addition to Final Environmental Impact Report 16. Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Letter of MSHCP Consistency ATTACHMENT 1 VICINITY MAP ATTACHMENT 2 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS (APNS) 940310047 940310046 940310048 I 940310044 ATTACHMENT 3 ALTAIR SITE PLAN SITE CONCEPT PEDESTRIAN PATH BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PATH _ PUBLIC SPACE MAIN ROAD carrierjohnson + CULTUR3 ATTACHMENT 4 ALTAIR ZONING MAP IN SPECIFIC PLAN * It it MO WI Tow* CON* ZONING MAP LEGEND - SP -AO Active Open Space I-1 SP -NO Natural Open Space - SP -R Residential Zone 5P -M Mixed -Use SP -MR MIxed-Use/ Residential - SP -E Educational - SP -C Clvac r � xue irr l CCoug S. Ate RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940- 310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310- 048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities, filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161 a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance on the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. D. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the proposed Project. E. On November 5, 2014, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to all agencies and persons that might be interested in or affected by the proposed Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2014111029). The NOP was circulated from November 14, 2014, through December 15, 2014, to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Project. On December 3, 2014 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. F. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft EIR. G. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project, including preparation of review, as applicable, of all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the proposed Project. H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in April 2016, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on Friday, April 28, 2016. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from May 2. 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula. California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. J. In response to the Draft EIR, 26 written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.. K. The "Final EIR" consists of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the Errata to the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, Appendix A to the Final EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final EIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies on November 3, 2017, which is at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). L. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled and duly noticed meeting, considered the proposed Project and the Final EIR, at which time the City staff presented its report and interested persons had an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the proposed Project and the Final EIR. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the Altair Project. adopt Findings pursuant to the CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution Nos. 17- , recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map. and Development Agreement related to the approval of the proposed Project. N. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations. including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers. make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. O. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as no impact or Tess than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Sections IV and V, respectively, of Exhibit A. 2. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A. Section VI. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Exhibit A, Section VII. 4, Alternatives to the project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution. P. CEQA Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. Q. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. R. Prior to taking action. the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR and Final EIR, responses to comments, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony presented during the public hearings on the proposed Project. S. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and hereby incorporates them herein by this reference. B. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the proposed Project. C. Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues regarding the proposed Project. D. Find and determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. E Find and declare that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. F. Certify the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit C. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit C, by itself, would individually justify proceeding with the proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged in the record of proceedings. G. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Altair Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of December, 2017. ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss Maryann Edwards, Mayor I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Altair Specific Plan EIR with South Parcel Nature Center Use Exhibit A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS I. Introduction The Califomia Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. ("Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project altematives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula ("Temecula" or "City") hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Altair Specific Plan project (the "project"). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the EIR and the written responses thereto, the Final EIR, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. 11. Project Obiectives As set forth in the EIR, objectives that the City seeks to achieve with this project (the "project Objectives") are as follows: A. Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan [a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is needed to achieve these goals and policies]. B. Balance the need for local infrastructure improvement and demand for new housing in and around Old Town while minimizing physical and visual impacts to the hillside escarpment, wildlife movement and conservation areas. C. Develop a high-quality residential component on the project site which focuses on providing diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would A-1 serve a variety of age groups and household sizes, support the commercial enterprises of Old Town Temecula, help to fulfill the City's regional housing needs, and foster a unique community identity where each neighborhood is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive. D. Create a project that reduces dependency on the automobile and encourages the use of an extensive multi -use trail system that would link neighborhood villages and community -wide uses within the project and to Old Town Temecula. E. Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood -oriented commercial uses to serve the needs of the project's residents such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or small restaurants. F. Promote design that minimizes water usage by utilizing a relatively drought tolerant landscape palette, clustered development and attractive community spaces rather than traditional water -intensive private lawns. G. Provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside attributes. H. Establish an efficient, interconnected multi -modal transportation network that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center -of -city traffic conditions. Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in the center of the project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an elementary school accommodating 600-730 students, which further diversify and contribute to the Old Town's amenities. J. Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building square feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public, and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that maximizes compatibility with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong visual connection and close access to Interstate 15. III. Project Description The proposed project would involve adoption of the Altair Specific Plan, which would allow for development of a primarily residential, mixed-use community on 270 acres in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, located south of Ridge Park Drive and westerly of Pujol Street, and west of Old Town. As well, a Nature Center and associated facilities would be developed on the 55 -acre site to the south of Temecula Parkway/Future Western Bypass. In addition to adoption of the Specific Plan, this project would require a General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, and a certification of an environmental impact report. A-2 The 270—acre project site consists of two portions: 215 acres comprising the primary Specific Plan area that roughly spans the area between Ridge Park Drive on the north and Temecula Parkway on the south, and a non-contiguous 55 -acre site to the south of Temecula Parkway/Future Western Bypass which would be designated for a civic use, specifically a Nature Center and associated facilities. A large portion of the project site is proposed as open space conservation along the western slope of the project. The predominant land use would be residential mixed-use, consisting of approximately 1,750 dwelling units, comprising both attached and detached housing types. Densities would range from 4 to 33 dwelling units per net acre, with the higher densities concentrated at the north end of the property. Building types could include: detached housing, multiplex, rowhouses, live/work, micro -unit, multifamily walk-up, multifamily podium, and mixed-use that could include limited neighborhood -serving commercial. The project also proposes development of a community center, and an approximate 5 -acre site for an elementary school and playfield. The proposed project would also include a central publicly accessible park, plazas, and a soccer field. The Altair Specific Plan would consist of several neighborhood "villages," each centered on a node or focal point and separated by landscaped terrain. The open space between the villages is intended to mimic the existing ravines extending from the hillside above and is also intended to preserve the sculptural quality of the site. The village nodes would be linked by a main north -south road (Altair Vista) and by a network of pedestrian/bicycle paths, which is intended to provide cohesion to a very linear site while conserving much of the existing land forms, allowing similar drainage patterns and maintaining views to the hillside above. The core village (Village C) would occupy an existing promontory with views to and from Old Town. This area would be developed with a large park and would feature a community center at the high point, on axis with Main Street and Temecula City Hall. A pedestrian path would allow direct access to Main Street. This primary village would be higher in density and scale with buildings potentially up to five stories in height. The proposed Specific Plan would also include onsite and offsite improvements associated with the installation of required back -bone infrastructure, including a new storm drain system, water transmission mains, extension of the reclaiming water system, and new sewer lift stations and pipelines. South Parcel Nature Center Use Following circulation of the Draft EIR for public review, the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop (February 14, 2017) to propose a Nature/Culture/Sustainability (NCS) Center, herein referred to as the "Nature Center," on the South Parcel in lieu of the A-3 previously proposed more intense civic/institutional use. The Nature Center use has been evaluated in an Environmental Assessment (refer to Appendix A of the Final EIR). The Nature Center would consist of one or more buildings up to a maximum of building area of 20,000 square feet and a maximum building height of two -stories. The Nature Center land use would provide a public benefit to the City by offering educational programs and/or exhibits related to culture, the natural environment, and sustainability of the region, as well as provide recreational trails and facilities within the preserved area of the site. The trail would provide access to the Santa Margarita River Canyon and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, as well as provide a connection to Temecula Creek, east of 1-15. If more than one building is proposed, the buildings would be designed to be cohesive through orientation and architecture. The Nature Center buildings would also be designed to be similar to other Nature Centers in the region, including compatible materials and colors and would incorporate integrated indoor and outdoor spaces to connect the site to the surrounding natural setting. Further, the Nature Center land use would be designed to maintain and complement the visual character of the adjacent natural open space and the known Temeku Village cultural resource site to the south. One parking lot would be constructed to provide 120 parking spaces for employees and visitors to the Nature Center in accordance with the City of Temecula's Parking Standards, The buildings, parking lots and hardscape areas would have storm water treatment facilities designed to remove pollutants from storm water runoff. Trails and landscaping would be designed to minimize erosion and vegetation/habitat impacts. Operation of the Nature Center would be limited from dawn until two hours after dusk, and would have minimal night lighting. The expected monthly average number of visitors is 7,213. Special events could be held at the Nature Center that could draw larger than average crowds. Table 1-1 summarizes the land use details of the Nature Center on the South Parcel. A-4 TABLE 1 SOUTH PARCEL NATURE CENTER LAND USE SUMMARY Component Area (acres) Natural Open Space Area Undisturbed Open Space Camino Estribo (unimproved) Trails Subtotal - Natural Open Space Area 33.84 1.40 0.58 37.24 Disturbed Area Fill Area (not including Nature Center Pad/Streets/Trails) Nature Center Pad (including parking lot) Trails B&C Street Drainage Improvements Subtotal - Disturbed Area Total 11.22 3.70 1.21 0.70 0.85 17.68 54.92 NOTES. 1 Fill Area 850 cubic yards (cy) cut / 512.700 cy fill 2 Fill area would be revegetated 3. Nature Center Parcel. 16 17 (includes disturbed area t 1 68 acres of Natural Open Space Area) 4 Open Space Parcel 38 75 5. Total Conserved Open Space (Project with South Parcel Nature Center) 87 2 acres 6. Nature Center Building 12,000 square feet (st) tootpnnt 1 20.000 maximum — 2 -story 7 Nature Center Parking 120 spaces 8 Final Natural Open Space Trails to be sited in consultation with Pechanga 9 10 percent maximum trail grade SOURCE Ambient, 2017 The Nature Center use has been evaluated in an Environmental Assessment and is included in Appendix A of the FEIR. Based on the Environmental Assessment, the Specific Plan with the South Parcel Nature Center Use will result in reduced overall project impacts and mitigation requirements as the Specific Plan with the South Parcel civic use, and will specifically result in reduced overall impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources GHG, noise, traffic, and public services/utilities. Reduced impacts and mitigation requirement associated with the South Parcel Nature Center are documented in these findings where applicable. IV. Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant./No Impact in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and EIR. The City of Temecula issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and conducted an Initial Study to determine the potential environmental effects of the project. In the course of this evaluation, the project was found to have no impact in certain impact categories because a project of this type and scope or in this location would not create such impacts or because of the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. In the following categories of environmental impacts, the proposed project was found to have No Impact for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and EIR. The impacts were not analyzed in the EIR because they required no additional analysis to determine whether the effects could be significant. A-5 A. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural or forestry resources. According to Figure OS -3 of the City of Temecula General Plan, the plan area is adjacent to Unique Farmland in unincorporated County of Riverside. However, the plan area does not contain existing agricultural uses nor does it contain any Forest Land, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project would not result in the conversion of any land zoned for agricultural uses or land that is under a Williamson Act contract. B. MINERAL RESOURCES The proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources. The plan area does not contain significant mineral resources nor is it located within a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has given the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a. MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crusted stone for aggregate. However. these areas are not considered to contain mineral resources of significant economic value. The project would not result in the Toss of any known mineral resources or the Toss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. The plan area is located outside of any Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (AP Zone). While fault rupture is not necessarily confined to the boundaries of the AP Zone, it is considered to have a very low probability to occur outside of these areas that have been delineated by the State Geologist in accordance with the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Fault rupture almost always follows along active faults because of the zone of weakness that has developed from past displacements (CGS 2015). Therefore, with the plan area located approximately 0.5 miles from the active fault trace and well outside of the Alquist-Priolo fault zone, there would be no impact related to fault rupture. 2. As proposed, development associated with the project would deliver wastewater to the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) wastewater treatment plant in Temecula and would not have use for any septic tank or other alternative wastewater system. Therefore, this issue is not applicable to the project and no impact would occur. D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. The proposed project is not located within two miles of an airport or airstrips. The closest airport is the Billy Joe Airport, which is located approximately five miles east of the plan area, where construction and operational activities associated with the project would not interfere with airport operations. Therefore, impacts to airports or airstrips would not occur with implementation of the project. A-6 2. The project would result in an increased resident, employee and visitor population in the area. However, the project would not alter the existing street network, and it would comply with all emergency vehicle access requirements as a condition of construction. Overall, the project would not impede an established emergency access route or interfere with emergency response requirements and would not result in permanent road closures. Therefore, the project would have no impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans. E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. The project would not expose people to a significant risk of Toss, injury or death involving inundation by a seiche or tsunami because the project area is not located immediately near a coast or large body of water. The plan area is located over 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a large enough distance to avoid tsunami impacts and has no body of water in close proximity to the plan area. The portion of the plan area that would be subject to mudflow is identified in the Specific Plan to remain as open space. As a result, the proposed development areas (villages) would be protected by the open space areas in the event of a mudflow. In addition, the project would be subject to the City's Flood Damage Protection Ordinance which includes measures to protect against potential mudslides. Therefore, impacts related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would not occur. F. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. The plan area is currently undeveloped. The proposed project is intended to facilitate the development of up to 1,750 residential units into a cohesive community connected to Old Town. The proposed project would not involve the construction of roadways or other major structures within an established community that would result in division of an established community. No impact would occur. 2. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including Southern Califomia Association of Governments (SCAG) policies, Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA), and the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No impact would occur. Discussion of the Project's consistency with a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is discussed in H1, below. G. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. The plan area is not located within any airport land use plan nor is it located near any private airstrips. The nearest airport with an associated Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately six miles north of the plan area. Given this distance, no noise impacts are anticipated to occur at a public or private airport as a result of the project. A-7 H. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. There are no existing residential units or homes located within the plan area; therefore, no displacement of existing housing would occur. In addition, the project would encourage mixed-use and residential projects and would result in additional housing opportunities. Therefore, the project would displace a substantial amount of existing housing or people and no impact would occur. I. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 1. The nearest airport with an associated Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately six miles north of the plan area. The project is not within the French Valley Airport influence area; therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 2. Since the project promotes the use of bicycles, pedestrians, and transit, and all development projects within the plan area would be required to be consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks), no impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. V. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR. The EIR found that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact without the incorporation of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas listed below. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Final EIR. A. AESTHETICS 1, The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The site plan created for the Altair Specific Plan was developed with the intent of respecting and preserving natural landforms and features of the plan area, such as ridges and gullies. Development would be concentrated along the eastem edge of the parcel boundary in order to preserve hillsides. The route and lane configuration of the Western Bypass, which would incorporate split lanes (where southbound and northbound lanes would be at different elevations from each other), standard lanes (where all lanes would be at the same elevation), and landscaped medians throughout, would be designed to respect the existing landforms and minimize the visual impacts of this major roadway. While the proposed structures that would be developed as part of the project would obscure the individual features (ravines and ridges) of the landform of the plan area, the proposed site design would ensure that the majority of the hillside would still remain visible to viewers from outside the plan area. In addition, many of the landform features would still be visible to viewers using publicly accessible hiking and bicycle trails within the plan area after project implementation. Further, the Nature Center use would reduce the A-8 building footprint on the Civic site compared to the Civic/Institutional use. As with the Civic/Institutional use, the Nature Center would increase the intensity of uses on the site, introducing buildings where none currently exist which adds building height and mass in excess of the current undeveloped site. Therefore, impacts to scenic resources, including the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa Plateau, would be Tess than significant with implementation of the project. 2. The project is not located within a designated scenic highway corridor. SR -74 and SR -243 are designated as State Scenic Highways in Riverside County. These highways are located east of the plan area, more than 20 miles away and are not visible from within the plan area or surrounding areas. The project site, including the Civic site, is located within the viewshed from 1-15, which is designated by Caltrans as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by Caltrans. Views of the project area, including the Civic site, are available from points along 1-15; however, the proposed project would be minimally visible from 1-15 and would blend into the urban environment of Old Town and the surrounding development. Views of the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa Plateau from 1-15 would not be substantially affected by the proposed project, including the Nature Center. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and impacts would be less than significant. 3. Under the proposed project, the visual character of the project site would change substantially from undeveloped, open space to a high-density urbanized development. However, a change in visual character or visual quality does not, by itself, equate to a significant, adverse impact under CEQA. The evaluation should consider the degree of impact that may result from visual change. Per the City of Temecula General Plan, the City has planned for development at the project site and did not expect for it to remain as undeveloped, open space. The Altair Specific Plan includes design guidelines and development standards that are intended to achieve a community with a high aesthetic quality. The proposed project does not dictate the number or the styles of buildings to be developed in each village, but instead focuses on a variety of building forms in order to create distinct neighborhoods and encourage visual interest, vibrancy, and diversity. Design guidelines address features from building form (including how to create visually interesting facades, rooflines, building entrances, fenestration, siding materials, and colors), building placement on the lot, utility screening, retaining walls, and landscaping. Adherence to the design guidelines and development standards of the project would ensure that the proposed structures are developed to meet the goals of high aesthetic quality and visual interest For the Civic site, the Nature Center's footprint would be relatively small and would retain a large amount of open space and preserve hillsides for visual resources. The proposed Nature Center use would adhere to the design guidelines and development standards of the project would ensure that the proposed structures are developed to meet the goals of high aesthetic quality and visual interest and would not result in adverse impacts related to the visual character of the project area. In addition, specific development proposals occurring under the Specific Plan would be reviewed by City staff to ensure that they meet the design guidelines and development standards established by the Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts to visual character would be less than significant. A-9 4. Among the cumulative projects within the viewshed of the proposed project, the 140 -unit residential project would likely be the most visually prominent and would be occurring on undeveloped land. However, it would be built on flat land adjacent to existing urban uses and would not be located on any hillsides. In addition, like future development proposals that would occur in the City, any cumulative developments in the project vicinity would be subject to the City's Design Guidelines and would be required to undergo a development review process to ensure that the proposals meet the design standards. Temecula's City-wide Design Guidelines provide site planning, architectural design, and landscape design criteria for commercial, industrial, and residential development. The Guidelines also establish criteria for unique design characteristics found within specialized development types, such as specific commercial and public uses. The design standards and criteria contained within the Guidelines are the primary tool for implementing the policies contained within the Community Design Element. In addition, future development proposals in the vicinity of the project would also introduce new sources of light and glare in the area; and the project, in combination with these projects, could make a considerable contribution to light and glare. However, related projects would be required to adhere to the provisions of the Riverside County's Light Pollution Ordinance (No. 655), which reduces nighttime Tight pollution in the vicinity of the Palomar Observatory, and implement measures similar to those required of the project. As such, cumulative impacts from the project and related projects would be less than significant. The project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics. B. AIR QUALITY 1. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of General Plan land use policies; the growth resulting from the project is anticipated to be consistent with SCAG's regional forecast projections, which, in tum, would also be consistent with the growth projections accounted for in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD's) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant. 2. As shown in Table 3.2-6 in Section 3,2, Air Quality (refer to the Draft EIR) and Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR), the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the project's worst-case construction scenario would not exceed SCAQMD's daily significance threshold for any criteria pollutants during any of the modeled construction phases. Therefore, construction phase emissions would have a less than significant impact related to regional air quality. 3. A total of 25 local intersections were analyzed as part of the TIA that was prepared for the proposed project (Fehr & Peers 2015) and analyzed a second time with the Nature Center use (Fehr & Peers 2017). The existing, existing plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus project peak hour conditions were evaluated against the screening level threshold of 24,000 vehicles per hour, As none of the peak hour traffic at all of the intersections would come close to 24,000 vehicles per hour, CO emissions from these vehicles volumes would be less than significant. The Riverside County Congestion A-10 Management Program (CMP) requires that if an EIR was prepared, new developments analyze the project's potential impacts on CMP monitoring locations. The project's TIA (Fehr & Peers 2017) analyzed the project impacts on nearby CMP monitoring stations for arterial roadways. If a CMP monitoring segment falls into a Level of Service (LOS) of F, a deficiency plan would be required. As determined in the TIA for the project, there are no CMP arterials or roadway segments within the project study area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the CMP due to additional growth. Given that the project would not exceed the screening level intersection volumes, nor would it conflict with the local CMP, impacts related to CO hotspots would be less than significant. 4. During project operations, the daily amount of localized pollutant emissions generated onsite by the project would not be substantial. The proposed project's onsite operational emissions are shown in Table 3.2-12 in Section 3.2, Air Quality (refer to the Draft EIR) and Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR). As shown, the project's total operational -related emissions generated onsite would not exceed SCAQMD's screening operational localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Thus, no dispersion modeling was required for the project and localized air quality impacts during project operations would be less than significant. 5. Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, which is a toxic air contaminant (TACs). Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The construction period for the proposed project would be much less than the 70 -year period used for risk determination. Although project construction would occur over a 10 -year period, construction activities would not occur across the entire plan area during the entire duration of this period but would occur in smaller areas aver the course of construction. Project construction would not expose any existing nearby sensitive receptors or new onsite receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. Operation of the project would not include industrial manufacturing processes, automotive repair facilities, and dry cleaning facilities or be located within the buffer distance of any major TAC -emitting facilities. Project operation would not expose any existing nearby sensitive receptors or new onsite receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. Impacts would be Tess than significant. 6. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Development of the proposed project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial odorous emissions. Impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. 7. Based on SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in Table 3.2-6 (refer to Draft EIR), the project's construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's daily thresholds during construction. Thus, A-11 because the proposed project's construction -period impact would be less than significant, the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact in that regard, when considered with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any special status plants, specifically the San Diego ambrosia and paniculate tarplant. The San Diego ambrosia and paniculate tarplant are considered adequately conserved by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and impacts are covered under the implementation structure of the MSHCP. Impacts to special status species would be less than significant. 2. The project would not conflict with the City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance or the City of Temecula General Plan. D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides. Adherence to the requirements of the California Building Code would ensure that people, structures, and infrastructure are not adversely impacted by seismic hazards. Impacts would be less than significant. 2. The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Construction of the proposed project would require grading, excavating, and other ground -disturbing activities that would expose topsoil, resulting in soil erosion, but implementation of standard erosion control measures would ensure this impact is less than significant. 3. Development under the proposed project would be required to adhere to City building code requirements, which include the preparation of a design level geotechnical investigation by a state licensed geotechnical engineer. The required geotechnical report for any new development or redevelopment would determine the susceptibility of the subject site to settlement and prescribe appropriate engineering techniques for reducing its effects based on site specific data of subsurface soils. Prior to approval of a building permit, the final design level geotechnical report with recommendations for site preparation requirements, foundation specifications, and structural design would be required to be in accordance with the City building code requirements. Therefore, implementation of standard geotechnical engineering practices, which includes a geotechnical investigation containing recommendations that would be specific to future project sites within the plan area, and adherence to building code requirements would reduce potential impacts from unstable soils and other adverse soil properties to less than significant levels. A-12 4. The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in Temecula and nearby areas of Riverside County, would not contribute to cumulative geologic and soils impacts. E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Implementation of the proposed project would involve limited transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation, but compliance with all applicable regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant. 2. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and implemented during construction to minimize the potential for discharge of contaminants during construction. Any businesses that would store hazardous materials and/or waste at its business site would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Management Plan in accordance with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Further, the project site is located more than 25 miles, but less than 50 miles, from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The facility is currently being decommissioned and existing emergency procedures are in place in the rare event of an emergency. Thus, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be less than significant. 3. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school_ The project Site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school site. 4. The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The project Site has not been listed as a hazardous material release site. 5. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project Site is located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the French Valley Airport, which is the only public airport in the vicinity of the project. 6. The proposed project includes the option of constructing an elementary school site just beyond one-quarter mile of International Rectifier Corporation and other businesses located just east of Rancho California Road. These businesses may have the potential to generate hazardous emissions or contain acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste that could cause an impact to sensitive receptor sites such as the proposed school. In addition to mandatory adherence to City and County requirements, compliance with the requirements of CCR Title 5, Section 14010, A-1 3 Standards for School Site Construction, and the California Department of Education School Facilities Planning Division (as overseen by DTSC) further ensures that hazardous materials impact on the proposed school would be less than significant. Further, all new development under the proposed project would be required to follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions near schools would be less than significant. 7. According to the two different Phase I reports completed for the project area and vicinity, there are no reported incidents of releases of hazardous materials. In addition, review of available databases from the DTSC and SWRCB did not identify sites within the project area or immediate vicinity that would likely indicate the presence of contamination on the site or in subsurface materials. As a result, impacts are considered less than significant. 8. According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Map Data, a portion of the project is adjacent to a High Fire Hazard Area. The Western Bypass will serve as a fire break between wildland areas and proposed development. In addition, a Fuel Modification Plan will 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. Further, adherence to existing Fire Code regulatory requirements for new construction, require the preparation and implementation of a Fuel Modification Plan. Thus, impacts related to wildfires would be less than significant. 9. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the city, could cumulatively increase exposure of people, property, and the environment to hazardous materials and interference with emergency response. However, with compliance with all applicable regulations, the project would not contribute to the potential for hazards and hazardous materials impacts under cumulative conditions. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to significant cumulative impacts to human health associated with hazards and hazardous materials or conditions is less than cumulatively considerable. F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. The proposed project would implement site-specific SWPPPs, including construction best management practices (BMPs), during construction in accordance with the Construction General Permit, which would reduce the potential for stormwater to come into contact with pollutants and integrate it into surface water, to the maximum extent practicable. As a result, construction activities would not result in runoff that would exceed the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system capacity or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The proposed storm drain system would provide sufficient volume to treat storm water for water quality purposes and is designed to properly convey the increased runoff attributable to site A-14 development. Impacts to existing stormwater drainage facilities during construction would be Tess than significant. 2. The proposed project would implement site-specific SWPPPs during construction to address site-specific conditions related to construction; identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during construction; and describe the implementation and maintenance of erosion control and sediment control BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment, pollutants adhering to sediment, and other non -sediment pollutants in storm water, as well as non - storm water discharges. Once operational, runoff from the project site would be minimized by implementation of infiltration BMPs, such as directing roof downspouts and other paved areas to drain to natural drainages, using natural drainage swales to convey runoff from impervious surfaces, and landscape areas between sidewalk and curb, where feasible. Bioretention basins are proposed throughout the site to treat runoff from the proposed impervious areas (streets and sidewalks). Thus, implementation of the SWPPPs and BMPs during construction and operation of the project would minimize erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant 3. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the project stated while groundwater supplies from the Murrieta -Temecula Groundwater Basin would be used during construction and operation, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) would have sufficient water supplies to accommodate the project's water use during construction and operation. Therefore, the potential impact on local groundwater recharge and supplies from development of the proposed project would be less than significant. 4. While the proposed project is not located within the 100 -year flood zone of Murrieta Creek, the flood damage prevention and floodplain management regulations of the City Development Code (Chapter 15.12 Floodplain Management) apply since the project area is within the western portion of Temecula, which has the potential for mud and debris flows. Before issuance of a building permit, the City would review development plans for future projects to ensure compliance with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. Therefore, impacts related to flooding and mudflows would be less than significant. 5. A small portion of the project area closest to Murrieta Creek may be located in a dam inundation area (City of Temecula 1993) depending on location of proposed developments. All three dams within the vicinity of the project area—Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, and Diamond Valley Lake—could potentially cause flooding in the plan area should they fail. However, to address flood hazards, the City of Temecula has developed a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan which is updated, as needed. This Plan would be put to use in the event of dam failure to ensure the safety of the public. Additionally, the City coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the community. The rare likelihood of such an event in combination with applicable plan and program compliance would reduce any risks of death or loss involving flooding as a result of dam failure to less than significant. A-15 6. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative water quality, runoff, groundwater supplies, and flooding impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. G. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. Potential land use impacts, such as potential impacts related to consistency with plans and policies that are intended to avoid environmental effects, would be project -specific and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. This is also true with regard to land use compatibility impacts, which are generally a function of the relationship between the interactive effects of a specific development site and those of its immediate environment. Therefore, cumulative impacts to land use would be less than significant. H. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. Operation of the proposed project would not expose persons to or generate groundborne vibration levels in excess of the adopted guidelines and recommendations established by the Federal Transit Administration. Impacts associated with groundborne vibration levels during operation would be less than significant. 2. Operation of the proposed project would not generate traffic noise which would exceed the identified thresholds of significance for all studied roadway segments. Impacts associated with permanent increases in ambient noise related to traffic noise would be less than significant. 3. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with mobile source noise would be less than cumulatively considerable. I. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. In general, the project would accommodate predicted growth, and would not result in a substantial increase in population. The project's residential units would help to meet housing demands from projected population growth in the City and the region. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and housing. 2. Project development in combination with cumulative projects within the City would result in a cumulative increase in population. The proposed project would represent approximately 20 percent of the population increase that would be generated under cumulative conditions. This would exceed the projected 2035 population by Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG) by approximately 10,400 residents. However, growth would be within the population anticipated by the City's General Plan projected development capacity of 166,250 residents. Impacts related to thresholds established by resource agencies that rely on SCAG population projections, such as SCAQMD, are analyzed in the appropriate sections of the Draft EIR. However, given that this growth has been anticipated by the City, the proposed project would not considerably A-16 contribute to population and housing impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. J. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. The City's fire department would be able to accommodate the anticipated growth of the project and already owns the necessary equipment to accommodate the increase in building heights. Further, the proposed project would pay development impact fees to enable the expansion of fire protection facilities, the addition of fire protection personnel, and the acquisition of additional fire equipment, as needed to maintain performance standards. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. 2. The proposed project would pay the appropriate development impact fees, which would allow the police department to add additional staff to provide services to accommodate the growth anticipated with the development of the project. Thus, impacts to police services would be less than significant. 3. The proposed project would pay the developer fees established by the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), which are established at $3.36 per square foot of residential development and $0.54 per square foot or commercial or industrial development. Given the payment of developer fees, existing capacity at the schools in the project area, the construction of an elementary school as a part of the project, and TVUSD's proposed construction of five new schools, TVUSD would be able to accommodate the students generated by the project and would not require further expansion of facilities. Therefore, project impacts to schools are considered to be less than significant. 4. The project would add an estimated 4,603 residents which would increase demand for City -owned park and recreational facilities. New development is required to dedicated park land, pay a fee in -lieu, or a combination, thereof, to provide for the recreational needs of its residents (City of Temecula, Ord. 99-23). Based on the City's formula for park land dedication, and knowing the project could produce a range of dwelling units (870 to 1,750 units), the project, at buildout, would be required to dedicate an estimated 10 to 22 acres of park land, depending on the total number of dwelling units constructed. The required park land dedication, payment of in -lieu fees, or a combination thereof, would offset any adverse impacts associated with the construction of new or expansion of existing recreational facilities to meet the City's General Plan standard of five acres of park land for every 1,000 residents. With payment of the in -lieu fees, dedication of parkland, or a combination of both, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to parks. 5. While the project would increase the demand for library services over the buildout timeframe of 10 years, the population increase generated by the project (approximately 4,603 people max) is accounted for in the City's anticipated population growth forecast of 118,900 people by 2035. The project is anticipated to have minimal impacts on library services and would not affect the County's ability to provide library A-17 services or create the need to construct new library facilities or expand existing facilities. Therefore, the project would result in Tess than significant impacts to library services. 6. Given the capacity of the existing healthcare facilities, the population of 4,603 new residents (maximum) generated by the project would be adequately served by the existing facilities. Impacts related to the expansion or provision of additional healthcare facilities would be less than significant. 7. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. K. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. All development within the Specific Plan area would be required to be designed consistent with City standards, including street design, emergency access, and compatibility of proposed uses. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to hazardous design features or emergency access. L. UTITILIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 1. The residential and commercial land uses proposed by the project would generally not discharge wastewater that contains harmful levels of toxins that are regulated by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) (such as large quantities of pesticides, herbicides, oil, grease, and other chemicals that are more typical in agricultural and industrial uses) and all effluent would comply with the wastewater treatment standards of the SDRWQCB. The project would result in less than significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the SDRWQCB. 2. The Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plan would have sufficient capacity to process the additional average wastewater flow that would be generated by the project at build out. In addition, each project -specific development within in the Specific Plan would be required to pay a sewer service charge to RCWD to maintain and upgrade its system. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 3. The construction of the future individual development within the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the development planning requirements of the SDRWQCB MS4 permit and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. Each future development project would be required to generate a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which would ensure that the project implements specific drainage features in order to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Therefore, impacts to the environment from the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant. A-18 4. The WSA identified a sufficient and reliable water supply for RCWD, now and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for the project (RWCD, 2015b). Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources and new or expanded entitlements would not be required. 5. The proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs during construction and operation. Solid waste disposed of during construction activities for the new residential and commercial development would represent 0.004 percent of the remaining capacity (in tons). Solid waste disposed of during operation activities for the new residential and commercial development would represent 0.07 percent of the daily disposal rate (in tons). The existing capacity of the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill would be sufficient to accommodate solid waste generation from project implementation and impacts would be less than significant. 6. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to water supply or quality, wastewater, stormwater drainage, or solid waste. VI. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The EIR identified the potential for the project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise and Vibration, and Transportation and Traffic. Measures have been identified that would mitigate the specified impacts in each section to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would reduce the project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VII. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the project described in the Final EIR as conditions of approval of the project and incorporates those into the project, as discussed more fully in Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A. AESTHETICS 1. Create a new source of light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views. Impact AES -1: The project would create a new source of light and glare throughout the project area. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to new A-19 sources of light or glare. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all development within the project area: • Temporary nighttime construction lighting shall be shielded and directed downward such that no light spillage will occur on adjacent properties. • The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures in public areas contain "sharp cut-off" fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the development shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens. o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield. o A map showing all Tamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting. o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield. o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre. Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. A-20 • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the development is in compliance with the design standards in Altair Specific Plan, Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No, 655. b. Facts in Support of Findings The proposed project would introduce a new source of Tight and glare to the project site from lighting for residential and Nature Center, plazas, and streets as well as from cars traveling through the project site. Also, temporary nighttime construction lighting may be required near the intersection of Vincent Moraga and Rancho California Road (due to traffic on Rancho California Road). There are no sensitive receptors near this intersection; nonetheless, Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 would ensure nighttime construction lighting is shielded and directed downward to avoid light spillage on adjacent properties. The proposed project is located approximately 20 miles from the Palomar Observatory. The project would be required to comply with the Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance (Riverside County's Light Pollution Ordinance No. 655), which requires a variety of measures, as outlined in Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1, including the preparation of an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan, to reduce the effects of light pollution from nighttime Tight sources. However, given the proposed density and intensity of the project, new development would increase nighttime light sources. According to Ordinance No, 655, the project site is located in Zone B (45 -mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone). Ordinance No. 655 includes requirements for lessening "sky glow" from nighttime light sources and identifies specific measures for projects within Zone B, including lighting from parking lots and advertising displays being fully shielded to lessen light that is omitted within the vicinity of the Palomar Observatory. Additionally, application of the design guidelines outlined in Chapter 9, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan include variations in street materials and outdoor lighting controls. For example, Tight fixtures shall incorporate cut-offs and appropriate lenses to eliminate glare and light spillover to adjacent properties to reduce potential impacts associated with Tight and glare. Along with compliance with Ordinance No. 665, Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 would ensure that new sources of light and glare would be designed and installed to minimize light pollution and to reduce effects of light pollution to sensitive receptors. B. AIR QUALITY 1. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations During Construction. Impact AQ -2: Emissions of localized criteria pollutants from construction of the project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. A-21 a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to localized construction criteria air pollutants. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential air quality impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2: The site shall be watered four times per day during ground disturbance (grading) activities for all project development phases. During drought conditions, defined as Water Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by the Rancho California Water District, use of reclaimed water or non -water chemical stabilizers shall be implemented such that fugitive emissions reductions are comparable. Permission to use potable water for dust control activities during drought conditions shall be granted by the City of Temecula Building Official if the General Contractor shows in writing that (1) Reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from recycled wastewater treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site; and (2) Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from wells and groundwater sources located within 10 miles of the construction site. b. Facts in Support of Findings Daily onsite construction emissions generated by the project were evaluated against SCAQMD's LSTs for a 3.5 -acre site to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts.' The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are the multi -family residential dwelling units located directly adjacent to the project site on the east. Additionally, the project itself would also introduce sensitive receptors (e.g., residential and school uses) once the individual development phases are completed. Daily unmitigated, localized onsite emissions anticipated to occur during the project's worst-case construction scenario were estimated and are shown in Table 3.2-10 (refer to the Draft EIR). As summarized in Table 2.2-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR), daily unmitigated emissions generated onsite by the proposed project's worst-case construction scenario would exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST for PM2.s for a 3.5 -acre site in SRA 26, during the site preparation sub -phase. The emissions for the remaining pollutants of concern (NOx and PMio) would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs in any construction year. As the project's worst-case construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD's According to SCAQMD's LST methodology, LSTs are only applicable to the onsite construction emissions that are generated by a project and do not apply to emissions generated offsite such as mobile emissions on roadways from worker, vendor, and haul truck trips. A-22 applicable LST for PM2.5, the localized air quality impacts associated with PM2.5 would be potentially significant. Localized impacts for NOx and PMio would be Tess -than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2 would require the use water or reclaimed water and/or non -water chemical stabilizers during drought conditions to reduce fugitive dust emissions during ground disturbance activities for all project development phases. The General Contractor shall obtain permission from the City of Temecula Building Official to use potable water if reclaimed water or well water/groundwater is not available for fugitive dust control activities during drought conditions. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2, the total onsite emissions of PM2.5 generated during the site preparation sub -phase would be reduced to below the SCAQMD's applicable LST for a 3.5 -acre site. The total mitigated PM2.5 emissions that would result from implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2 during project construction in 2016 are shown in Table 3.2-11 (refer to the Draft EIR). While only the reduction of PM2.5 for 2016 is shown, Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2 would also reduce PMio and PM2.5 emissions from all site preparation and grading construction sub -phases. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM - AQ -2 would ensure that localized air quality impacts associated with PM2.5 would be reduced to below the established LST. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Impacts to Migratory Birds and Special -Status Wildlife Impacts BIO -1: Activities associated with construction of the project could have a significant impact on special status avian wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to migratory birds and special status species. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: To the extent feasible, clearing and grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian breeding season, which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If clearing and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season, a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys. The survey shall occur no more than 7 days prior to any clearing, grubbing, construction or ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project area, the nest shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own and are no longer relying on the nest for survival). A 500 -foot construction setback from A-23 any active raptor nesting location (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified biologist. A 300 -foot construction setback (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, and the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be established for all other migratory birds. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. All construction setbacks shall be clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate material (flagging, staking, construction fencing, etc.) and verified by a qualified biologist. Such fencing shall be maintained and monitored until the nest is confirmed to be inactive. If an avoidance buffer is not feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City, noise walls or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent disturbance to the nest. b. Facts in Support of Findings Activities associated with construction of the project may potentially impact special status wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, California gnatcatcher, and California horned lark, which were observed or recorded on or near the Project. Direct and indirect impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds could occur during construction through the removal of suitable habitat, including mature trees and shrubs if habitat clearing were to occur during breeding season. Potential direct impacts include the destruction of active nests; potential indirect impacts include interference with reproductive success due to noise, vibration, and/or visual disturbances. The MTBA and the CFGC (3503 and 3503.5) consider the loss of active nests (nests with eggs or young) of all native bird species unlawful. Consequently, the potential loss or abandonment of nests of bird species as a result of construction -related activities would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1 would minimize clearing and grubbing activities within the avian breeding season (February 1 to September 15) to the extent feasible. If clearing and grubbing activities have to occur during the breeding season, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1 requires the retention of a qualified biologist and establishes the appropriate protocol for focused surveys of active nests as well as the various construction buffers required based on nests' conditions. While avoidance of the active nest during construction is the ideal condition, if avoidance is not feasible, Mitigation Measure MM - BIO -1 requires the installation of noise walls or other noise attenuation devices to prevent disturbance to any active nest during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1 would ensure that any potentially significant impacts to migratory birds or special -status species, specifically Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark, would be reduced to a less than significant level_ A-24 2. Impacts to Burrowing Owls Impact BIO -2: The project could have a significant impact on burrowing owl or suitable burrowing owl habitat during construction. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl habitat during construction. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Suitable burrowing owl habitat identified on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (EPD, 2006) no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine presence or absence of burrowing owl_ If no burrowing owls are identified, no additional mitigation is necessary and activities may commence. If a burrowing owl is detected, the City of Temecula and the RCA will be notified. If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the applicant shall implement the following measure: • Take of active nests shall be avoided. Passive or active relocation (use of one way doors and collapse of burrows), as approved by the RCA, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 - August 31). If active relocation is selected, translocation sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. Translocation sites will be identified, taking into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species. Selected translocation sites shall be coordinated with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to translocation site development. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project falls within a Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CASSA) per Sections 6.1.3 and 3.3.2 of the MSHCP for burrowing owl, thus a protocol -level survey was performed for burrowing owl. No burrowing owls were detected or observed during the focused surveys. However, suitable habitat occurs within the upland vegetation communities and disturbed habitat across the project site. Burrowing owls may colonize the project site between the completion of focused surveys and the start of construction. Individuals present during ground disturbing activities have the potential to be killed A-25 through burrow collapse from construction equipment or vehicles. MSHCP protocol within the CASSA for burrowing owl requires a pre -construction clearance survey if burrows or suitable habitat exist regardless of positive or negative finding. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2 requires that a qualified biologist conduct surveys of all suitable burrowing owl habitat identified on within the project area no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owls. If active nest are identified during surveys, take of active nest shall be avoided and passive or active relocation, as approved by the Regional Conservation Authority, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 - August 31). Coordination with CDFW and USFWS shall occur prior to translocation of burrowing owls. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2 would ensure that any potentially significant impact to burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl habitat would be minimized to the extent feasible and impacts would be reduced to a Tess than significant level. 3. Impacts to Mountain Lions Impact 610-3: The urban/wildland interface associated with the construction and operation of the project could have a significant effect on mountain lions and other wildlife. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to mountain lions. Specifically, the following measure as well as the mitigation measures established in other sections or for other issue topics (MM -AES -1, MM -BIO -6b, MM -BIO -7a, MM -BIO -7b, MM - BIO -7c, MM -N01-1 a and MM -N01 -1b) have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -B10-3: The following Best Management Practices shall be adhered to: • Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, or grading permit for the project, a qualified biologist (Project Biologist) with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites, shall be retained by the applicant to oversee compliance with the protection and avoidance measures for biological issues associated with the project. The Project Biologist shall have the authority to halt construction activities in the event of non-compliance. • The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to: vegetation removal, tree removal or trimming, grading, and restoration landscaping to ensure project activities remain in compliance with all applicable biological resource permits. A-26 • Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife species shall be prohibited. • Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the project site, and from feeding wildlife. • Proposed and existing MSHCP Conservation Areas shall be protected in place by the installation of orange silt fencing. Fencing shall be maintained in working order and inspected weekly. Fencing repair shall occur within 2 working days following inspection, • All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and trash removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens and feral cats and dogs. • All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas beyond 100 feet of any drainage course, and be contained using appropriate protection measures. • Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project -proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. Nighttime construction which does occur outside these areas shall use directional lighting to minimize the impacts of increased artificial nighttime lighting. • All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than 45 minutes to minimize ambient noise produced by the project. b. Facts in Support of Findings The MSHCP promotes the conservation and recovery of biological resources in western Riverside County and provides coverage for Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) incidental take for listed species. Project impacts to the mountain lion and other wildlife are mitigated through the existing MSHCP under an existing incidental take permit. The project is subject to the UrbanlWildland Interface Guidelines in the MSHCP, Section 6.1.4. In addition to compliance with the MSHCP, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3 would require that the best management practices listed above are implemented to minimize impacts to mountain lions and other wildlife during construction. Consistency with the MSHCP Guidelines and implementation of the Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3 would ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts on mountain lions and other wildlife. A-27 4. Impacts to Riparian or Riverine Habitat Impact BIO -4: Implementation of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian/riverine habitat and federally protected wetlands. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to riparian/riverine habitat and federally protected wetlands. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to Tess than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary agency permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters, wetlands and riparian resources, including USAGE, CDFW, and SDRWQCB. Impacts to riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to unvegetated channel shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options: on- or off-site habitat restoration; purchase of credits from an in - lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective resource agencies (USAGE, SDRWQCB, and CDFW), it shall be prepared according to agency requirements and shall include, at a minimum, the following information: • Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas • An evaluation of the existing function and values, and a description of the function and values to be achieved through compensatory mitigation • Detailed plant and seed mix requirements • Detailed planting plan • Specific and measurable five-year success criteria • Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements • Invasive species management • Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of irrigation for at least two years prior to final sign -off • Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4b: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, a DBESP shall be approved by the RCA to address impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. The DBESP shall include the following information: A-28 • Definition of the project area • A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible • A written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping • Quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools associated with the project, including direct and indirect effects • A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects, such as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation difference, minimization and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement • A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted, used for comparison of biological equivalency • A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation, including habitat type, location, functional lift, and Tong -term stewardship responsibility • A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts, the habitat mitigation would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which is being impacted and would result in a net equivalent or superior ecological condition b. Facts in Support of Findings As outlined in Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4a, the project is required to compensate for impacts to riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio and impacts to unvegetated channel at a 1:1 ratio. The mitigation ratio and method will ultimately be determined during the wetland permitting process through the USACE, SDRWQCB, and CDFW, as applicable. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4b requires a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) be prepared in accordance with the guidelines established above and approved by the RCA to address project impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM - BIO -4a and MM -BIO -4b would ensure project impacts to riparian/riverine and federally protected wetlands would be in compliance with state and federal regulatory agency requirements and would be adequately mitigated to a less than significant level. 5. Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Habitat Impact BIO -6: Implementation of the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations. or by CDFW or USFWS. A-29 a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to sensitive vegetation communities and habitat. Specifically, the following measure and Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, and MM -BIO -7c have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -6a: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, or any phase thereof, the applicant shall pay Local Development Mitigation fees, as determined by the City of Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15, to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species. As provided for in the RCA's applicable fee ordinance and/or adopted resolutions, the applicant may request discretionary approval from the RCA fee credits for land conserved onsite that contributes toward the Reserve Assembly of the MSHCP. Any such request and approval shall not otherwise diminish or void the applicant's obligation to pay the required Local Development Mitigation fees. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO 6b: At the time of final map recordation for the project, or any phase thereof, lands identified to contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project (Conserved Lands) and included on the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the RCA or deed transfer of said parcels to the RCA. Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The project shall conserve onsite a minimum of 87.2 acres, which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to include Cells 7077, 7161, 7078, 7164, 7258, 7264, 7355 and 7356. b. Facts in Support of Findings Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -6a and MM -BIO -6b require the payment of development mitigation fees and the conservation of lands in favor of the Westem Riverside RCA, which would ensure that the project has adequately mitigated for impacts to sensitive habitat covered under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 6. Impacts to Wildlife Corridors Impacts BIO -7 and BIO -8: The project could interfere with the movement of wildlife species, and with established migratory wildlife corridors. The project could have direct and indirect impacts to the movement of mountain lion and other wildlife in Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. A-30 a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to wildlife corridors, including Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Specifically, the following measures and Mitigation Measures MM -AES -1, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -6b, MM - N01 -1a, MM -N01-1 b and MM -N01-3 have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7a: The portion of Camino Estribo that lies between the South Parcel and the main development area within the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular speeds. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7b: The applicant shall install permanent fencing along the Western Bypass where the Bypass right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSHCP Conserved Lands, to keep animals within the wildlife corridor. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed fencing plan for review and approval by the City Community Development Department, RCA, CDFW, and USFWS. The fencing plan shall include, at a minimum, the fencing location, fencing specifications, plant list, and method and timing of installation. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7c: A Slope Revegetation Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. The Plan shall be submitted for approval to the City Community Development Department prior to the construction of the Western Bypass. The Plan shall include, at a minimum: • The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to the first six inches along selected portions of the ground disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in restoring disturbed areas • Equipment and methods for planting • A planting plan, including the amount and species of seed necessary to revegetate the target habitat types • Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year period following installation • Specific Best Management Practices for erosion control during and after revegetation • A requirement for five years of maintenance of the revegetated areas, including removal of invasive species and irrigation (if necessary) A-31 • A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance with the success criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using an adaptive management approach • Identification of entity responsible for installation, maintenance, and monitoring b. Facts in Support of Findings Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -7a through MM -BIO -7c would reduce impacts to Linkage 10 by conserving approximately 83 acres of land onsite within Linkage 10; retaining Camino Estribo as a dirt road to slow any traffic; installing permanent fencing between Conserved Lands and the Western Bypass to reduce potential human/wildlife interaction; and revegetating graded slopes along the Western Bypass abutting existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas within Proposed Linkage 10 to maximize the wildlife corridor width and functionality. The project would also be required to adhere to the UrbanNVildland Interface Guidelines in the Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Application of project design features that include locating the proposed Western Bypass as far to the east as feasible, consistency with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines as required in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, and implementation of the Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -7a through MM -BIO -7c would ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Linkage 10. Project features that would buffer wildlife activity along Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 include dense plantings on top of an approximately 10 -foot high berm on the southern side of the building area of the South Parcel, and the installation of "living walls" (green walls or modular vegetated walls) on the south and west sides of buildings located on perimeter lots associated with the South Parcel. The project would also be required to adhere to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines in the Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AES -1, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -6b, MM -N01 -1a, MM-NOI-1 b and MM -N01-3 would safeguard and minimize impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Application of project features, consistency with the UrbanANildland Interface Guidelines as required in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would result in less than significant impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. 7. Conflicts with Provisions of Local Policies and Conservation Plans Western Riverside County MSHCP Impact BIO -9: The project would have an onsite shortfall of conserved acres for impacts to riparian and grassland habitat. Impact BIO -10: Project impacts to riparian/riverine habitat could result in the project being inconsistent with the MSHCP. A-32 Impact BIO -11: Project impacts at urbanlwildland interface areas could result in the project being inconsistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. Impact BIO -12: The project could have a significant effect on Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, and, therefore, could be inconsistent with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors. Impact BIO -13: Project design and construction of the Western Bypass, a Covered Activity, could result in the project being inconsistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria of the MSHCP. a. Findings The project has a potential to conflict with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the potential conflicts stated above with the MSHCP. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1, MM -BIO -2, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, MM - BIO -6a through MM -BIO -7c, MM -N01 -1a, MM -N01 -1b, MM -N01-3, MM -HYD -1, MM - HYD -2, and MM -HYD -3 are imposed on the project to ensure that project impacts are Tess than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings The MSHCP protects and preserves certain habitats and species in the region. The project falls within the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project is consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly goals as determined by the Area Plan Subregional analysis contained in the Draft ETR, in conjunction with the proposed Project Conservation Features. Implementation of the mitigation measures above would ensure that the project is consistent with the MSHCP as the project would be in Rough Step with the MSHCP reserve goals; implement mitigation for impacts to riparian and riverine habitat; and would be consistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (Impacts BIO 9-11). In regards to consistency with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors, Proposed Linkage 10 and Propose Constrained Linkage 13, application of project features and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would require the such things as Tight and glare standards for the development; permanent fencing between Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; conservation of land within Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; noise reduction measures and application of BMPs during construction; slope revegetation for manufactured slopes along the edge of Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; and adherence to operational exterior noise standards. Incorporation of the above referenced mitigation measures would align the project with the goals and requirements of the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors (Impact BIO -12). A-33 With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1, MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, MM - BIO -6b, MM -BIO -7c, the project would be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria, Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP, as shown in the consistency analysis on page 3.3-65 and 3.3-66 in Section 3.3, Biological Resources (see Draft EIR). Therefore, implementation of the referenced above mitigation measures would allow for the redesign of the Western Bypass to be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria and impacts would be less than significant (Impact BIO -12). 8. Cumulative Biological Impacts a. Findings The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development within the jurisdiction of the MSHCP, could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to biological resources, especially special status wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities and wildlife corridors. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to biological resources. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, MM -BIO -6a, MM -BIO -6b, MM -BIO -7a, MM -BIO -7b, and MM -BIO -7c would reduce impacts to less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings Development of the proposed project would contribute to the urbanization of the City of Temecula. The City, along with other jurisdictions in westem Riverside County, participates in the MSHCP. The MSHCP is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in western Riverside County. Project compliance with the MSHCP fully mitigates for impacts on covered species and ensures large segments of natural communities in western Riverside County will be preserved. As such, participation in and compliance with the MSHCP ensures the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Historical and Archaeological Resources Impact CUL -1: The project area is considered moderately to highly sensitive for cultural resources. In addition, a portion of the project area is within the Origin Landscape Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), one of the most sacred areas for the Pechanga Tribe. The lack of identified intact subsurface archaeological materials reduces the likelihood of encountering buried archaeological resources during project implementation, but does not preclude the possibility that archaeological resources may be present in areas not subject to archaeological investigation. In the event that archaeological resources are inadvertently encountered during project implementation, disturbances to such resources could result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Disturbances A-34 to archaeological resources would require consideration of impacts to any archaeological resources individually and as contributors to the larger National Register -listed archaeological district (P-33-11443 — MCAA), as well as consideration as contributors to the National Register -listed Origin Landscape TCP. a. Findings The proposed project has a potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical and archaeological resources. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant effects to historical and archaeological resources. The project applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of the required mitigation measures and the City shall ensure applicant compliance with the measures. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -la — Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1b - Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally A-35 appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -lc — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training: The qualified archeologist or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1d — Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -la and Ib. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and Native American Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the A-36 results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -le — Unanticipated Discovery: If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -lb. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -If - Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP: The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects. biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project area was investigated by a professional archaeologist, who concluded that seven known cultural resources are located within the project area. Ground -disturbing activities during construction and development of the project would have the potential to uncover previously unidentified archaeological resources within the project area. A-37 However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1 a through MM -CUL -1d requires the retention of a qualified archaeologist and a professional Pechanga Tribal monitor, completion of preconstruction cultural resources training. archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitoring during ground -disturbing activities, and the resurvey of the South Parcel after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. Also, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -le establishes the appropriate protocol in the event of an inadvertent discovery of buried cultural resource. If cultural resources are discovered, work must halt immediately within 100 feet of the discovery and avoidance or mitigation is required as appropriate based on a determination of the Tribe member and archaeologist. Specific to the Origin Landscape TCP, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f mandates that the City and the Project Application shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Origin Landscape TCP south of the proposed Civic Nature Center area. If activities which could affect the integrity of the TCP should be proposed, the City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation. As such, this mitigation measure would ensure that any potential unanticipated impacts to historical and archaeological resources are reduced to less than significant. 2. Impacts to Paleontological Resources Impact CUL -2: The potential exists for unique paleontological resources to be located beneath the ground surface in the project area, specifically within the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp), which has high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Construction activities could result in the inadvertent discovery and damage of these paleontological resources, which would be a significant impact. a. Findings The proposed project has a potential to result in impacts to a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to paleontological resources. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential cultural and paleontological resource impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP): The applicant shall implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot- checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if A-38 the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2b — Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project area is underlain by Jurassic to Cretaceous metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, Cretaceous granodiorites, and the Pauba Formation (both the fanglomerate and sandstone facies). Although the Jurassic to Cretaceous metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, Cretaceous granodiorite of Rainbow, and Pauba Formation fanglomerate have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources, the Pauba Formation sandstone facies is considered to have high sensitivity and the Pauba Formation fanglomerate is considered to have undetermined sensitivity per the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines. The paleontological records search (see Kennedy and Wirths 2013) and the research conducted for this analysis indicate that fossil localities have been documented in the vicinity of the project area. In accordance with the City's General Plan (Implementation Program OS -26), Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -2a and MM -CUL -2b would require the preparation and implementation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) during project implementation as well as establishes the appropriate protocol in the event of an inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. As such, if project construction uncovers any unanticipated paleontological resources, these mitigation measures would ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant. A-39 3, Impacts to Human Remains Impact CUL -3: Because the proposed project would involve ground - disturbing activities, it is possible that such actions could unearth, expose, or disturb previously unknown human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery. a. Findings Construction of the proposed project has a potential to disturb human remains. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to human remains. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains: If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. b. Facts in Support of Findings Although no human remains have been identified on the project Site, implementation of the proposed project would include ground -disturbing construction activities that could result in the inadvertent disturbance of currently undiscovered human remains. Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands A-40 are mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, by Public Resources Code Section 509T98, and by CEQA in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e). According to these provisions, should human remains be encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The remains are required to be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and their disposition has been made. The Riverside County Coroner would be immediately notified, and the coroner would then determine whether the remains are Native American. Any discovery of human remains within the project Site would be subject to these procedural requirements. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 expressly requires that construction work halt if human remains are identified. Compliance with these requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 would ensure impacts to human remains would be less than significant. 4. Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts a. Findings The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development within the City of Temecula, could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources and buried human remains. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to cultural resources. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -la through MM - CUL -1f, MM -CUL -2a, MM -CUL -2b, and MM -CUL -3 would reduce impacts to less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the City of Temecula could occur if the project and other cumulative projects had or would have impacts on cultural resources that, when considered together, would be cumulatively significant. The project vicinity contains a significant archaeological and historical record that, in many cases, has not been well documented or recorded. Thus, there is the potential for ongoing and future development projects in the vicinity to disturb known or unknown cultural resources, including archaeological sites, historic -period built resources, and resources of traditional and cultural significance to Native American tribes. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -la through MM -CUL -le would ensure that any potentially significant impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementing the appropriate archaeological protocols and methods. Three of the identified cumulative projects (refer to Table 4-1 in the Draft El R) are within the Origin Landscape TCP. The majority of the Origin Landscape TCP is located within the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which is protected from significant development; therefore, most of the Origin Landscape TCP would not be impacted by past, present, or future development. The three cumulative projects within the Origin Landscape TCP A-41 would be expected to have similar impacts on the TCP, and would likely incorporate similar mitigation measures as the proposed project (Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f). The proposed project includes several mitigation measures that reduce potential impacts to the TCP to less than significant, at the project level. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the project's contribution to a cumulative impact would less than cumulatively considerable. Excavation activities associated with the project and cumulative projects could contribute to the progressive loss of fossil remains, at -yet unrecorded fossil sites, associated geological and geographic data, and fossil bearing strata. The project would have a less than significant impact to paleontological resources with incorporation of mitigation measures (MM -CUL -2a and MM -CUL -2b). With the implementation of these measures, the projects contribution to cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would be less than cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 would mitigate the project's potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and the project's contribution to a cumulative impact to human remains would Tess than cumulatively considerable. E. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS 1. Consistency with GHG Emissions Reduction Plans or Policies Impact GHG-2: The project could potentially conflict with the goals of the City of Temecula's Sustainability Plan to reduce GHG emissions. a. Findings Implementation of the proposed project could potentially conflict with the California Air Resources Board (GARB) Scoping Plan and the Temecula Sustainability Plan. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to consistency with a GHG Reduction Plan or Policy to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure as well as Mitigation Measures MM -AQ -1 a through MM -AQ -le have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the project applicant shall submit an application for a Pre -Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. If the application meets the LEED- ND prerequisites, the project applicant shall continue with the certification, and the project shall receive a minimum base -level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build -out. If Pre -Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied, the project applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED A-42 standards and shall achieve a fifteen -percent (15%) reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards by undertaking the following: 1) Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations; 2) Subsidize public transit and expand transit network (e.g., help fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share programs); 3) Provide an enhanced pedestrian network, including pedestrian connections to the local community; 4) Provide traffic calming measures and urban non -motorized zones; 5) Install bicycle parking and storage, as well as dedicated bike lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas; 6) Prohibit wood -burning fireplaces; 7) Where practicable, install or ensure facilities are compatible with renewable energy (e.g. solar photovoltaics); 8) Install energy efficient boilers and appliances, including programmable thermostat timers; 9) Install energy efficient street and area lighting, including LED traffic lights, motion detection lighting, and limited outdoor lighting for security and safety purposes; 10) Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard equipment; 11) Provide for use of reclaimed water; 12) Install low -flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures (e.g., faucets, toilets, and showers); 13) Install water efficient irrigation systems; 14) Where practicable, reuse or recycle materials from operation and construction activities. b. Facts in Support of Findings Out of the Recommended Actions contained in CARB's Scoping Plan, the actions that are most applicable to the project would be Actions E-1 (increased Utility Energy efficiency programs including more stringent building and appliance standards), GB -1 (Green building), and W-1 (Increased water use efficiency). CARB Scoping Plan Action E-1, together with Action GB -1 (Green Building), aims to reduce electricity demand by A-43 increased efficiency of Utility Energy Programs and adoption of more stringent building and appliance standards, while Action W-1 aims to promote water use efficiency. The project would be designed to comply with the CALGreen Code to ensure that the new residential and non-residential uses would use resources (energy, water, etc.) efficiently and significantly reduce pollution and waste. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM - AQ -1d would further require that buildings implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2016 Title 24 standards by 15 percent or include onsite renewable energy, such as the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset, both of which are reflected in the emission inventory for the project presented in Table 3.6-2 (refer to the Draft EIR). Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Scoping Plan measures through incorporation of stricter building and appliance standards. The Sustainability Plan is designed as a blueprint by which the City of Temecula can address sustainability and climate change by setting targets for GHG reductions, energy and water use, growth planning, reducing waste and championing emerging technologies. The initiatives contained in the Sustainability Plan include a variety of goals aimed at reducing GHG emissions city-wide and advancing development that enhances the pedestrian and transit environment. The project, which would be subject to the building requirements of the CALGreen Code, would support the City's effort of reducing GHG emissions related to energy demand. Also, the Specific Plan includes many elements that would serve to promote alternatives to vehicle use or otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions consistent with the Sustainability Plan. Additionally, eliminating hearths will also reduce GHG emissions. Increasing energy efficiency over Title 24 or incorporating renewable energy sources onsite, as identified in Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1d, will also provide a reduction in GHG emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-GHG- lwould require the Project Applicant to apply to obtain at minimum base -level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build -out; if the project is denied the LEED-ND certification, the Project Applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the measures stated in MM-GHG-1 into the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen -percent reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards. With incorporation of the mentioned above mitigation measures, the project would include to the maximum extent feasible technologies and means to reduce GHG emissions and would be consistent with all applicable GHG emission reduction plans. F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Hazards associated with Wildfires Impact HAZ-1: The project site is near a high fire hazard area which could increase the threat of wildfire on human populations and property. A-44 a. Findings The project site is near a high fire hazard area, where development and residents could be at an increased risk of damage from wildfires. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from wildfires to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that development of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to wildfires, Measure MM-HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Fire Modification Plan (FMP) for the project to the City Community Development and Fire Departments for review and approval_ The FMP shall address areas within the project boundary that are adjacent to a proposed Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Area. The FMP shall include, without limitation, the following information and standards: • Environmental setting that describes the topography and geology, climate, flammable vegetation in and around the project site, water supply for fire protection, fire access roads, and fire protection systems and equipment • General description of fire behavior in the project area based on such factors as predominant fuel types, topography and climate • The establishment of a 100 -foot wide fuel modification area located within the project boundary for land adjacent to a proposed MSHCP Conservation Area • A fuel modification area shall have two distinct fuel modification zones: Zone 1 and Zone 2 • A site plan identifying the location of the fuel modification area and zones • Zone 1 shall extend 30 feet from any habitable structure; Zone 2 shall extend 70 feet beyond Zone 1 • Zone 1 shall include the following minimum standards: No habitable structures New construction (i.e. fences, walls, gazebos) must be non- combustible and/or have a minimum 1 -hour fire rating Plants should be primarily low growing (less than 4 feet in height), low -fuel, and fire resistant A-45 Regular Maintenance to include thinning and pruning of trees and plants • Zone 2 shall include the following minimum standards: Regular maintenance to include selective thinning and pruning of native and nonnative plants to reduce fuel load • A list of plants not recommended to be used within the fuel modification zones • Identification of entity responsible for regular maintenance b. Facts in Support of Findings According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Map Data, a portion of the project is near a High Fire Hazard Area. The Western Bypass will serve as a fire break between wildland areas and proposed development. In addition, mitigation measure HAZ- 1 requires that a Fuel Modification Plan 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 would be 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. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant. G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Operational Impacts to Stormwater Runoff and Drainage System Capacity Impact HYD -1: Future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan could result in impacts to hydrology. a. Findings Operation of the proposed project has a potential to affect stormwater runoff and drainage system capacity. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to hydrological impacts to Tess than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County, and engineering standards. The final study shall identify A-46 storm water runoff quantities from the development of this site, and shall identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property or any substantial adverse change in receiving water quality or habitat values; the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities and any features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff impacts. Features to be included in the site design shall conform with the City of Temecula MS4 permit and Stormwater Ordinance, and may include, for example: 1) Non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs; 2) Infiltration basins, detention basins, vegetated swales, and media filters; 3) Pervious concrete, storm drain stenciling or signage, protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall; and 4) Other low impact development (LID) BMPs, including measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity, then onsite detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls shall be required as needed to avoid damage to public or private property and alterations in water quality or habitat values. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project proposes an onsite storm drainage system to collect and transfer storm flows through the site as required by the City of Temecula. The onsite storm drainage system would be a dual system that would minimize the potential comingling of runoff from the developed and non-developed areas of the project as urban stormwater would be required to be treated while runoff from non-developed areas would not. This secondary system would collect and carry storm flows from the natural open spaces west of the proposed Western Bypass, through the project site, and directly into Murrieta Creek, The other storm drain system would collect and treat surface runoff from the proposed development, before exiting the site. The presence of new development within the project area and changes in the extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction and volume of overland flows during both wet and dry periods. A preliminary drainage study has already been prepared for the site to determine the peak post -developed onsite 100 -year flow rates for the site. Preliminary hydrologic analyses have been performed for Altair. The analyses determined since the majority of the project discharges directly into Murrieta Creek, detention should not be required. However, existing condition analyses have not been performed. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 requires that a final drainage study be prepared by an engineer that will identify existing A-47 conditions and will verify the capacity of the existing receiving drainage facilities. If the receiving facilities are determined to under capacity, then detention would be considered. Further, overland flows and drainage at each development would be assessed and drainage facilities designed such that development project within the project site would be required to implement low impact design (LID) BMPs that are designed to retain onsite the pollutants contained in the volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour, 85th percentile storm event; and post -project runoff conditions would not exceed pre - development runoff conditions by more than 10 percent. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 and adherence to the requirements found in the MS4 permit would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur and that the existing capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded. Impacts would be less than significant. 2. Construction Impacts to Water Quality and Water Quality Standards Impact HYD -2: Construction of future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan could result in impacts to water quality. a. Findings Construction of the proposed project has a potential to violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to water quality and water quality impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2: The developer shall obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. When the anticipated total construction disturbance would be greater than one acre, the Construction General Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, which would examine existing site conditions, identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during construction and would describe the implementation and maintenance of erosion control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or other pollutants to mix with storm water runoff during construction. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project would be developed in three phases over an approximate 10 -year time frame, with the phased construction of streets, utilities and other infrastructure, as needed, for each respective phase. Construction of each phase is estimated to take approximately three years to complete. Construction activities associated with new development would involve earthwork activities, including grading and stockpiling of soils. Disturbance of soils formerly protected with vegetation or covered by asphalt or concrete could become A-48 exposed to winds or water flows that could result in the discharge of sedimentation and/or pollutants which would degrade surface water quality. Furthermore, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction -related building materials and chemicals, such as concrete, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, which would result in a significant impact to surface water quality. However, according to Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2, when the anticipated total construction disturbance would be greater than one acre, the developer would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires the development to prepare and implement a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The QSD prepared SWPPP would identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges during construction and describe the implementation and maintenance various BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or pollutants to come into contact with stormwater runoff during construction. The common types of construction BMPs that would likely be included in the project -specific SWPPP include sediment, erosion, and waste management BMPs, as described further in Table 3.8-5 (refer to the Draft EIR). The QSD would ensure the SWPPP is designed such that the environment is protected to the maximum extent practicable throughout the entirety of construction. In addition, the Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities, as required by the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would be amended and BMPs revised, as determined necessary through field inspections, to protect against substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Developments disturbing Tess than one acre would not be required to comply with the Construction General Permit, but would be required to submit a facility construction BMP plan per SDWQCB MS4 Permit requirements at the time of construction. The construction BMP plan would detail seasonally appropriate and effective BMPs for construction of individual projects and would require approval from the City of Temecula. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2 and compliance with the above referenced regulations, construction -related impacts to water quality from the project would be less than significant. 3. Operation Impacts to Water Quality and Water Quality Standards Impact HYD -3: Operation of future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan could result in impacts to water quality. a. Findings Operation of the proposed project has a potential to violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the A-49 potentially significant environmental effects to water quality and water quality impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each project -specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project would include a residential mixed-use development with a Nature Center and associated facilities and dedicated open space. The introduction of residential and commercial uses to an area previously containing open space uses would introduce the potential for new pollutants associated with residential and commercial uses to be generated in the area. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters either directly or during storm water runoff events, resulting in degradation of surface water quality. The waterbody near the project area (Murrieta Creek) is currently listed as impaired on the EPA's 303(d) list by point, nonpoint and urban runoff sources, including metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity. Operation of the project could create new or exacerbate existing impairments within this waterbodies, which would result in a significant impact related to water quality. However, operation of future developments within the project site would be required to comply with the development planning requirements of the SDRWQCB MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. These include implementation of non-structural, structural, and source control and treatment control BMPs during the planning process prior to project approval for development projects. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared that identifies the BMPs for stormwater treatment facilities, source control, and site design (Appendix G of the Draft EIR). The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project -specific constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of storm water runoff. The runoff from the proposed developed surfaces would be treated for water quality purposes. The proposed treatment train would incorporate a variety of biofiltration and bioretention facilities along with bioswales where feasible to reduce any potential water quality impacts on Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River Watershed. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3 would require each future development proposed under the Specific Plan to prepare and implement a project -specific WQMP to ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each future development proposal A-50 occurring under the proposed Specific Plan would be assessed individually to ensure compliance with applicable NPDES requirements. Implementation of site-specific source control and treatment control BMPs in accordance with the SDRWQCB MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. per Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3, would remove potential pollutants from runoff and would not contribute additional pollutant loads into receiving waters. The SDRWQCB MS4 permit and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance require that each project -specific WQMP shall include a drainage hydrologic/hydraulic analysis that details the site's anticipated runoff calculations. With implementation of these requirements, the individual development projects that would be implemented by the proposed Specific Plan would not result in adverse impacts to water quality during project operation. Impacts would be less than significant. H. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. Conflicts with Provisions of an HCP or NCCP Impact LU -1: The project could be inconsistent with the MSHCP goals and objectives governing the assembly of conservation lands, wildlife linkages, and riparian/riverine resources. The project's potential impacts to or conflicts with the Western Riverside County MSHCP are discussed in the Biological Resources section above to address the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G standard of whether the project would conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Nonetheless, the EIR restates this standard of significance in its Land Use and Planning analysis without additional discussion. As such, the project's potential impacts to or conflicts with the Western Riverside County MSHCP are presented again here. a. Findings The project has a potential to be inconsistent with the MSHCP goals and objectives governing the assembly of conservation lands, wildlife linkages, and riparian/riverine resources. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to conflicts with a habitat conservation plan. Specifically, Mitigation Measures MM -BIO - 1, MM -BIO -2, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, MM -BIO -6a, MM -BIO -6b, MM -BIO - 7a, MM -BIO -7b, MM -BIO -7c, AES -1, NOI-1 a, NOI-1 b, and NOI-31 b, described in the Aesthetics, Biological Resources, and Noise and Vibration sections, would ensure that the project would be consistent with all applicable guidelines of the MSHCP and impacts would be Tess than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings The MSHCP protects and preserves certain habitats and species in the region. The project falls within the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project is consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly goals as determined by the Area Plan A-51 Subregional analysis contained in the Draft EIR, in conjunction with the proposed Project Conservation Features. Implementation of the mitigation measures above would ensure that the project is consistent with the MSHCP as the project would be in Rough Step with the MSHCP reserve goals; implement mitigation for impacts to riparian and riverine habitat; and would be consistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. In regards to consistency with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors, Proposed Linkage 10 and Propose Constrained Linkage 13, application of project features and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would require the such things as light and glare standards for the development; permanent fencing between Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; conservation of land within Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; noise reduction measures and application of BMPs during construction; slope revegetation for manufactured slopes along the edge of Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; and adherence to operational exterior noise standards. Incorporation of the above referenced mitigation measures would align the project with the goals and requirements of the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1, MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, MM - BIO -6b, MM -BIO -7c, the project would be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria, Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP, as shown in the consistency analysis on page 3.3-65 and 3.3-66 in Section 3.3, Biological Resources (see Draft EIR). Therefore, implementation of the referenced above mitigation measures would allow for the redesign of the Western Bypass to be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria and impacts would be less than significant. The project would be consistent with the MSHCP with implementation of the mitigation measures referenced above and would result in less than significant impacts associated with consistency with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. I. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. Violation of City Exterior Noise Standards during Operation Impact NOI-3: New developments within the project area may introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at adjacent properties to and/or near the new development sites. a. Findings Operation of the proposed project has the potential to violate the City's exterior noise standards at the adjacent properties and/or near the new development sites. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from operational noise levels to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to operational noise levels. A-52 Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for future developments in the project, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the proposed development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent properties. If City noise standards at the adjacent properties would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels associated with the proposed development would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. b. Facts in Support of Findings The City has established exterior noise standards that correlate with land use zoning classifications and represent the maximum acceptable exterior noise level, as measured at the property boundary (refer to Table 3.10-5 of the Draft EIR). Under the project, new land uses that would occur in the project area include residential, commercial, institutional, primary education, community recreation, open space/parks, roadways and mixed-use developments. The nearest offsite land uses that would be exposed to operational noise levels generated by the project's new land uses would be those that are currently located along and immediately adjacent to the project site's eastern boundary. However, because open space areas are proposed to be located between the adjacent offsite land uses to the east and the new neighborhood villages within the project site, it is not anticipated that operational noise levels generated by the new onsite land uses would result in violations of the City's exterior noise standards at the existing offsite land uses. As development of new land uses gradually occur within the project area over the 10 -year buildout period, operational noise levels could potentially exceed the City's exterior noise standards at an adjacent land use which has already been development within the project area. The determination of operational noise impacts associated with any violation of the City's exterior noise standards at the future properties within the project area would be too speculative at this point in the planning process, as the specific location of individual projects and their distances from each other is currently unknown. However, for the purpose of conducting a conservative analysis in the EIR, it is anticipated that there would be scenarios in the future where the operation of a future individual development project within the project area would result in the violation of the City's exterior noise standards at an adjacent or nearby land use. These impacts are considered to be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3 would require applicants of future developments in the project area to demonstrate compliance with the City's permissible exterior noise standards prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City. Where the City's exterior noise standards would be exceeded for a new development, A-53 adequate design measures would need to be incorporated into the new development (e.g., noise walls, landscaping, setbacks) such that the noise standards can be achieved. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3 would ensure that future development under the Specific Plan would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards and impacts related to operational noise impacts would be less than significant. 2. Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact NOI-4: New development within the project area could expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient levels due to operation of HVAC equipment; or to noise levels from the operation of mechanical equipment such that interior noise residential noise levels could exceed 45 dBA Lai,. a. Findings Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to permanently increase ambient noise levels due to operation of HVAC equipment or other mechanical equipment. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from an increase in ambient noise levels to less than significant. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to an increase in ambient noise levels due to operation of mechanical equipment. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a: The applicant of individual development projects within the project area shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. b. Facts in Support of Findings The proposed project could introduce new noise sources that would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Typically, a permanent increase in ambient noise levels can result from the operation of a stationary noise source that generates constant noise levels. Upon A-54 completion and operation of the various new developments that would occur under the project, these stationary noise sources would consist predominantly of mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and exhaust fans. As an industry practice, the design of the onsite HVAC units and other noise - generating mechanical equipment associated with the new developments in the project area would typically be installed on the rooftops of residential, commercial, institutional, and mixed-use buildings and located either within an enclosure or behind other intervening structures that would provide a level of noise shielding for nearby noise - sensitive uses. With implementation of these standard design measures, the noise generated from the HVAC units at the new development sites would likely not be perceptible at adjacent or nearby uses. However, to ensure that nearby noise -sensitive uses to the project site would not be adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise, Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a would be implemented, which prohibits noise from HVAC equipment from exceeding the ambient noise level on the premises of other occupied properties by more than 5 dBA. Specifically, Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a would require future development projects to locate their HVAC equipment away from receptor areas, install proper acoustical shielding for their HVAC equipment, and incorporate the use of parapets into their building design to ensure that noise levels generated from the HVAC equipment would not be audibly perceptible on the premises of other existing developments. Thus, although noise from HVAC equipment is exempt from the City's noise standards, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a would ensure that the potential for HVAC -related noise from new developments to be audibly perceptible at existing neighboring developments would minimized and impacts would be Tess than significant. In addition, the maximum of 1,750 multi -family dwelling units proposed in the project area are also sensitive receptors that could be affected by the operation of mechanical equipment on adjacent properties. In order to ensure that the future residents in the project area would not be adversely affected by operational noise associated with mechanical equipment from adjacent properties, Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b would be implemented to ensure that all exterior windows associated with the proposed residential uses would be constructed such that sufficient sound insulation is provided to ensure that interior noise levels would be below a Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any residential unit, which would comply with Title 24 standards of the California Building Code. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b, the interior noise limit of 45 dBA Ldn or CNEL would be achieved at all proposed residential uses and any potential noise impacts on the future residential uses in the project area from mechanical equipment from adjacent properties would be less than significant. 3. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Impact NOI-5: With addition of the Western Bypass that would run along the western boundary of the project area, new development projects proposed in the project area adjacent to the Western Bypass may not meet A-55 the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise standards established by the City. a. Findings Development under the Specific Plan located along the western boundary of the project area may not meet the applicable noise/land compatibility noise standards established by the City with the addition of the Western Bypass. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from exceeding the noise/land use compatibility noise standards to Tess than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to noise/land use compatibility. Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5: All future residential developments located adjacent to the proposed Western Bypass in the project area shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the Western Bypass. If this minimum setback distance cannot be achieved, other measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldn, including, but not limited to, greater setback distances, the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping. b. Facts in Support of Findings Based on the City's noise/land use compatibility matrix shown in Table 3.10-6 (refer to the Draft EIR), the City allows new residences to be constructed where the average noise environment in outdoor activity areas is up to 70 dBA Ldn, while new commercial and office buildings may be constructed in areas where the average outdoor noise level is up to 75 dBA Ldn. The project area currently consists of 270 acres of undeveloped open space, where the current noise environment is relatively low when compared to the offsite areas located adjacent to the project site's eastern boundary that are occupied by existing developments. Thus, the relatively quiet noise environment within the currently undeveloped project area would be compatible with the new land uses proposed (i.e_, residential, commercial, school, etc.) as part of the project. In addition, development under the project would also entail construction of the Western Bypass, which is a proposed four -lane thoroughfare that would run along the western boundary of the project area, to link Temecula Parkway to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Road. Traffic noise levels generated on the Western Bypass could be audible at the new land uses that are proposed along the western boundary of the project area. As shown in Table 3.10-12 (refer to Draft EIR), future traffic noise levels along the segment of the Western Bypass between A Street and Pujol Street would reach 66.5 dBA Ldn at 100 feet from its centerline. As shown, the 75 dBA Ldn noise contour for this segment of the Western Bypass, which runs along the entire western boundary of the project area, would be located within the roadway lanes, while the distance from the 60, A-56 65, and 70 dBA Ldn noise contours would be 442, 140, and 44 feet, respectively. As new commercial and office buildings may be constructed in areas where the average outdoor noise level is up to 75 dBA Ldn, and given that the 75 dBA Ldn noise contour for the Western Bypass would be located within the roadway lanes, all future commercial- and office -related developments that would be developed along the Western Bypass in the project area would meet the noise/land use compatibility guidelines as shown in Table 3.10-6. With respect to residential uses, the City allows new residences to be constructed where the average noise environment in outdoor activity areas is up to 70 dBA Ldn. As shown in Table 3.10-12, the distance from the 70 dBA Ldn noise contour for the Western Bypass would be 44 feet from the centerline. Because the exact locations of future residential developments located along the western boundary of the project area and their specific setback distances from roadways have not been determined at this time, the determination of noise/land use compatibility impacts for each individual residential development project, or a combination of these projects, would be too speculative at this point in the planning process. As such, for the purposes of conducting a conservative analysis, it is anticipated that there would be future residential developments proposed in the project area along the Western Bypass that would not meet the City's noise/land use compatibility standards. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5 would require all future residential developments associated with the project to be set back at distances greater than 45 feet from the centerline of the Western Bypass or to implement other measures to ensure that the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldn for residential uses would be achieved. The location of future residential developments beyond this distance would ensure that these new developments would be exposed to noise levels less of less than 70 dBA Ldn from the Western Bypass, which would meet the City's noise/land use compatibility guidelines for residential uses. Therefore, implementation Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5 would ensure the noise/land use consistency of future residential uses adjacent to the Western Bypass and would reduce this impact a less than significant level. 4. Cumulative Vibration Impacts a. Findings The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development within the vicinity of the project area could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to groundborne vibration. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant cumulative impacts associated with ground borne vibration levels during construction. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -N01 -2a and A-57 MM -N01 -2b, described below, would ensure that cumulative vibration impacts would be less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings Cumulative development in the City may result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration. The nearest related project to the proposed project is the proposed townhouse development located adjacent to the project site. Due to this distance, the proposed project and this cumulative project are in close enough proximity to each other such that vibration levels generated during construction could potentially affect the same sensitive receptors should construction occur simultaneously. The nearest sensitive receptors that would be affected by the concurrent construction are the existing single- and multi -family residential uses located along and adjacent to Pujol Street near the southem portion of the project area. Thus, this cumulative impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -N01 -2a and MM -N01 -2b would require specific buffer distances between construction equipment and sensitive receptors, which would reduce potentially significant cumulative impacts from construction -related groundborne vibration on these nearest offsite sensitive uses to a less than significant level. Thus, with implementation of these mitigation measures, the project would not contribute considerably to cumulative vibration impacts, even if concurrent construction occurs for the project and the related project. As such, cumulative impacts associated with groundborne vibration from construction activities would be less than significant. J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. Traffic Impacts on Local Roadways in Existing (2015) plus Project Conditions Impacts TRA -1 through TRA -6: When considered the addition of project - generated traffic volumes to existing (2015) traffic conditions, the proposed project would degrade the level of service (LOS) at six intersections to unacceptable levels (LOS E or F). Impacts would be potentially significant in Existing plus Project conditions. a. Findings Traffic generated by the proposed project in Existing plus Project conditions would degrade the LOS at six intersections to unacceptable levels, which would result in potentially significant impacts. Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen traffic impacts to local roadways in Existing plus Project conditions. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been included to ensure that traffic impacts in Existing plus Project conditions would be reduced to less than significant levels. A-58 Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Ynez Road and Rancho California Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -3: Prior to the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of I- 15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this improvement with Caltrans. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -4: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway operate an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -5: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install stop signs on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and First Street, converting the intersection from side -street stop -control to all -way stop control. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -6: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 2, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left turn lane and signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Facts in Support of Findings Intersection operations forecasted for Existing plus Project conditions are shown in Table 3.13-8 (refer to Draft EIR). Six study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or worse) under Existing plus Project conditions with the proposed project: • Int. 2 — Jefferson Avenue/Rancho California Road (PM peak hours only) • Int. 5 — Ynez Road/ Rancho California Road (PM peak hour only) • Int, 10 —1-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour only) • Int. 14 — Margarita Road/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours) • Int. 15 — Pujol Street/First Street (PM peak hours only) • Int. 17 — Ynez Road/Santiago Road (PM peak hours only) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -TRA -1 through MM -TRA -6 would be required to address and minimize impacts related to the specific roadway operating conditions at each identified intersection above under Existing plus Project conditions. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -TRA -1 through MM -TRA -6 would improve conditions to acceptable LOS levels at each of the above -referenced intersections as described more fully in the EIR and would ensure that project impacts to the six identified intersections would be less than significant. 2. Traffic Impacts to Local Roadways under Cumulative (2025) Conditions Impacts TRA -9: When considered existing, proposed, planned, and approved development in the region through 2025, the addition of project - generated traffic volumes to cumulative traffic conditions would degrade the LOS at one intersection to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F). A potentially significant impact in cumulative (2025) traffic conditions would occur. a. Findings Traffic generated by the proposed project in combination with traffic generated by other development within the region under Cumulative Traffic conditions would degrade the LOS at one intersection to unacceptable which would result in a potentially significant impact. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen cumulative traffic impacts to local roadways in 2025 conditions. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that the impact remains less than cumulatively considerable. A-60 Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -9: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost for the construction of a fourth through lane for eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway at La Paz Road, for acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. b. Facts in Support of Findings Intersection operations forecasted for Cumulative (2025) Traffic conditions are shown in Table 2.13-3 in Section 2.13, Transportation, Traffic, Parking, and Circulation, of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR). One study intersection is forecasted to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or worse) with the proposed project: • Int. 11 — La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours) The addition of project -generated trips in combination with cumulative development within the region is forecasted to result in significant impacts at the above study intersection. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -9 would improve conditions to acceptable LOS levels at the above -referenced intersection as described more fully in the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR) and would ensure that all potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the project under cumulative (2025) conditions would be reduce to less than significant levels. 3. Traffic Impacts to Local Roadways under Cumulative (2025) Conditions Impacts TRA -12 and TRA -13: When considered the addition of project - generated traffic volumes to General Plan Build Out (2035) traffic conditions, the proposed project would degrade the LOS at two intersections to unacceptable levels (LOS E or F), Impacts would be potentially significant in General Plan Build Out conditions. a. Findings Traffic generated by the proposed project in Existing plus Project conditions would degrade the LOS at two intersections to unacceptable levels, which would result in potentially significant impacts. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen traffic impacts to local roadways in General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions, Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been included to ensure that the impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -12: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 43 percent of the cost to construct improvements at the west Ridge Park Drive A-61 leg to allow for right -in / right -out turn movements only at the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making northbound left and westbound left turning movements at the intersection. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -13: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 17 percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol Street and First Street. b. Facts in Support of Findings Intersection operations forecasted for General Plan Build Out (2035) traffic conditions are shown in Table 3.13-13 (refer to Draft EIR). Two study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or worse) with the proposed project: • Int. 6 — Vincent Moraga Drive/Ridge Park Drive (both AM and PM peak hours) • Int. 15 — Pujol Street/First Street (PM peak hour only) The addition of project -generated trips in combination with increased traffic volumes anticipated with General Plan Build Out conditions is forecasted to result in significant impacts at the above two study intersections. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM - TRA -12 through MM -TRA -13 would improve conditions to acceptable LOS levels at each of the above -referenced intersections as described more fully in the EIR and would ensure that all potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the project under General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions would be reduce to Tess than significant levels. 4. Conflicts with an Applicable Congestion Management Program Impact TRA -14: The proposed project may conflict with applicable plans and congestion management programs by resulting in temporary but prolonged adverse effects on intersection LOS during project construction. a. Findings Construction of the proposed project would generate a variety of truck and employee trips during site grading and construction of the proposed Specific Plan, which has the potential to cause a temporary but prolonged impact due to lane closures, need for temporary signals, traffic hazards to bikes/pedestrians, damage to roadbed, or truck traffic on roadways not designated as truck routes. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen impacts related to conflicts with an applicable congestion management programs. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. A-62 Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -14: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities within the Specific Plan area, or at offsite locations for improvements associated with the Specific Plan, the project applicant(s) shall prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for review and approval by the City of Temecula as part of the permit application. The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic volumes entering the roadway system (including local roads) during AM and PM peak hours. At a minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include the following implementation measures: • Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and from the construction site. • Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction, the project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary, to minimize traffic impacts. This may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage, flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone. • The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required, the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula and other affected jurisdictions (i.e., Caltrans, and/or County of Riverside) to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes. b. Facts in Support of Findings Construction of the proposed project would generate a variety of truck and employee trips during site grading and construction of the proposed Specific Plan. Since the magnitude of these trips during peak hours would be Tess than that of the proposed project, absolute impacts (in terms of delay and queuing) when compared to project operations would not be significant. However, construction staging and lane closures could cause adverse effects if not carefully planned. Thus, the proposed project could potentially cause a temporary but prolonged impact due to lane closures, need for temporary signals, traffic hazards to bikes/pedestrians, damage to roadbed, or truck traffic on roadways not designated as truck routes. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM -TRA -14 would require the preparation of Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) to minimize the effects of construction traffic on the surrounding roadways as well as to incorporate the appropriate protocols for road closures, lane closures, or other typical construction A-63 activities which affect the local roadway network. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM - TRA -14 would ensure that impacts associated with construction -generated traffic would not conflict with applicable congestion management programs or plans and impacts would be less than significant. VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation In the environmental topical areas of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), Noise, and Transportation and Circulation, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, despite the inclusion of all feasible mitigation, as discussed below: A. AIR QUALITY 1. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Operation Impact AQ -1: Operational activities occurring after the buildout of the project would violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. a. Findings Operation of the project would result in Tong -term regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO that would exceed the SCAQMD's applicable threshold, which would result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS. While Mitigation Measures MM -AQ -1 a through MM -AQ -1 e would help to reduce operational emissions, operational emissions generated under the proposed project would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's applicable regional thresholds. While several of the mitigation measures are unquantifiable, it is not likely that even with their full implementation all emissions would be reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds, and there is no additional feasible mitigation that would reduce these impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the project's impacts related to regional operational emissions will be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -la: No wood burning fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -lb: The lease or purchase agreements for all non-residential units shall include the following: a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all buildings. b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep. A-64 c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and/or work -at-home programs as appropriate to the business developed. (non -quantifiable) Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1c: All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically operated. Landscape contracts for all multi -family residential and non- residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be electrically operated. Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1d: All residential and non-residential buildings shall be constructed such that they meet one of the following conditions: a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2016 Title 24 standards by 15 percent; or b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy, for example the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -le: The lease or purchase agreements for all multi -family residential and non-residential units shall: a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi- family residential buildings and employee/student areas for non- residential buildings. Additionally, building management shall encourage a ride -share program within the specific plan area such that employees as well as residents have more access to car- pooling opportunities. (non -quantifiable) b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as, but not limited to, special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles. (non -quantifiable) c) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces (per multi -family and non-residential development) shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles. (non -quantifiable) b. Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 3.2-7 (refer to Draft EIR) and Table 2.2-3 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR), the maximum unmitigated daily operational emissions generated by the project would result in long-term regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO that would exceed the SCAQMD's applicable thresholds. The majority of the emissions are from either mobile sources or area sources related to hearth and consumer product usage. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AQ -1 a through MM -AQ -1 e will reduce the project's operational emissions of criteria pollutants (as shown in Table 3.2-8 of the Draft EIR). However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AQ -1 a through MM -AQ -1 e, operational emissions generated under the proposed project would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's applicable regional thresholds. While several of the mitigation measures are unquantifiable, it is not likely that even with their full implementation all emissions would be reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project's impacts related to regional operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, as indicated in Table 3.2-1, applicable ozone standards have regularly been exceeded at the nearest (Lake Elsinore) monitoring station between 2011 and 2013 and the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is designated as a non -attainment region for ozone. The proposed project's ROG and NOx emission increases could contribute to additional air quality violations in the SCAB region by contributing to more days of ozone exceedance or result in air quality index levels that are unhealthy for sensitive groups and other populations. On unhealthy days, persons are recommended to avoid both prolonged outdoor activities and activities requiring heavy exertion outdoors. Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. In addition to causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. 2. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts - Operation a. Findings Operation of the proposed project would generate long-term emissions, which would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx, which would result in significant impacts to air quality. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the project's potential operational impacts related to air quality because the proposed project could conflict with SCAQMD's air quality planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in nonattainment pollutants during operations. Cumulative impacts associated with operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable. A-66 b. Facts in Support of Findings The SCAB is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, where cumulative development consisting of the project and cumulative projects could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Based on SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project, as shown in Tables 3.2-7 and 3.2-8 (refer to Draft EIR), would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx. Even though the proposed project would be consistent with SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan, the proposed project could conflict with SCAQMD's air quality planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants, which would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in nonattainment pollutants during operations, particularly ozone precursors ROG and NOx. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with operational emissions would be cumulatively considerable. B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 1. Generation of GHG Emissions Impact GHG-1: The project could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. a. Findings The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright -line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM - AQ -la through MM -AQ -1 a and MM-GHG-land project design features aimed to reduce GHG emissions, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation is considered to be significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 3.6-2 (refer to Draft EIR) and Table 2.6-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR), the project's total net annual GHG emissions after the incorporation of MM -AQ -1 a through MM -AQ -1 e would be approximately 24,953 MTCO2e per year which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright -line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. This would result in a potentially significant impact. A-67 The proposed project incorporates many elements that would serve to promote alternatives to vehicle use or otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions and these elements are consistent with standards identified in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND). LEED-ND credits are awarded for access to transit, housing -jobs proximity and provision of bicycle facilities, to name a few. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to strive to achieve LEED-ND certification for the Altair Specific Plan. LEED-ND certification requires a project to receive 40 points out of a total of 110 total possible points. If the LEED-ND certification is denied, the applicant is required to incorporate a list of measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen -percent (15%) reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards. This project is transit -oriented and incorporates a lengthy list of "smart growth" principles, all of which aim reduce vehicle miles travelled and the accompanying GHG emissions. The project incorporates a mixture of land uses, including homes, retail, and recreational opportunities, increasing waikability and reducing the need for transit in single -occupancy vehicles. The project design incorporates infrastructure for alternative transportation, including complete streets that equally accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, public transit, and vehicles. Despite the fact that the project incorporates all of the design elements described above, project -level emissions would still likely exceed the 3,000 MTECO2e per year threshold even with LEED-ND certification. Therefore, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation is considered to be significant and unavoidable. 2. Cumulative GHG Emission Impacts a. Findings Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's considered bright -line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. No mitigation measures are feasible to reduce cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions to a less than significant level. Implementation of the project would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions. b. Facts in Support of Findings As discussed in Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, CEQA considers a project's impacts related to GHG emissions to be inherently cumulative. As concluded in Section 3.6, the project's total net annual GHG emissions after the incorporation of MM -AQ -1 a through MM -AQ -1 e would be approximately 24,953 MTCO2e per year which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright -line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. This would result in a significant impact. While incorporation of the additional mitigation measure MM-GHG-1 would reduce the amount of GHG emissions generated, the level of GHG emissions would not be reduced below a level of significance. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. A-68 C. NOISE AND VIBRATION Construction Noise Impacts 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. a. Findings During construction, the proposed project would temporarily generate noise levels that may result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable local standards and a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which would reduce impacts related to construction noise. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-la and MM-NOI-1 b, the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed development sites in the project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -1a: Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits for a phase or sub phase (project -specific future development within a construction phase), the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Factors the City shall consider when granting a noise exception include, but are not limited to, the consideration of the level of noise, duration of noise, constancy or intermittency of noise, time of day or night, place, proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud noise. If a construction -related exception request is not approved by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. A-69 Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb: The applicant shall comply with the following noise reduction measures during construction: • Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration -sensitive land uses. • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible, as determined by the City of Temecula's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible, as determined by the City's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. • Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, and shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. • Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented. b. Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 3.10-1 (refer to Draft EIR), the existing daytime noise levels measured at locations surrounding the project site range from approximately 52 dBA to 65 dBA Leq. As construction noise levels associated with new developments in the project area could reach as high as 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from a construction site, an increase in noise levels of 20 to 30 dBA could potentially occur at a neighboring receptor to a construction site. This increase in the ambient noise levels at a neighboring receptor would be considered to be substantial, since, for the purpose of providing perspective, a change in noise levels of 10 dBA is subjectively heard as doubling of the perceived loudness. Consequently, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 b, which would require the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction activities for the new developments occurring under the project, would be implemented to reduce the construction -related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent feasible. Nonetheless, under circumstances where future construction sites within the project area are located immediately adjacent to other land uses, the noise impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the proposed project would remain significant as the noise reduction devices and techniques prescribed under Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb would not be able to fully attenuate construction noise levels. Although Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb would reduce the project's construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible, there is no other feasible mitigation that would reduce these impacts to less than significant and it is anticipated that the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed developments in the project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, the project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on the nearby existing land uses. 2. Construction Vibration Impacts 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. a. Findings During construction, the proposed project would temporarily generate noise levels that may result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable local standards and a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which would reduce impacts related to construction noise. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -N01 -2a and A-71 MM -N01 -2b, the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed developments in the project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2a: The operation of construction equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as Targe bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional structures during construction activities to the extent feasible. Small, rubber -tired construction equipment shall be used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects, where feasible. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2b: The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities, to the extent feasible. b. Facts in Support of Findings As future project -specific developments would be spread over the designated neighborhood villages within the project area and construction events would be short- term in nature, it is anticipated that there would be an infrequent amount of vibration events per day at sensitive land use receptors resulting from the construction of individual development projects. However, depending on how close an actual receptor location is to a construction site and the type of building the receptor is (e.g., non -engineered timber and masonry building, historical building, etc.), the vibration levels at a receptor location could exceed the FTA's vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance. As such, vibration impacts during construction associated with the project could be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -N01 -2a and MM-NOI- 2b would reduce the possibility of exposing sensitive land uses to excessive vibration level as they require setback distances for various types of construction equipment from adjacent structures. However, while implementation of MM -N01 -2a and MM -N01 -2b would reduce vibration levels, the type of residential development allowed under the Specific Plan may make it difficult to achieve the desired distance between these existing land uses and active construction. As such, Mitigation Measures MM -N01 -2a and MM- NOI-2b cannot guarantee that construction vibration levels will be reduced below establish thresholds and there is no other feasible mitigation that would do so. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 3. Cumulative Noise Impacts — Construction a. Findings Construction of the proposed project would generate substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at surrounding existing noise -sensitive land uses. While Mitigation Measures MM-NO1-1 a and MM-NO1-1 b would reduce impacts related to construction noise, these measures would not reduce these impacts to a less than A-72 significant level. Thus, implementation of the project would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to construction noise. b. Facts in Support of Findings Development of the project in combination with other projects in the cumulative scenario would result in an increase in construction -related and traffic -related noise in the City. However, each of the cumulative projects would be subject to Section 9.20.040 of the City Municipal Code, which establishes the allowable interior and exterior noise standards for various types of land uses in the City. In addition, Section 9.20.070 (Exceptions) of the City Municipal Code allows for construction -related exceptions from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the Code to be requested from the City Manager. Furthermore, the construction activities associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would also be subject to Section 9.20.060(D) of the City Municipal Code, which establishes the permitted hours for construction. Construction noise is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to the proposed project. The nearest anticipated project to the project site is the proposed townhomes development (#PA 13-0155), which is located adjacent to the southern portion of the project site in the vicinity of Pujol Street. Due to this distance, a substantial increase in the ambient noise levels of the existing single- and multi -family residential uses located along and adjacent to Pujol Street would occur should construction of this cumulative project occur at the same time as the proposed project. As such, the cumulative noise impact related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at these existing noise -sensitive land uses would be potentially significant. During construction of the proposed project, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 a and MM-NOI-1 b would reduce construction noise levels for nearby offsite residents to the maximum extent feasible. However, due to the proximity of the proposed project to these existing offsite sensitive uses, it is anticipated that these offsite land uses would still experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during the project's construction activities. Therefore, the project's contribution to this construction -related noise impact would be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. Traffic Impacts on Local Roadways in Existing (2015) plus Project Conditions Impact TRA -7: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the level of service at the existing 1-15 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. A-73 a. Findings As shown in Table 3.13-8 (refer to Draft EIR), implementation of the proposed project would generate traffic volumes which would degrade the LOS at the intersection of the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway under Existing plus Project conditions. There are no feasible mitigation measures which would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings While the project would generate traffic which would degrade the LOS at the intersection of the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway, it is acknowledged under the Existing plus Project scenario that a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) by the City of Temecula, entitled "1-15 / SR 79 South (Temecula Parkway) Ultimate Interchange", has been permitted and fully funded. The CIP is scheduled to start construction, well ahead of the first building permit being issued for the project. The intersection is within Caltrans' jurisdiction and requires Caltrans approval. Scheduled improvements to this intersection will remove this intersection; replacing it with a reconfigured intersection of Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway to accommodate a southbound loop off -ramp and southbound on-ramp for 1-15. These improvements would reduce project impacts at this intersection to below a level of significance. However, the schedule for the improvements is outside the control of the City of Temecula, and it cannot be guaranteed that the improvements will be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project. Based on this information, and to exercise a conservative approach to impact assessment, it is possible that there could be a potentially significant impact at this intersection and there is no feasible mitigation to reduce this potential impact to less than significant. For these reasons, impacts to the intersection at the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway under Existing plus Project conditions would be significant and unavoidable. VIII. Project Alternatives The EIR considered and analyzed three alternatives to the proposed project: Alternative 1—No project/No Development; Altemative 2—No project/Existing Specific Plan; and Altemative 3—Relocate Civic Use. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the EIR analyzed and considered two "No Project" alternatives because there are two possible outcomes if the City does not approve the Project: either the "No Development" alternative or the "Existing Specific Plan" alternative. In addition, no alternative sites were considered in the Alternatives analysis as objectives of the project rely on proximity to Old Town for providing a residential community within walking distance and for development of the Western Bypass, which is intended to alleviate traffic congestion that currently exists within Old Town. Therefore, it would not be feasible to consider other site locations for this project, as further described in section 5.1.3 of the EIR. A-74 The three altematives that were analyzed in the EIR are discussed below, including the basis for rejecting each alternative. In addition, comparison of the alternatives is available in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 of the EIR. Each alternative's environmental impacts are considered and analyzed, along with an analysis of whether it achieves any of the project's objectives as shown below. • Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. (A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is needed to achieve these goals and policies.) • Balance the need for local infrastructure improvement and demand for new housing in and around Old Town while minimizing physical and visual impacts to the hillside escarpment, wildlife movement, and conservation areas. • Develop a high-quality residential component on the project site that focuses on providing diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety of age groups and household sizes, support the commercial enterprises of OId Town Temecula, help to fulfill the city's regional housing needs, and foster a unique community identity where each neighborhood is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive. • Create a project that reduces dependency on the automobile and encourages the use of an extensive multi -use trail system that would link neighborhood villages and community -wide uses within the project and to Old Town Temecula. • Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood -oriented commercial uses to serve the needs of the project's residents, such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or small restaurants. • Promote design that minimizes water usage by using a relatively drought -tolerant landscape palette, clustered development, and attractive community spaces rather than traditional water -intensive private lawns. • Provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside attributes. • Establish an efficient, interconnected multi -modal transportation network that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center -of -city traffic conditions. • Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in the center of the project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an elementary school accommodating 600-730 students, which further diversify and contribute to the OId Town's amenities. • Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building square feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public, and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that A-75 maximizes compatibility with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong visual connection and close access to Interstate 15. A. ALTERNATIVE ONE — NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT 1. Summary of Alternative Alternative 1 evaluates the environmental impacts if the project site were to remain in its current state as vacant land for the foreseeable future. The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the Altair Specific Plan would not be adopted and implemented. Instead, the planning area would be left in its current undeveloped and mostly undisturbed state. Under Alternative 1, no development would occur on the project Site for the foreseeable future and the Site would remain in its current graded and undeveloped condition. Although Alternative 1 could occur if the City does not approve the project, it is not what can most reasonably be expected to occur on the Site if the project is not approved because development is permitted on the Site as discussed and analyzed under Alternative 2. 2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative Alternative 1 is the "No Development" alternative in which no development would occur on the project site. The site would remain undeveloped and mostly undisturbed land, Environmental impacts in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources correlate primarily with the footprint of site development because they relate to the location of a project and the development of vacant land_ The project's impacts in these categories are all less than significant or mitigated to less than significant. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would result in reduced impacts in these impact categories (Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources) because the project site would remain undeveloped and undisturbed. For aesthetic impacts, Alternative 1 would also not impact views, scenic resources, or the visual character and quality of the site because no development would occur and the site would remain in its current condition. The project's aesthetics impacts are all Tess than significant without mitigation. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would have no impacts to aesthetics and therefore would reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. Air quality impacts would be reduced under Alternative 1 as there would be no construction -related emissions (from construction activities, vehicles and equipment), and no operational emissions (associated with increased traffic and consumer usage) as is associated with the proposed project. The project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality. Since Alternative 1 would result in no development, it would have no impacts to air quality and would therefore reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. A-76 Similar to air quality impacts, GHG emissions would similarly be reduced under Alternative 1. Because no development would occur on the site, it would not result in any stationary or mobile -source GHG emissions. The proposed project's GHG emissions are significant and unavoidable, primarily due to mobile -source emissions arising from vehicles to and from the project. Alternative 1 would reduce these impacts, as no development would occur at the site. No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on the project site. As compared to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would have a lower potential to release unknown and unanticipated hazardous materials as it includes no development and no storage of hazardous materials on-site. As such, Alternative 1 would have no impact to hazards and hazardous materials and impacts would be further reduced from the proposed project's Tess than significant impacts. Impacts related to airport and wildfire hazards would be similar because the project site remains the same. For land use impacts, under Alternative 1, no development would occur and the onsite open space would remain in its current state. As such, this alternative would not change existing land use or have an effect on land use plans and policies related to the project site. The proposed project would be consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan upon adoption of the General Plan Amendment. In addition, with implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of the EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and objectives of the MSHCP. While the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to land use with mitigation incorporated, Alternative lwould result in fewer effects on adopted land use plans and policies compared to the project. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from temporary construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area which could potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels and vibration. Under Alternative 1, there would be no change to existing ambient noise levels or introduction of a new source of noise, or an increase in vibration. The significant construction noise and vibration under the proposed project would not occur. This alternative would result in fewer impacts from noise and vibration compared to the project. Population and housing impacts would not occur under Alternative 1 because no development of the site would occur. As such, Alternative 1 would not result in population growth. Neither the proposed project nor Alternative 1 would remove housing or displace persons, as there are no housing units on the project site. Alternative 1 would have no impact regarding population and housing and therefore would have less impact than the proposed project, which already has a less than significant impact. Impacts to public services and utilizes would be less under Alternative 1 due to the lack of development. Although the fire department and police department would respond to the site in case of a fire or a crime committed on the site, the demand for public services and utilities would be the same as it exists currently. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to law enforcement, fire protection, A-77 schools, libraries, hospitals, and parks and recreation. Additionally, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and solid waste capacity and facilities. While none of the proposed project's impacts would require new or expanded facilities, the proposed project would increase the demand for all of the public services and utility facilities in the City. As such, Alternative 1 would have no impact to public services and utilities, compared to the Tess than significant impacts under the proposed project. Alternative 1 would result in no increases in traffic or demand for public transit or bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Altemative 1 would not result in additional pedestrian facilities or to existing roadways and would not increase the demand for public transportation. The proposed project would result in the addition of sidewalks/walking paths that do not currently exist on the project Site and would not result in significant impacts to public transit or bicycle/pedestrian facilities. However, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to various intersections in the project area in the Cumulative (2025) Traffic and General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions. As such, Alternative 1 would have fewer impacts when compared to the proposed project regarding transportation and circulation. Overall, Alternative 1 would reduce environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. However, Alternative 1 does not satisfy any of the ten project objectives. Since Alternative 1 would not develop the site, it would fail to provide the following: diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety of age groups and household sizes; alternative transportation options and a network of trails; limited/incidental commercial uses to serve the project area; water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside; an efficient, interconnected multi -modal transportation network that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center -of - city traffic conditions; public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a central park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and a civic site of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public. Whereas the proposed project satisfies each project object, Alternative 1 fulfills none of the objectives. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 1 would not meet any of the project objectives. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 1, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 1. B. ALTERNATIVE 2 — NO PROJECT/ESTABLISHED SPECIFIC PLAN 1. Summary of Alternative Alternative 2 provides the comparison of the proposed project versus what can reasonably be expected to occur on the sites should the proposed project not be approved but future development occurs under the existing land use and zoning designations. A-78 This "No project/Established Specific Plan" alternative does not necessarily mean the site will remain undeveloped; as currently entitled per the existing zoning designation, the site could be developed with the approved Westside Villages Specific Plan (SP -8). The Westside Villages Specific Plan would involve development of a 154.1 -acre area, which is a smaller area than the project site for the proposed project and would not include the 55 -acre South Parcel that is located roughly to the south of Camino Estribo. Under this alternative, the project site would be bisected by the Western Bypass and divided into five separate planning areas (A through E), where each has a separate land use; however, it would not be developed with the "villages" concept that is proposed under the proposed project. Planning Area A is located in the center of the project site, closest to Old Town. This area would allow for a "Wild West," open-air arena and a hotel. Planning Area B, which is located at the intersection of First Street and the Western Bypass, and is designated for neighborhood commercial uses, would allow for local -serving retail uses, such as a small market or drug store. Planning Area C, which is located in the southern portion of the project site, would allow for high-density residential uses. The Mixed Use designation of Planning Area D, which is located in the northern section of the Specific Plan area, is intended to act as a transitional area between the special event uses of the Specific Plan and the existing office and business park uses located to the north of the Specific Plan area. As such, Planning Area D would allow for service commercial, office, and light industrial uses. Planning Area E, which would be west of the Western Bypass would be designated for 80 gross acres of open space and would remain undeveloped. The project would also provide for pedestrian connectivity between the various planning areas and Old Town. Table 5-1 (refer to Draft EIR) outlines the land uses and amount of development for each planning area under this alternative. Although this alternative would allow for more commercial development (120,000 square feet versus the maximum 22,000 square feet proposed as part of the project), overall, it would represent a reduced project alternative to the proposed project due to the significantly fewer residential units that would be developed, and the absence of the civic use and elementary school. Many environmental impacts analyzed in an EIR are related to the project's location, such as such as biological, cultural, geologic, and visual impacts. However, some environmental impacts are related to the type of project, such as traffic and traffic's effects on air quality, GHG emissions, and noise. This is because different uses produce different amounts of traffic. 2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative For aesthetic impacts, under Alternative 2, a 120,000 -square -foot entertainment and tourist retail shopping area would be developed as compared to the maximum 22,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial under the proposed project. This entertainment area would include retail commercial buildings, an open-air, tented arena, and a hotel. Development standards allow a maximum building height of 150 feet (approximately five stories). High density multi -family residential with active and passive open space would be located at the southeastern portion of the project, and mixed-use (commercial, office, business park) located at the northeastern portion of the project site. While Alternative 2 A-79 would have less building square footage than the proposed project, the height and mass of individual buildings could have similar visual impact on the landscape. Overall, aesthetic impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project. Air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable with implementation of the proposed project as long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors, primarily from mobile sources, would exceed applicable thresholds. According to the traffic study prepared for the project, development of the project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a conservative estimate of 7,446 vehicle trips per day. This reduction in vehicle trips and related mobile -source emissions would result in Alternative 2 having fewer impacts to air quality than the proposed project. In regards to biological resources, the project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 181 acres of upland habitat and approximately 1.2 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. With mitigation, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on adjacent wildlife corridors. Under Alternative 2, the 55 -acre South Parcel would not be developed as it would not be part of the project site. This would reduce impacts to wildlife corridors that occur under the proposed project, in particular Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13. However, Alternative 2 maintains the original alignment for the Western Bypass. This alignment is located further west of the new alignment under the proposed project and would result in impacts to an additional 55 acres of sensitive habitat and greater reduction in corridor width along Proposed Linkage 10 compared to the project. As such, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to biological resources compared to the proposed project. Related to cultural resources, construction of the proposed project would include soil excavation, which has the potential to encounter historical and paleontological resources. With mitigation, the proposed project's impact on these resources is less than significant. Under Alternative 2, the 55 -acre South Parcel at the south end of the proposed project would not be developed, which would avoid the TCP and any potential cultural resources that could be encounter during soil excavation at that site. As such, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts to cultural resource compared to the proposed project. Geology, soils, and seismicity impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed project. Altemative 2 would have 1,449 fewer residential dwelling units at maximum buildout, and, therefore, would expose fewer people and structures to potential adverse effects of seismic ground shaking. However, development under Alternative 2 would be subject to the same building codes and regulations as the proposed project, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. As a result, Alternative 2 would have similar exposure to geologic hazards as the proposed project. Greenhouse gas emissions would be less under Alternative 2 and would also result in a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact because Alternative 2 results in a larger development scenario. The proposed project's greenhouse gas emissions are also cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable, with no A-80 feasible mitigation available to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Approximately 80 percent of the proposed project's GHG emissions result from mobile source and this percentage would be similar under Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts related to GHG would also be significant and unavoidable under Alternative 2, but impacts would be reduced under the alternative scenario compared to the proposed project. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant with mitigation with implementation of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste. As such, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the project. With mitigation incorporated, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Alternative 2 would have higher intensity commercial development (120,000 square feet versus 22,000 square feet) but lower intensity residential development (302 dwelling units versus 1,750 dwelling units) than the proposed project. Overall, it would represent a reduced project alternative to the proposed project due to the significantly fewer residential units that would be developed, and the absence of the civic use and elementary school. The reduced alternative would have less impervious surfaces than the proposed project. As such, Alternative 2 would have fewer effects on hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project. In regards to land use, the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment which would modify the City's existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and sections in the Land Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential villages, institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. In addition, with implementation of mitigation measures that address urbanfwildlands interface, noise, and conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies of the MSHCP. It is expected that development under Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to similar measures. Alternative 2 would result in a greater buffer between urban development and an area where three streams converge (Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River) south of the project site. This would result in a greater degree of consistency with MSHCP goals and policies associated with wildlife corridors. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts to land use and planning compared to the proposed project. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from temporary construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area which could potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels and vibration. Under Alternative 2, it is assumed that construction phasing would occur not unlike the proposed project and individual lots within the project site would be developed over the course of 10 years. As such, Alternative 2 would have similar effects on nearby receptors during construction compared to the proposed project. A-81 Population growth under Alternative 2 would be Tess than under the proposed project. Using an average household size of 2.63 persons per household, the proposed project could generate a new population of between 2,288 and 4,603 people. Using the same persons per household ratio, Alternative 2 is estimated to generate a new population of between 515 and 794 people. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts on population and housing compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would decrease demand for public services and utilities as compared to the proposed project because it would generate considerably fewer new residential units and would not develop the 55 -acre parcel with nature center uses. As a result, there would be less demand for public services and utility facilities and Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts on public services compared to the project. Traffic generation under Alternative 2 would be reduced because of the reduction of building potential and decreased population growth. The project would result in a significant cumulative impact on traffic due the unfeasibility of widening Temecula Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane. The project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a conservative estimate of 7,446 vehicle trips per day. The reduction in daily vehicle trips under Alternative 2 may avoid the significant cumulative impact along Temecula Parkway that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Overall, Alternative 2 would have reduced traffic impacts when compared to the proposed project. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, geology, soils, and seismicity, and noise and vibration as compared to the proposed project. All other impacts would be reduced under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed project. However, Alternative 2 fails to satisfy four of the ten project objectives. It would not provide diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety of age groups and household sizes; provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside; provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a central park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and provide for a civic site of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative but would not fully achieve the benefits of the project objectives, including the linkage with Old Town and the emphasis on pedestrian -focused development, and does not avoid significant environmental impacts. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 2, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 2. A-82 C. ALTERNATIVE 3 — RELOCATE CIVIC USE 1, Summary of Alternative Alternative 3 would maintain the majority of the project elements including the eight residential villages with the proposed residential densities, a small amount of neighborhood -serving commercial uses, the nature center use, and the extension of the Western Bypass along the proposed alignment. However, under this alternative, the proposed nature center use would be relocated from the South Parcel to the area of the proposed elementary school site (Village C); and the elementary school eliminated from the proposed project. The intent of this alternative is to reduce potential impacts to biological and cultural resources; namely, for biological resources, the restricted wildlife corridor widths associated with Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; and, for cultural resources, the National -register -listed Origin Landscape TCP and an archaeological site located on the South Parcel. 2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative For aesthetics, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. Under Alternative 3, the nature center use would be relocated from the 55 -acre South Parcel to the elementary site, and the elementary school eliminated from the development. The introduction of a nature center use with up to 20,000 square feet of building area and a maximum building height of two -stories would result in similar building height and mass compared with an elementary school. However, considering that residential structures up to five stories would occur at the perimeter of the civic use, the visual character of Alternative 3 as viewed from nearby public roadways would be similar to the proposed project. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts on aesthetics as the proposed project. Air quality emissions are based on a project's size and the number of project -related daily vehicle trips. Operation of the proposed would have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality. Under Alternative 3, daily vehicle trips would be reduced by an estimated 791 trips. This minor reduction in trips would be not result in a significant reduction in mobile -source emissions. As a result, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to air quality compared to the project. The proposed project would incorporate mitigation measures to reduce impacts on adjacent wildlife corridors to Tess than significant. Under Alternative 3, the 55 -acre South Parcel would not be developed and the site would be conserved as open space. This would provide greater wildlife corridor width at the southern end of the project where Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 converge, thereby reducing any potential effects on wildlife movement in this vicinity. As a result, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts to biological resources compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, construction of Alternative 3 would include soil excavation which has the potential to encounter historical and paleontological resources. However, Alternative 3 would be required to incorporate similar mitigation for ground -disturbing A-83 activities to reduce these impacts to less than significant. In addition, the 55 -acre South Parcel would not be developed under Alternative 3, which would result in the avoidance of a TCP and potential cultural resources that could be encounter during soil excavation at the 55 -acre site. As such, Alternative 3 would have Tess potential to impact cultural resource compared to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would have a reduced development footprint with the elimination of the elementary school compared with the proposed project; and, therefore, would expose fewer people and structures to potential adverse effects of seismic ground shaking. However, development under Alternative 3 would be subject to the same building codes and regulations as the proposed project, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. As a result, Alternative 3 would have similar exposure to geologic hazards as the proposed project. Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from Alternative 3 would exceed applicable standards, Alternative 3, at buildout, would have an estimated 791 vehicular trips per day less than the proposed project. The resulting reduction in GHG emissions when compared with the project would be negligible. As a result, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project. No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on any of the project site. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be required to follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the proposed project. With mitigation, the proposed project would result in Tess -than -significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Alternative 3 would relocate the nature center use to the elementary school site, eliminate the elementary school and leave the 55 -acre South Parcel in its existing, undeveloped condition; resulting the development of fewer impervious surfaces compared to the project. As such, Alternative 3 would have fewer effects on hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project. In regards to land use, the project would require a General Plan Amendment which would modify the City's existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and sections in the Land Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential villages, institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. In addition, with implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies of the MSHCP. It is expected that Alternative 3 would also involve a General Plan Amendment and be required to adhere to similar mitigation measures. Alternative 3 would have similar land uses (except for the elimination of the elementary school) compared to the project but under a reduced density scenario that would provide a greater buffer between urban development and an area where three streams converge (Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River) at the southern end of the project site. This would result in a greater degree of consistency with MSHCP goals and policies associated with wildlife corridors and conserved lands. A-84 However, relocating the civic use to the proposed elementary school site would introduce a higher intensity land use that would be less compatible with the planned residential uses for that area, and would have an adverse effect on the internal street system. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to land use and planning compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, construction phasing would be similar to the proposed project and individual lots within the project site would be developed over the course of 10 years. Although the development of the 55 -acre site would not occur, Alternative 3 would have similar effects from noise impacts on nearby receptors during construction compared to the proposed project. Population growth under Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed project. Using an average household size of 2.63 persons per household, the proposed project could generate a new population of between 2,288 and 4,603 people. Alternative 3 would allow the same range of dwelling units as the project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts on population and housing as the proposed project. Demand for public services and utilities would be similar under Alternative 3 generate similar population as the project but would not have an elementary school and would provide additional recreation/open space with the nature center use. As such, there would be a similar demand for public services such as public parks and open space, police and fire protection, library services and hospital services as the proposed project. Overall, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts on public services compared to the proposed project. With mitigation, the proposed project would result a less -than -significant impact on traffic, except under the Cumulative (2025) Traffic and General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions The proposed project would result in a significant cumulative impact on traffic due the unfeasibility of widening Temecula Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane. The project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in 791 less vehicle trips per day than the project, which would be a negligible decrease in vehicle trips compared to the project. However, relocating the nature center use to the elementary school site would shift additional trips to the north end of the project site and throughout the site's internal network, likely having an adverse impact on the internal street network as planned, requiring additional improvements to intersections along Rancho California Road and the Western Bypass; specifically at Rancho California Road and the Western Bypass, Vincent Moraga Drive and Park Ridge Drive, and A Street and the Western Bypass. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to traffic compared to the proposed project. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on utilities and water supply). Alternative 3 would eliminate the elementary school resulting in less demand on utilities such, as solid waste, and water supply compared to the project. As such, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts on utilities and water supply. A-85 Alternative 3 will have many of the same impacts as the proposed project but would reduce impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and utilities. However, Alternative 3 fails to satisfy two of the ten the project objectives. Alternative 3 would fail to provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a central park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and provide for a civic site of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 would not fully meet the project objectives; it is not the environmentally superior alternative; and does not avoid significant environmental impacts. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 3, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 3. A-86 ATTACHMENT 5B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (NC) Mitigation Measures Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DRAFT— NATURE CENTER MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Responsible Action Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Monitoring Phase Agency Verification of Compliance Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Aesthetica Mitiga standa project tion Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare rds shall be applied to all future development within the area: Pre -Construction / Construction / Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other City of Temecula project approval and field The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures Designee verification and In public areas contain "sharp cut-off' fixtures. and shall be sign -off by City fitted with flat glass and intemal and extemal shielding. of Temecula The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening. closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the development shall take advantage of landscaping. onsite architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project that includes outdoor lighting. the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4.050 lumens: o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the Cypress Ridge Project MMRP ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks AIr Quality Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -la: No fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield; n A map showing all lamp locations. orientations. and intensities, including security. roadway. and task lighting; o Specification of each light fixture and each light City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1b: The lease or purchase agreements Post -Construction Shield; o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. City of Issuance of for all non-residential units shall include the following: • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection lo ensure that the development is in compliance with the design standards in Affair Specific Plan, Mitigation Certificate of Budding Official Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all or other City of 655. buildings. b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Designee Temecula AIr Quality Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -la: No fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. Pre -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1b: The lease or purchase agreements Post -Construction City of City of Issuance of for all non-residential units shall include the following: Temecula Temecula Certificate of Budding Official Occupancy by a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all or other City of buildings. b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Designee Temecula Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or Tess for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep. Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 2 ESA/150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Remarks Initials Date c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting. and/or work -at-home programs as appropriate to the business developed. (non -quantifiable) Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1c: All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically operated. Landscape contracts for all multi -family residential and non-residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be electrically operated. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1d: All residential and non-residential buildings shall be constructed such that they meet one of the following conditions: a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by 15 percent; or b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy, for.of example the incorporation of solar panels irito project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Pre -construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit and field verification and sign -off by City Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1e: The lease or purchase agreements for all multi -family residential and non-residential units shall: a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi -family residential buildings and employee/student areas for non-residential buildings. Additionally, building management shall encourage a ride -share program within the specific plan area such that employees as well as residents have more access to car-pooling opportunities. (non -quantifiable) b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as, but not limited to, special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles. (non -quantifiable) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces (per multi -family and non-residential development) shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles. (non - quantifiable) Post-Constuction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2 The site shall be watered four times per day during ground disturbance (grading) activities for all project Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance InItials Date Remarks development phases. During drought conditions, defined as Water Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by the Rancho California Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit Water District, use of reclaimed water or non -water chemical stabilizers shall be implemented such that fugitive emissions reductions are comparable. Permission to use potable water for dust control activities during drought conditions shall be granted by the Qualified and sign -off by City of Temecula Building Official if the General Contractor shows in writing that (1) Reclaimed water is riot available in sufficient quality and quantity from recycled wastewater treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site: and (2) Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from wells and groundwater sources located within 10 miles of the construction site. Biologist City of Temecula Biological Resources Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: To the extent feasible, clearing and Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian breeding Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit season, which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If cleanng Qualified and sign -off by and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season. a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys. The survey shall occur no more than 7 days prior to any clearing. grubbing, construction or ground -disturbing activities, If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project area, the nest shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own and are no longer relying on the nest for survival). A 500 -toot construction setback from any active raptor nesting location (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species. construction activity, the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features That could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed. as determined by a qualified biologist. A 300 -foot construction setback (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist. based on species, construction activity, and the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be established for all other migratory birds. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. All construction setbacks shall be clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate material (flagging, staking, construction fencing. etc.) and verified by a qualified Biologist City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 4 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks biologist. Such fencing shall be maintained and monitored until the nest is confirmed to be inactive. If an avoidance buffer is not feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City. noise walls or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed 10 prevent disturbance to the nest. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2 Suitable burrowing owl habitat Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of a identified on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist Temecula Temecula grading permit using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Qualified and signed off Instructions for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biologist by the City of (EPD, 2006) no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine presence or absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified, no additional mitigation is necessary and activities may commence, If a burrowing owl is detected, the Temecula City of Temecula and the RCA will be notified. If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the applicant shall implement the following measure: Take of active nests shall be avoided. Passive or active relocation (use of one way doors and collapse of burrows), as approved by the RCA, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 - August 31). If active relocation is selected, translocation sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. Translocation sites will be identified, taking into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species. Selected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior 10 translocation site development. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO.3: The following Best Management Construction City of City of Issuance of Practices shall be adhered lo: Temecula Temecula Grading Permit • Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, or grading Qualified and signed off permit for the protect, a qualified biologist (Project Biologist by the City of Biologist) with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites, shall be retained by the applicant to oversee compliance with the protection and avoidance measures for biological issues associated with the project. The Projed Biologist shall have the authority Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks • 10 hah construction activities in the event of non- compliance. The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to: vegetation removal. free removal or trimming. grading. and restoration landscaping 10 ensure project activities remain in compliance with all applicable biological resource permits. • Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife species shall be prohibited. • Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the project site, and from feeding wildlife. • Proposed and existing Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Areas shall be protected in place by the installation of orange silt fencing. Fencing shall be maintained in working order and inspected weekly. Fencing repair shall occur within 2 working days following inspection. • All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and trash removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens and feral cats and dogs. • All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas beyond 100 feet of any drainage course, and be contained using appropriate protection measures. • Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project -proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. Nighttime construction which does occur outside these areas shall use directional lighting to minimize the impacts of increased artificial nighttime lighting. • All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than 45 minutes to minimize ambient noise produced by the project. Cypress Ridge Props MMRP 6 ESA i 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-B10.4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading Pre -Construction 1 City of City of Issuance of a permit for the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary agency Temecula Temecula grading permit permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters, wetlands and riparian Building Official by the City of resources, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Califomia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the or other Designee Temecula Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Impacts to riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to unvegetated channel shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options: on- or offsite habitat restoration; purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program, and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective resource agencies (USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW). it shall be prepared according to agency requirements and shall include, at a minimum. the following information. • Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas • An evaluation of the existing function and values. and a description of the function and values to be achieved through compensatory mitigation • Detailed plant and seed mix requirements • Detailed planting plan • Specific and measurable five-year success criteria • Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements • Invasive species management • Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of irrigation for at least two years prior to final sign -off • Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-BIO.4b: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) shall be approved by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority to address impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/rivenne habitat. The DBESP shall include the following information: • Definition of the project area • A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible • A wntten description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping • Quantification of unavoidable impacts to nparian/riverine areas and vemal pools associated with the project. including direct and indirect effects • A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects, such as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation difference. minimization and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement • A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted, used for comparison of biological equivalency • A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation, including habitat type, location, functional lift. and long- term stewardship responsibility A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts, the habitat mitigation would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which is being impacted and would result in a net equivalent or superior ecological condition Pre -construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Qualified Biologist Issuance of a grading permit by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM-B104a: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, or any phase thereof, the applicant shall pay Local Development Mitigation fees. as determined by the City of Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of a building pemlit by the City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 8 ESA / 150642 July 2017 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15. to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species. Mitigation Measure MM -1310 6b: Al the time of final map recordation for the project, or any phase thereof. lands identified to contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project (Conserved Lands) and included on the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the Westem Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) or deed transfer of said parcels to the RCA. Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the continued preservation arid fundionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The project shall conserve onsite a minimum of 82.77 acres, which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to include Cells 7077. 7161. 7078, 7164, 7258, 7284, 7355 and 7356, Pre -construction Cityof Temecula Cityof Temecula Building Official or other Designee Approval and Recordation of final map by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7a: The portion of Camino Estribo that lies between the South Parcel and the main development area within the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular speeds. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineering Official or other Designee Issuance of a grading permit verified and signed off by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7b: The applicant shall install permanent fencing along the Western Bypass where the Bypass right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSHCP Conserved Lands, to keep animals within the wildlife corridor. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed fencing plan for review by the City of Temecula and the wildlife agencies (CDFW and USFWS). and approval by the City. The fencing plan shall include, at a minimum, the fencing location, fencing specifications, plant list, and method and timing of installation. The fence shall be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading and Building Permits by the City of Temecula Cypress R dge Protea MMRP 9 ESA f 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7c: A Slope Revegelation Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. The Plan shall be submitted for approval to the City prior to the construction of the Western Bypass. The Plan shall include at a minimum • The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to the first six inches along selected portions of the ground disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in restoring disturbed areas Pre-Construdionl Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of grading and building permits by the City of Temecula • Equipment and methods for planting Temecula Temecula grading permit • A planting plan. including the amount and species of seed necessary to revegetate the target habitat types Qualified and project • Success criteria for the revegetaled areas over a five-year period following installation Archeologist approval by the • Specific BMPs for erosion control during and after revegetation City of Temecula • A requirement for five years of maintenance of the revegetated areas, including removal of invasive species and irrigation (if necessary) A requirement for five years of monitonng to evaluate compliance with the success criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using an adaptive management approach Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure MN -CUL -la — Retention of a Qualified Pre -construction City of City of Issuance of a Archaeologist: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the Temecula Temecula grading permit start of any ground disturbing activity. the applicant shall retain a Qualified and project qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Archeologist approval by the Secretary of the Intenor's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiserio Indians (Pechanga City of Temecula Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate Cypress Ridge Protea MMRP 10 ESA! 160642 JMrly 2011 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 b - Retention of a Professional Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of Pechanga Tribal Monitor. At least 30 days prior to seeking a Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga qualified Project Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed Archaeologist Approval; grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop and Pechanga verification by a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources. the designation, responsibilities. and participation of professional tribal representatives City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling: terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates. in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource . sacred sites. and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may indude avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -lc — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of Training: The qualified archeologist, or an archaeologist working Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a qualified Project representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction Archaeologist Approval; cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review and Pechanga verification by of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction tribal representatives City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Cypress R,dge Project MMRP 11 ESA / 150642 Juy2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-ld —Archaeological and Native Pre -construction/ City of City of Issuance of a American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel: Prior to Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation qualified and project removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological Archaeologist approval by the monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the and Pechanga City of applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -la and 1b. The archaeological and Pechanga tribal representatives Temecula, verification City oation by of Temecula in consultation with Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart. additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. Pechanga Tribe The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastem Information Center al the University of California, Riverside. Cypress Ridge Protea MMRP 12 ESA i 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Measures MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1e - Unanticipated Discovery: If Pre-ConstructioN City of City of City of cultural resources are encountered during the course o1 ground Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing qualified Project activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the Archaeologist Approval: qualified archaeologist. who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of and Pechanga verification by discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the tribal representatives City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Pechanga Tribe. shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tnbe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance. incorporating the resource into open space, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated 10 be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist. in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tnbe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource. beyond that which is scientifically important. are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis. reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -lb. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f - Completed Avoidance of Pre-cOnstructioN City of City of Venfication by Impacts to the TCP: The City and the Project Applicant/Land Construction Temecula Temecula City of Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Qualified Temecula in Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work. Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts. Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the inlegnty of the TCP. Should any of these activities. or others as Indicated, be proposed, the City and the Archaeologist and Pechanga tribal representatives consultation with Pechanga Tribe Cypess Ridge Protect MMRP 13 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Applicant/Land Owner shaN contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Pre -Construction City of City of Venfication by Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP): The applicant shall Temecula Temecula City of implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the qualified Temecula in PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths. 2013) during project implementation. Paleontologist consultation with The PRIMP requires paleontological monitonng of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot-checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Pechanga Tribe Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitonng shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist. or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporanly haft or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist. based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitonng and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. Mltigatlon Measure MM -CUL -2b — Unanticipated Paleontological Construction City of City of Verification by Resources Discoveries: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the Temecula Temecula City of Cypress Ridge Prosect MMRP 14 ESA / 150642 July 2017 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. Construction/ Post- City of qualified Paleontologist Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains: If human Pre -Construction/ City of City of Verification by remains are uncovered during project construction. the applicant Construction Temecula Temecula City of shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and qualified Paleontologist Temecula Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority. the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of. with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project Construction/ Post- City of City of Issuance of and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the project sponsor shall submit an application for a Pre -Certified construction Temecula Temecula Building Official Certificate of Occupancy by LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. lithe or other the City of application meets the TEED -ND prerequisites. the project sponsor shall continue with the certification. and the project shall receive a minimum base -level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build -out. If Pre -Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied, the project applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve Designee Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 15 ESA 1150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen -percent (15%) reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards by undertaking the following: Pre -construction City of City of Issuance of 1) Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations; Temecula Temecula Grading Permit 2) Subsidize public transit and expand transit network (e.g., help fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share programs); Building Official by the City of 3) Provide an enhanced pedestrian network, including pedestrian connections to the local community; or other Designee Temecula 4) Provide traffic calming measures and urban non-motonzed zones. 5) Install bicycle parking and storage, as well as dedicated bike lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas. 6) Prohibit wood -burning fireplaces. 7) Where practicable, install or ensure facilities are compatible with renewable energy (e.g. solar photovoltaics), 8) Install energy efficient boilers and appliances, including programmable thermostat timers: 9) Install energy efficient street and area lighting, including LED traffic lights, motion detection lighting, and limited outdoor lighting for security and safety purposes: 10) Install electrical outlets compatible with electnc yard equipment; 11) Provide for use of reclaimed water: 12) Install low -lbw bathroom and kitchen fixtures (e.g., faucets. toilets. and showers): 13) Install water efficient irrigation systems: 14) Where practicable. reuse or recycle matenais from operation and construction activities. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Prior to issuance of a grading Pre -construction City of City of Issuance of permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil Temecula Temecula Grading Permit engineer in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual Building Official by the City of and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The final study shall identify storm water runoff quantities from the development of this site and upstream of the site, and shall identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property or any substantial adverse change in receiving water quality or habitat values: the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities and any or other Designee Temecula Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 16 ESA 1150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff impacts. Construction City of City of Issuance of a Features to be included in the site design shall Conform with the City of Temecula MS4 permit and Stormwater Ordinance. and may include, for example: Temecula Temecularadin g g permit 1) Non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control Building Official by the City of BMPs; or other Designee Temecula 2) Infiltration basins. detention basins. vegetated swales, and media filters, 3) Pervious concrete. storm drain stenciling or signage. protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall: and 4) Other low impact development (LID) BMPs, including measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity, then onsite detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls shall be required as needed to avoid damage to public or private property and alterations in water quality or habitat values. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each Pre -Construction / City of I City of Issuance of future development project will be required to generate a project- specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the Construction/ Post- Construction Temecula ' ' Temecula Building Official or other Building Permit, review of plans, field verification City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the Designee and sign -off by City of City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each project -specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. Temecula NOISE Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -1a: Prior to the issuance any grading Construction City of City of Issuance of a or building permits for a phase or sub phase (project -specific future Temecula Temecularadin g g permit development within a construction phase), the applicant shall Building Official by the City of provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see Table 3.10- or other Designee Temecula 5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 17 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Factors the City shall consider when granting a noise exception include, but are not limited to. the consideration of the level of noise, duration of noise. constancy or intermittency of noise, time of day or night, place, proximity to sensitive receptors. nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud noise. If a construction -related exception request is not approved by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to. the erection of noise bamerslcurtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently al the development site. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 b: The applicant shall comply with Construction City of City of Field verification the following noise reduction measures dunng construction: Temecula Temecula and sign -off by Building Official City of • Ensure that noise and groundbome vibration construction activities whose specific location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration -sensitive land uses. or other Designee Temecula • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumaticaly powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used, this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 18 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Moasures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible. as determined by the City of Temecula's Building Offiaal based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible, as determined by the City's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors. type and number of equipment used. and duration of noise. • Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, and shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors. to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and properly owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs. etc.) are implemented. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2a: The operation of construction Construction City of City of Issuance of equipment that generates high levels of vibration. such as large Temecula Temecula Grading Permit bulldozers. loaded trucks. and caisson drills, shall be prohibited Building Official and field within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional or other verification and structures during construction activities to the extent feasible. Small, rubber -tired construction equipment shall be used within this area Designee sign -off by City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 19 ESA 1150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects, where feasible. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2b: The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities, to the extent feasible, Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Field venfication and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for future developments in the project. the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the proposed development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent properties. If City noise standards at the adjacent properties would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels associated with the proposed development would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include. but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a: The applicant of individual development projects within the project area shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away from receptor areas, instauing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all extenor windows associated with a proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an L,,, or CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room, Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval; and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5: All future residential developments located adjacent to the proposed Westem Bypass in the project area shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official Field verification and sign -off by Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 20 ESA 1 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Data Remarks Western Bypass. If this minimum setback distance cannot be Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula or other City of achieved, other measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/and use compatibility standard of 70 dBA 1 -,ti,, including, but not limited to, greater setback distances, the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping. Pre -Constriction/ Construction City of Temecula Designee Temecula Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts.. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Ynez Road and Rancho California Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Pre -Constriction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -3: Prior to the completion of Phase 2 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of 1-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this improvement with Caltrans. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -5: Pnor to the completion of Phase 1 of the project. the project proponent/developer shall install stop signs on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and First Street. converting the intersection from side -street stop -control to all -way stop control. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Cypress Ridge Protea MMRP 21 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -d: Pnor to the completion of Phase 2 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall Install or provide funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left tum lane and signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -7: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase 1 of the project, the City shall have completed the Capital Improvement Project entitled "1-15 / SR 79 South (Temecula Parkway) Ultimate Interchange". Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -9: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost to construct a fourth through lane to both the eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway approaches to the intersection of La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway. toward the acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -12: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 43 percent of the cost to construct improvements al the west Ridge Park Drive leg to allow for right -in / right -out turn movements only at the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making northbound left and westbound left fuming movements at the intersection, Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -13: Pnor to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 17 percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol Street and First Street. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -14: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities within the Specific Plan area, or at offsite locations for improvements associated with the Specific Plan, the prajecl applicant(s) shall Pre -Construction City 01 .1 emecuia City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading and Building Permits Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 22 ESA 1 150642 July 2017 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for review and approval by the City of Temecula as part of the permit application. The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic volumes entering the roadway system (including local roads) during AM and PM peak hours. At a minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include the following implementation measures: • Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and from the construction site. • Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary dunng construction, the project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary, to minimize traffic impacts. This may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage. flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone. The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required, the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula and other affected junsdictions (i.e., Caltrans, and/or County of Riverside) to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes. Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 23 ESA / 150642 July 2017 ATTACHMENT 5C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (NC) STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS — NATURE CENTER The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Altair Specific Plan (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects. those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to: • Air quality at the project and cumulative level give that the City is in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which is a non -attainment region for ozone; • Greenhouse gas emissions at the cumulative level for exceeding the conservative threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year even with incorporation of Smart Growth development standards, which promote walking and alternative transportation; • Noise and vibration impacts during construction; and • Traffic impacts to the 1-15 SB RampsfTemecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions (prior to completion of the Ultimate interchange improvements, which are under construction). Although the FEIR concludes there are significant and unavoidable impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions. it should be noted that this is a conservative approach as the ultimate intersection improvements are under construction and once complete, the improvements will reduce the project impacts below a level of significance. In making this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore. that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. Furthermore, the following primary public benefits are required by Conditions of Approval, and in the Development Agreement: A. An estimated $28 million dollars of regional infrastructure (Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge over Murrieta Creek), and improved east -west connectivity in the City; The Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge are part of a regional facility, identified in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The Regional System needs to be expanded to accommodate anticipated future growth in the City of Temecula and southwestern Riverside County; the Project provides critical infrastructure to assist the City in meeting this need. B. A 5 -acre Central Park and "Grand Staircase" connection to Main Street in Old Town on the west side of 1-15 for public use; Currently, the City does not have a park of sufficient size for residents on the west side of 1-15 to accommodate parks and recreation programs. Residents west of 1-15 have to travel to the east side sports parks. The Central Park will accommodate existing and future growth, and provide an important destination and gathering place for passive and active recreation in and around Old Town. C. An elementary school site to serve existing and future residents on the west side of 1-15; Similar to the City's current situation with a lack of parks and programming relative to population on the west side of 1-15, the elementary school site has the ability to provide a neighborhood school in walking distance for many that will help eliminate the need to rely exclusively on schools on the east side of 1-15. D. Over eight miles of pathways and trails connecting to the City's bike lane and trail network; The Quality of Life Master Plan identifies six core values as identified by the community. Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts. Altair is designed as a "Smart Growth" development which makes walking easy and promotes a healthy and active lifestyle. Furthermore, the proposed trails, pathways, and sidewalks connect to the surrounding network closing gaps and increasing opportunities for active transportation. E. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant will provide $150,000 dollars of "start-up" funding for a shuttle connecting to RTA transit stops and/or a bikeshare program; Again, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts. This funding will assist in promoting active transportation in an effort to relieve auto congestion in the City. F. A 55 -acre Civic Site for a Nature Center/Culture/Sustainability Center and trails to provide environmental education and protection of natural resources at the confluence of the Santa Margarita River, which is southern California's last "free flowing" river and the center of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Sacred Place/Origin Area, a recognized Traditional Cultural Place (TCP) on the National Register of Historic Places; G. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant is committed to provide Project conservation features in excess of what is required as environmental mitigation, including the following: • 55 -acre reduction in hillside escarpment/Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) impacts associated with the shortened Western Bypass alignment. as compared to the current alignment in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the approved West Side Specific Plan and MSHCP: • Facilitation of the sale of an additional 8.97 acres of hillside escarpment adjacent to the project site to the Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for conservation; • Additional funding for conservation efforts (up to $500.0000) to be used for a wildlife connectivity study, engineering feasibility. and/or land acquisition in the special linkage area south of the Project. H. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 9401-310- 016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320- 001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities. filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161 a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together. these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance on the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. D. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the proposed Project. E. On November 5, 2014, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to all agencies and persons that might be interested in or affected by the proposed Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research. State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2014111029). The NOP was circulated from November 14, 2014, through December 15, 2014, to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Project. On December 3, 2014 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. F. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft EIR. G. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project, including preparation of review, as applicable, of all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the proposed Project. H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in April 2016, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on Friday. April 28, 2016. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. I. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. J. In response to the Draft EIR, 26 written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.. K. The "Final EIR" consists of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the Errata to the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, Appendix A to the Final EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final EIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies on November 3, 2017, which is at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). L. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled and duly noticed meeting, considered the proposed Project and the Final EIR, at which time the City staff presented its report and interested persons had an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the proposed Project and the Final EIR. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the Altair Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the CEQA. adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution Nos. 17- , recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Agreement related to the approval of the proposed Project. N. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social. technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. O. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 1. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as no impact or less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Sections IV and V, respectively, of Exhibit A. 2. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant. but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A, Section VI. 3. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Exhibit A, Section VII. 4. Alternatives to the project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution. P. CEQA Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. Q. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit C. and is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. R. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR and Final EIR, responses to comments, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony presented during the public hearings on the proposed Project.. S. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and hereby incorporates them herein by this reference. B. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the proposed Project. C. Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it. which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues regarding the proposed Project. D. Find and determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. E. Find and declare that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. F. Certify the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit C. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit C, by itself. would individually justify proceeding with the proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged in the record of proceedings. G. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Altair Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of December, 2017. Maryann Edwards, 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. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl. City Clerk Altair Specific Plan BR with South Parcel Institutional Use Exhibit A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS I. Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. ("Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula ("Temecula" or "City") hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Altair Specific Plan project (the "project"). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the EIR and the written responses thereto, the Final EIR, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. 11. Project Obiectives As set forth in the EIR, objectives that the City seeks to achieve with this project (the "project Objectives") are as follows: A. Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan [a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is needed to achieve these goals and policies]. B. Balance the need for local infrastructure improvement and demand for new housing in and around Old Town while minimizing physical and visual impacts to the hillside escarpment, wildlife movement and conservation areas. C. Develop a high-quality residential component on the project site which focuses on providing diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would A-1 serve a variety of age groups and household sizes, support the commercial enterprises of Old Town Temecula, help to fulfill the City's regional housing needs, and foster a unique community identity where each neighborhood is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive. D. Create a project that reduces dependency on the automobile and encourages the use of an extensive multi -use trail system that would link neighborhood villages and community -wide uses within the project and to Old Town Temecula. E. Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood -oriented commercial uses to serve the needs of the project's residents such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or small restaurants. F. Promote design that minimizes water usage by utilizing a relatively drought tolerant landscape palette, clustered development and attractive community spaces rather than traditional water -intensive private lawns. G. Provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside attributes. H. Establish an efficient, interconnected multi -modal transportation network that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center -of -city traffic conditions. Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in the center of the project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an elementary school accommodating 600-730 students, which further diversify and contribute to the Old Town's amenities. J. Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building square -feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public, and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that maximizes compatibility with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong visual connection and close access to Interstate 15. III. Project Description The proposed project would involve adoption of the Altair Specific Plan, which would allow for development of a primarily residential, mixed-use community on 270 acres in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, located south of Ridge Park Drive and westerly of Pujol Street, and west of Old Town. In addition to adoption of the Specific Plan, this project would require a General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, and a certification of an environmental impact report. A-2 The 270—acre project site consists of two portions: 215 acres comprising the primary Specific Plan area that roughly spans the area between Ridge Park Drive on the north and Temecula Parkway on the south, and a non-contiguous 55 -acre site to the south of Temecula Parkway/Future Western Bypass that would be designated for a civic or institutional use. A large portion of the project site is proposed as open space conservation along the western slope of the project. The predominant land use would be residential mixed-use, consisting of approximately 1,750 dwelling units, comprising both attached and detached housing types. Densities would range from 4 to 33 dwelling units per net acre, with the higher densities concentrated at the north end of the property. Building types could include: detached housing, multiplex. rowhouses, live/work, micro - unit, multifamily walk-up, multifamily podium, and mixed-use that could include limited neighborhood -serving commercial. The project also proposes development of a community center, and an approximate 5 -acre site for an elementary school and playfield. The proposed project would also include a central publicly accessible park, plazas, and a soccer field. The separate 55 -acre property to the south would be designated for a civic, institutional or business use. Possible uses include medical offices, conference space, and/or higher educational classroom space. This area could accommodate up to 450,000 square feet of floor space. The existing oak tree groves at the west side of this parcel would be preserved. In addition, the proposed project would construct the Western Bypass that would link Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road. The Western Bypass would form the westem edge of the proposed development and would act as a buffer between the proposed development and the natural open space to the west. The proposed Specific Plan would also include onsite and offsite improvements associated with the installation of required back -bone infrastructure, including a new storm drain system, water transmission mains, extension of the reclaiming water system, and new sewer lift stations and pipelines. The Altair Specific Plan would consist of several neighborhood "villages," each centered on a node or focal point and separated by landscaped terrain. The open space between the villages is intended to mimic the existing ravines extending from the hillside above and is also intended to preserve the sculptural quality of the site. The village nodes would be linked by a main north -south road (Altair Vista) and by a network of pedestrian/bicycle paths, which is intended to provide cohesion to a very linear site while conserving much of the existing land forms, allowing similar drainage patterns and maintaining views to the hillside above. The core village (Village C) would occupy an existing promontory with views to and from Old Town. This area would be developed with a large park and would feature a community center at the high point, on axis with Main Street and Temecula City Hall. A pedestrian A-3 path would allow direct access to Main Street. This primary village would be higher in density and scale with buildings potentially up to five stories in height. IV. Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and EIR. The City of Temecula issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and conducted an Initial Study to determine the potential environmental effects of the project. In the course of this evaluation, the project was found to have no impact in certain impact categories because a project of this type and scope or in this location would not create such impacts or because of the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. In the following categories of environmental impacts, the proposed project was found to have No Impact for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and EIR. The impacts were not analyzed in the EIR because they required no additional analysis to determine whether the effects could be significant. A. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural or forestry resources. According to Figure OS -3 of the City of Temecula General Plan, the plan area is adjacent to Unique Farmland in unincorporated County of Riverside. However, the plan area does not contain existing agricultural uses nor does it contain any Forest Land, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project would not result in the conversion of any land zoned for agricultural uses or land that is under a Williamson Act contract. B. MINERAL RESOURCES The proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources. The plan area does not contain significant mineral resources nor is it located within a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has given the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a. MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crusted stone for aggregate. However, these areas are not considered to contain mineral resources of significant economic value. The project would not result in the Toss of any known mineral resources or the Toss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. The plan area is located outside of any Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (AP Zone). While fault rupture is not necessarily confined to the boundaries of the AP Zone, it is considered to have a very low probability to occur outside of these areas that have been delineated by the State Geologist in accordance with the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Fault rupture almost always follows along active faults because of the zone of weakness that has developed from past displacements (CGS 2015). Therefore, with the plan area located approximately 0.5 miles from the active A-4 fault trace and well outside of the Alquist-Priolo fault zone, there would be no impact related to fault rupture. 2. As proposed, development associated with the project would deliver wastewater to the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) wastewater treatment plant in Temecula and would not have use for any septic tank or other alternative wastewater system. Therefore, this issue is riot applicable to the project and no impact would occur. D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. The proposed project is not located within two miles of an airport or airstrips. The closest airport is the Billy Joe Airport, which is located approximately five miles east of the plan area, where construction and operational activities associated with the project would not interfere with airport operations. Therefore, impacts to airports or airstrips would not occur with implementation of the project. 2. The project would result in an increased resident, employee and visitor population in the area. However, the project would not alter the existing street network, and it would comply with all emergency vehicle access requirements as a condition of construction. Overall, the project would not impede an established emergency access route or interfere with emergency response requirements and would not result in permanent road closures. Therefore, the project would have no impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans. E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. The project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by a seiche or tsunami because the project area is not located immediately near a coast or large body of water. The plan area is located over 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a large enough distance to avoid tsunami impacts and has no body of water in close proximity to the plan area. The portion of the plan area that would be subject to mudflow is identified in the Specific Plan to remain as open space. As a result, the proposed development areas (villages) would be protected by the open space areas in the event of a mudflow. In addition, the project would be subject to the City's Flood Damage Protection Ordinance which includes measures to protect against potential mudslides. Therefore, impacts related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would not occur. F. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. The plan area is currently undeveloped. The proposed project is intended to facilitate the development of up to 1,750 residential units into a cohesive community connected to Old Town. The proposed project would not involve the construction of roadways or other major structures within an established community that would result in division of an established community. No impact would occur. A-5 2. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) policies, Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA), and the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No impact would occur. Discussion of the Project's consistency with a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is discussed in H1, below. G. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. The plan area is not located within any airport land use plan nor is it located near any private airstrips. The nearest airport with an associated Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately six miles north of the plan area. Given this distance, no noise impacts are anticipated to occur at a public or private airport as a result of the project. H. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. There are no existing residential units or homes located within the plan area; therefore, no displacement of existing housing would occur. In addition, the project would encourage mixed-use and residential projects and would result in additional housing opportunities. Therefore, the project would not displace a substantial amount of existing housing or people and no impact would occur under these two threshold criteria. I. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 1. The nearest airport with an associated Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately six miles north of the plan area. The project is not within the French Valley Airport influence area; therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 2. Since the project promotes the use of bicycles, pedestrians, and transit, and all development projects within the plan area would be required to be consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks), no impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. V. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR. The EIR found that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact without the incorporation of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas listed below. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Final EIR. A-6 A. AESTHETICS 1. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The site plan created for the Altair Specific Plan was developed with the intent of respecting and preserving natural landforms and features of the plan area, such as ridges and gullies. Development would be concentrated along the eastern edge of the parcel boundary in order to preserve hillsides. The route and lane configuration of the Western Bypass, which would incorporate split lanes (where southbound and northbound lanes would be at different elevations from each other), standard lanes (where all lanes would be at the same elevation), and landscaped medians throughout, would be designed to respect the existing landforms and minimize the visual impacts of this major roadway. While the proposed structures that would be developed as part of the project would obscure the individual features (ravines and ridges) of the landform of the plan area, the proposed site design would ensure that the majority of the hillside would still remain visible to viewers from outside the plan area. In addition, many of the landform features would still be visible to viewers using publicly accessible hiking and bicycle trails within the plan area after project implementation. Therefore, impacts to scenic resources, including the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa Plateau, would be less than significant with implementation of the project. 2. The project is not located within a designated scenic highway corridor. SR -74 and SR -243 are designated as State Scenic Highways in Riverside County. These highways are located east of the project area, more than 20 miles away and are not visible from within the project area or surrounding areas. The project is located within the viewshed from 1-15, which is designated by Caltrans as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by Caltrans. Views of the project area are available from points along 1-15; however, as described above, the proposed project would be minimally visible from 1-15 and would blend into the urban environment of Old Town and the surrounding development. Views of the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa Plateau from 1-15 would not be substantially affected by the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. 3. Under the proposed project, the visual character of the project site would change substantially from undeveloped, open space to a high-density urbanized development. However, a change in visual character or visual quality does not, by itself, equate to a significant, adverse impact under CEQA. The evaluation should consider the degree of impact that may result from visual change. Per the City of Temecula General Plan, the City has planned for development at the project site and did not expect for it to remain as undeveloped, open space. The Altair Specific Plan includes design guidelines and development standards that are intended to achieve a community with a high aesthetic quality. The proposed project does not dictate the number or the styles of buildings to be developed in each village, but instead focuses on a variety of building forms in order to create distinct neighborhoods and encourage visual interest, vibrancy, and diversity. Design guidelines address features from building form (including how to create visually interesting facades, rooflines, building entrances, fenestration, siding materials, and colors), building placement on the lot, utility screening, retaining walls, and landscaping. Adherence to the design guidelines and development standards of the A-7 project would ensure that the proposed structures are developed to meet the goals of high aesthetic quality and visual interest. In addition, specific development proposals occurring under the Specific Plan would be reviewed by City staff to ensure that they meet the design guidelines and development standards established by the Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts to visual character would be less than significant. 4. Among the cumulative projects within the viewshed of the proposed project, the 140 -unit residential project would likely be the most visually prominent and would be occurring on undeveloped land. However, it would be built on flat land adjacent to existing urban uses and would not be located on any hillsides. In addition, like future development proposals that would occur in the City, any cumulative developments in the project vicinity would be subject to the City's Design Guidelines and would be required to undergo a development review process to ensure that the proposals meet the design standards. Temecula's City-wide Design Guidelines provide site planning, architectural design, and landscape design criteria for commercial, industrial, and residential development. The Guidelines also establish criteria for unique design characteristics found within specialized development types, such as specific commercial and public uses. The design standards and criteria contained within the Guidelines are the primary tool for implementing the policies contained within the Community Design Element. In addition, future development proposals in the vicinity of the project would also introduce new sources of light and glare in the area; and the project, in combination with these projects. could make a considerable contribution to light and glare. However, related projects would be required to adhere to the provisions of the Riverside County's Light Pollution Ordinance (No. 655), which reduces nighttime light pollution in the vicinity of the Palomar Observatory, and implement measures similar to those required of the project. As such, cumulative impacts from the project and related projects would be less than significant. The project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics. B. AIR QUALITY 1, The proposed project is consistent with the intent of General Plan land use policies; the growth resulting from the project is anticipated to be consistent with SCAG's regional forecast projections, which, in tum, would also be consistent with the growth projections accounted for in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD's) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant. 2. As shown in Table 3.2-6 in Section 3.2, Air Quality (refer to the Draft EIR), the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the project's worst-case construction scenario would not exceed SCAQMD's daily significance threshold for any criteria pollutants during any of the modeled construction phases. Therefore, construction phase emissions would have a less than significant impact related to regional air quality. 3. A total of 25 local intersections were analyzed as part of the TIA that was prepared for the proposed project (Fehr & Peers 2015). The existing, existing plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus project peak hour conditions were evaluated A-8 against the screening level threshold of 24,000 vehicles per hour. As none of the peak hour traffic at all of the intersections would come close to 24,000 vehicles per hour, CO emissions from these vehicles volumes would be less than significant. The Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires that if an EIR was prepared, new developments analyze the project's potential impacts on CMP monitoring locations. The project's TIA (Fehr & Peers 2015) analyzed the project impacts on nearby CMP monitoring stations for arterial roadways. If a CMP monitoring segment falls into a Level of Service (LOS) of F, a deficiency plan would be required. As determined in the TIA for the project, there are no CMP arterials or roadway segments within the project study area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the CMP due to additional growth. Given that the project would not exceed the screening level intersection volumes, nor would it conflict with the local CMP, impacts related to CO hotspots would be less than significant. 4. During project operations, the daily amount of localized pollutant emissions generated onsite by the project would not be substantial. The proposed project's onsite operational emissions are shown in Table 3.2-12 in Section 3.2, Air Quality (refer to the Draft EIR). As shown, the project's total operational -related emissions generated onsite would not exceed SCAQMD's screening operational localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Thus, no dispersion modeling was required for the project and localized air quality impacts during project operations would be less than significant. 5. Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, which is a toxic air contaminant (TACs). Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The construction period for the proposed project would be much Tess than the 70 -year period used for risk determination. Although project construction would occur over a 10 -year period, construction activities would not occur across the entire plan area during the entire duration of this period but would occur in smaller areas over the course of construction. Project construction would not expose any existing nearby sensitive receptors or new onsite receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. Operation of the project would not include industrial manufacturing processes, automotive repair facilities, and dry cleaning facilities or be located within the buffer distance of any major TAC -emitting facilities. Project operation would not expose any existing nearby sensitive receptors or new onsite receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. Additionally, as the project is not located within the buffer distance of any major TAC -emitting facilities, including being within 500 feet of any freeway or major roadway with more than 100,000 vehicles per day, the project is not anticipated to be adversely affected by proximity to exposure to diesel exhaust emissions. The nearest freeway to the project site is 1-15 which is located more than 1,000 feet east of the project site. Impacts would be less than significant. 6. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Development of the proposed project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial odorous emissions. Impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. A-9 7. Based on SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in Table 3.2-6 (refer to Draft EIR), the project's construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's daily thresholds during construction. Thus, because the proposed projects construction -period impact would be less than significant, the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact in that regard, when considered with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any special status plants, specifically the San Diego ambrosia and paniculate tarplant. The San Diego ambrosia and paniculate tarplant are considered adequately conserved by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and impacts are covered under the implementation structure of the MSHCP. Impacts to special status species would be Tess than significant. 2. The project would not conflict with the City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance or the City of Temecula General Plan. D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1, The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides. Adherence to the requirements of the California Building Code would ensure that people, structures, and infrastructure are not adversely impacted by seismic hazards. Impacts would be less than significant. 2. The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil. Construction of the proposed project would require grading, excavating, and other ground -disturbing activities that would expose topsoil, resulting in soil erosion, but implementation of standard erosion control measures would ensure this impact is less than significant. 3. Development under the proposed project would be required to adhere to City building code requirements, which include the preparation of a design level geotechnical investigation by a state licensed geotechnical engineer. The required geotechnical report for any new development or redevelopment would determine the susceptibility of the subject site to settlement and prescribe appropriate engineering techniques for reducing its effects based on site specific data of subsurface soils. Prior to approval of a building permit, the final design level geotechnical report with recommendations for site preparation requirements, foundation specifications, and A-10 structural design would be required to be in accordance with the City building code requirements. Therefore, implementation of standard geotechnical engineering practices, which includes a geotechnical investigation containing recommendations that would be specific to future project sites within the plan area, and adherence to building code requirements would reduce potential impacts from unstable soils and other adverse soil properties to less than significant levels. 4. The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in Temecula and nearby areas of Riverside County, would not contribute to cumulative geologic and soils impacts. E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Implementation of the proposed project would involve limited transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation, but compliance with all applicable regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant. 2. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and implemented during construction to minimize the potential for discharge of contaminants during construction. Any businesses that would store hazardous materials and/or waste at its business site would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Management Plan in accordance with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Further, the project site is located more than 25 miles, but less than 50 miles, from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The facility is currently being decommissioned and existing emergency procedures are in place in the rare event of an emergency. Thus, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be less than significant. 3. The proposed project includes the option of constructing an elementary school site just beyond one-quarter mile of International Rectifier Corporation and other businesses located just east of Rancho California Road. These businesses may have the potential to generate hazardous emissions or contain acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste that could cause an impact to sensitive receptor sites such as the proposed school. In addition to mandatory adherence to City and County requirements, compliance with the requirements of CCR Title 5, Section 14010, Standards for School Site Construction, and the California Department of Education School Facilities Planning Division (as overseen by DTSC) further ensures that impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant at the proposed school site. Further, all new development under the proposed project would be required to follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions near schools would be less than significant. A-11 4. According to the two different Phase I reports completed for the project area and vicinity, there are no reported incidents of releases of hazardous materials. In addition, review of available databases from the DTSC and SWRCB did not identify sites within the project area or immediate vicinity that would likely indicate the presence of contamination on the site or in subsurface materials. Further, the project site has not been listed as a hazardous material release site. The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Impacts related to locating a project on a hazardous materials site would be less than significant. 5. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the city, could cumulatively increase exposure of people, property, and the environment to hazardous materials and interference with emergency response. However, with compliance with all applicable regulations, the project would not contribute to the potential for hazards and hazardous materials impacts under cumulative conditions. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to significant cumulative impacts to human health associated with hazards and hazardous materials or conditions is less than cumulatively considerable. F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. The proposed project would implement site-specific SWPPPs, including construction best management practices (BMPs), during construction in accordance with the Construction General Permit, which would reduce the potential for stormwater to come into contact with pollutants and integrate it into surface water, to the maximum extent practicable. As a result, construction activities would not result in runoff that would exceed the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system capacity or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The proposed storm drain system would provide sufficient volume to treat storm water for water quality purposes and is designed to properly convey the increased runoff attributable to site development. Impacts to existing stormwater drainage facilities during construction would be less than significant. 2. The proposed project would implement site-specific SWPPPs during construction to address site-specific conditions related to construction; identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during construction; and describe the implementation and maintenance of erosion control and sediment control BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment, pollutants adhering to sediment, and other non -sediment pollutants in storm water, as well as non - storm water discharges. Once operational, runoff from the project site would be minimized by implementation of infiltration BMPs, such as directing roof downspouts and other paved areas to drain to natural drainages, using natural drainage swales to convey runoff from impervious surfaces, and landscape areas between sidewalk and curb, where feasible. Bioretention basins are proposed throughout the site to treat runoff from the proposed impervious areas (streets and sidewalks). Thus, implementation of the A-12 SWPPPs and BMPs during construction and operation of the project would minimize erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant. 3. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the project stated while groundwater supplies from the Murrieta -Temecula Groundwater Basin would be used during construction and operation, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) would have sufficient water supplies to accommodate the project's water use during construction and operation. Therefore, the potential impact on local groundwater recharge and supplies from development of the proposed project would be less than significant. 4. While the proposed project is not located within the 100 -year flood zone of Murrieta Creek, the flood damage prevention and floodplain management regulations of the City Development Code (Chapter 15.12 Floodplain Management) apply since the project area is within the western portion of Temecula, which has the potential for mud and debris flows. Before issuance of a building permit, the City would review development plans for future projects to ensure compliance with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. Therefore, impacts related to flooding and mudflows would be less than significant. 5. A small portion of the project area closest to Murrieta Creek may be located in a dam inundation area (City of Temecula 1993) depending on location of proposed developments. All three dams within the vicinity of the project area—Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, and Diamond Valley Lake—could potentially cause flooding in the plan area should they fail. However, to address flood hazards, the City of Temecula has developed a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan which is updated, as needed. This Plan would be put to use in the event of dam failure to ensure the safety of the public. Additionally, the City coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the community. The rare likelihood of such an event in combination with applicable plan and program compliance would reduce any risks of death or loss involving flooding as a result of dam failure to less than significant. 6. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative water quality, runoff, groundwater supplies, and flooding impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. G. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. Potential land use impacts, such as potential impacts related to consistency with plans and policies that are intended to avoid environmental effects, would be project -specific and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. This is also true with regard to land use compatibility impacts, which are generally a function of the relationship between the interactive effects of a specific development site and those of its immediate environment. Therefore, cumulative impacts to land use would be less than significant. A-13 H. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. Operation of the proposed project would not expose persons to or generate groundborne vibration levels in excess of the adopted guidelines and recommendations established by the Federal Transit Administration. Impacts associated with groundborne vibration levels during operation would be less than significant. 2. Operation of the proposed project would not generate traffic noise which would exceed the identified thresholds of significance for all studied roadway segments. Impacts associated with permanent increases in ambient noise related to traffic noise would be less than significant. 3. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with mobile source noise would be less than cumulatively considerable. L POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. In general, the project would accommodate predicted growth, and would not result in a substantial increase in population. The project's residential units would help to meet housing demands from projected population growth in the City and the region. Therefore, the project would result in Tess than significant impacts related to population and housing. 2. Project development in combination with cumulative projects within the City would result in a cumulative increase in population. The proposed project would represent approximately 20 percent of the population increase that would be generated under cumulative conditions. This would exceed the projected 2035 population by Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG) by approximately 10,400 residents. However, growth would be within the population anticipated by the City's General Plan projected development capacity of 166,250 residents. Impacts related to thresholds established by resource agencies that rely on SCAG population projections, such as SCAQMD, are analyzed in the appropriate sections of the Draft EIR. However, given that this growth has been anticipated by the City, the proposed project would not considerably contribute to population and housing impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. J. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. The City's fire department would be able to accommodate the anticipated growth of the project and already owns the necessary equipment to accommodate the increase in building heights. Further, the proposed project would pay development impact fees to enable the expansion of fire protection facilities, the addition of fire protection personnel, and the acquisition of additional fire equipment, as needed to maintain performance standards. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. 2. The proposed project would pay the appropriate development impact fees, which would allow the police department to add additional staff to provide services A-14 to accommodate the growth anticipated with the development of the project. Thus, impacts to police services would be less than significant, 3. The proposed project would pay the developer fees established by the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), which are established at $3.36 per square foot of residential development and $0.54 per square foot or commercial or industrial development. Given the payment of developer fees, existing capacity at the schools in the project area, the construction of an elementary school as a part of the project, and TVUSD's proposed construction of five new schools, TVUSD would be able to accommodate the students generated by the project and would not require further expansion of facilities. Therefore, project impacts to schools are considered to be less than significant. 4. The project would add an estimated 4,603 residents which would increase demand for City -owned park and recreational facilities. New development is required to dedicated park land, pay a fee in -lieu, or a combination, thereof, to provide for the recreational needs of its residents (City of Temecula, Ord. 99-23). Based on the City's formula for park land dedication, and knowing the project could produce a range of dwelling units (870 to 1,750 units), the project, at buildout, would be required to dedicate an estimated 10 to 22 acres of park land, depending on the total number of dwelling units constructed. The required park land dedication, payment of in -lieu fees, or a combination thereof, would offset any adverse impacts associated with the construction of new or expansion of existing recreational facilities to meet the City's General Plan standard of five acres of park land for every 1,000 residents. With payment of the in -lieu fees, dedication of parkland, or a combination of both, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to parks. 5. While the project would increase the demand for library services over the buildout timeframe of 10 years, the population increase generated by the project (approximately 4,603 people max) is accounted for in the City's anticipated population growth forecast of 118,900 people by 2035. The project is anticipated to have minimal impacts on library services and would not affect the County's ability to provide library services or create the need to construct new library facilities or expand existing facilities. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to library services, 6. Given the capacity of the existing healthcare facilities, the population of 4,603 new residents (maximum) generated by the project would be adequately served by the existing facilities. Impacts related to the expansion or provision of additional healthcare facilities would be Tess than significant. 7. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities, A-15 K. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. All development within the Specific Plan area would be required to be designed consistent with City standards, including street design, emergency access, and compatibility of proposed uses. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to hazardous design features or emergency access. L. UTITILIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 1. The residential and commercial land uses proposed by the project would generally not discharge wastewater that contains harmful levels of toxins that are regulated by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) (such as large quantities of pesticides, herbicides, oil, grease, and other chemicals that are more typical in agricultural and industrial uses) and all effluent would comply with the wastewater treatment standards of the SDRWQCB. The project would result in less than significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the SDRWQCB. 2. The Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plan would have sufficient capacity to process the additional average wastewater flow that would be generated by the project at build out. In addition, each project -specific development within in the Specific Plan would be required to pay a sewer service charge to RCWD to maintain and upgrade its system. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 3. The construction of the future individual development within the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the development planning requirements of the SDRWQCB MS4 permit and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. Each future development project would be required to generate a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which would ensure that the project implements specific drainage features in order to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Therefore, impacts to the environment from the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be Tess than significant. 4. The WSA identified a sufficient and reliable water supply for RCWD, now and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for the project (RWCD, 2015b)_ Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources and new or expanded entitlements would not be required. 5. The proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs during construction and operation. Solid waste disposed of during construction activities for the new residential and commercial development would represent 0.004 percent of the remaining capacity (in tons). Solid waste disposed of during operation activities for the A-16 new residential and commercial development would represent 0.07 percent of the daily disposal rate (in tons). The existing capacity of the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill would be sufficient to accommodate solid waste generation from project implementation and impacts would be less than significant. 6. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to water supply or quality, wastewater, stormwater drainage, or solid waste. VI. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The EIR identified the potential for the project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise and Vibration, and Transportation and Traffic. Measures have been identified that would mitigate the specified impacts in each section to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would reduce the project's impacts to a Tess than significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VII. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the project described in the Final EIR as conditions of approval of the project and incorporates those into the project, as discussed more fully in Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A. AESTHETICS 1. Create a new source of light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views. Impact AES -1: The project would create a new source of light and glare throughout the project area. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to new sources of light or glare. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all development within the project area: • Temporary nighttime construction lighting shall be shielded and directed downward such that no light spillage will occur on adjacent properties. A-17 • The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures in public areas contain "sharp cut-off fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and extemal shielding. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the development shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens. o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield. A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting. o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield. o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre. Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the development is in compliance with the design standards in Altair Specific Plan, Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. b. Facts in Support of Findings The proposed project would introduce a new source of light and glare to the project site from lighting for residential and civic buildings, plazas, and streets as well as from cars A-18 traveling through the project site. Also, temporary nighttime construction lighting may be required near the intersection of Vincent Moraga and Rancho Califomia Road (due to traffic on Rancho California Road). There are no sensitive receptors near this intersection; nonetheless, Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 would ensure nighttime construction lighting is shielded and directed downward to avoid light spillage on adjacent properties. The proposed project is located approximately 20 miles from the Palomar Observatory. The project would be required to comply with the Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance (Riverside County's Light Pollution Ordinance No. 655), which requires a variety of measures, as outlined in Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1, including the preparation of an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan, to reduce the effects of light pollution from nighttime light sources. However, given the proposed density and intensity of the project, new development would increase nighttime light sources. According to Ordinance No. 655, the project site is located in Zone B (45 -mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone). Ordinance No. 655 includes requirements for lessening "sky glow" from nighttime Tight sources and identifies specific measures for projects within Zone B, including lighting from parking Tots and advertising displays being fully shielded to lessen light that is omitted within the vicinity of the Palomar Observatory. Additionally, application of the design guidelines outlined in Chapter 9, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan include variations in street materials and outdoor lighting controls. For example, light fixtures shall incorporate cut-offs and appropriate lenses to eliminate glare and light spillover tbs„„ adjacent properties to reduce potential impacts associated with light and glare. Along with compliance with Ordinance No. 665, Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 would ensure that new sources of light and glare would be designed and installed to minimize light pollution and to reduce effects of light pollution to sensitive receptors. B. AIR QUALITY 1. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations During Construction. Impact AQ -2: Emissions of localized criteria pollutants from construction of the project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to localized construction criteria air pollutants. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential air quality impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2: The site shall be watered four times per day during ground disturbance (grading) activities for all project development phases. During drought conditions, defined as Water Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by the Rancho California Water A-19 District, use of reclaimed water or non -water chemical stabilizers shall be implemented such that fugitive emissions reductions are comparable. Permission to use potable water for dust control activities during drought conditions shall be granted by the City of Temecula Building Official if the General Contractor shows in writing that (1) Reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from recycled wastewater treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site; and (2) Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from wells and groundwater sources located within 10 miles of the construction site. b. Facts in Support of Findings Daily onsite construction emissions generated by the project were evaluated against SCAQMD's LSTs for a 3.5 -acre site to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. 1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are the multi -family residential dwelling units located directly adjacent to the project site on the east. Additionally, the project itself would also introduce sensitive receptors (e.g., residential and school uses) once the individual development phases are completed. Daily unmitigated, localized onsite emissions anticipated to occur during the project's worst-case construction scenario were estimated and are shown in Table 3.2- 10 (refer to the Draft EIR). As summarized in Table 3.2-10, daily unmitigated emissions generated onsite by the proposed project's worst-case construction scenario would exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST for PM2.5 for a 3.5 -acre site in SRA 26, during the site preparation sub - phase. The emissions for the remaining pollutants of concem (NOx, CO, and PMio) would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs in any construction year. As the project's worst- case construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD's applicable LST for PM2.5, the localized air quality impacts associated with PM2,5 would be potentially significant. Localized impacts for NOx, CO, and PMio would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2 would require the use water or reclaimed water and/or non -water chemical stabilizers during drought conditions to reduce fugitive dust emissions during ground disturbance activities for all project development phases. The General Contractor shall obtain permission from the City of Temecula Building Official to use potable water if reclaimed water or well water/groundwater is not available for fugitive dust control activities during drought conditions. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2, the total onsite emissions of PM2.5 generated during the site preparation sub -phase would be reduced to below the SCAQMD's applicable LST for a 3.5 -acre site. The total mitigated PM2.5 emissions that would result from implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2 during project construction in 2016 are shown in Table 3.2-11 (refer to the Draft EIR). While only the reduction of PM2.5 for 2016 is shown, According to SCAQMD's LST methodology, LSTs are only applicable to the onsite construction emissions that are generated by a project and do not apply to emissions generated offsite such as mobile emissions on roadways from worker, vendor, and haul truck trips. A-20 Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2 would also reduce PM,o and PM2.5 emissions from all site preparation and grading construction sub -phases. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM - AQ -2 would ensure that localized air quality impacts associated with PM2.5 would be reduced to below the established LST. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Impacts to Migratory Birds and Special -Status Wildlife Impacts 6I0-1: Activities associated with construction of the project could have a significant impact on special status avian wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to migratory birds and special status species. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-BI0-1: To the extent feasible, clearing and grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian breeding season, which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If clearing and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season, a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys. The survey shall occur no more than 7 days prior to any clearing, grubbing, construction or ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project area, the nest shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own and are no longer relying on the nest for survival). A 500 -foot construction setback from any active raptor nesting location (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified biologist. A 300 -foot construction setback (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, and the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be established for all other migratory birds. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. All construction setbacks shall be clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate material (flagging, staking, construction fencing, A-21 etc.) and verified by a qualified biologist. Such fencing shall be maintained and monitored until the nest is confirmed to be inactive. If an avoidance buffer is not feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City, noise walls or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent disturbance to the nest. b. Facts in Support of Findings Activities associated with construction of the project may potentially impact special status wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, California gnatcatcher, and California horned lark, which were observed or recorded on or near the Project. Direct and indirect impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds could occur during construction through the removal of suitable habitat, including mature trees and shrubs if habitat clearing were to occur during breeding season. Potential direct impacts include the destruction of active nests; potential indirect impacts include interference with reproductive success due to noise, vibration, and/or visual disturbances. The MTBA and the CFGC (3503 and 3503.5) consider the loss of active nests (nests with eggs or young) of all native bird species unlawful. Consequently, the potential loss or abandonment of nests of bird species as a result of construction -related activities would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1 would minimize clearing and grubbing activities within the avian breeding season (February 1 to September 15) to the extent feasible, If clearing and grubbing activities have to occur during the breeding season, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1 requires the retention of a qualified biologist and establishes the appropriate protocol for focused surveys of active nests as well as the various construction buffers required based on nests' conditions. While avoidance of the active nest during construction is the ideal condition, if avoidance is not feasible, Mitigation Measure MM - BIO -1 requires the installation of noise walls or other noise attenuation devices to prevent disturbance to any active nest during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1 would ensure that any potentially significant impacts to migratory birds or special -status species, specifically Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark, would be reduced to a less than significant level. 2. Impacts to Burrowing Owls Impact BIO -2: The project could have a significant impact on burrowing owl or suitable burrowing owl habitat during construction. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl habitat during construction. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. A-22 Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Suitable burrowing owl habitat identified on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (EPD, 2006) no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine presence or absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified, no additional mitigation is necessary and activities may commence. If a burrowing owl is detected, the City of Temecula and the RCA will be notified. If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the applicant shall implement the following measure: • Take of active nests shall be avoided. Passive or active relocation (use of one way doors and collapse of burrows), as approved by the RCA, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 - August 31). If active relocation is selected, translocation sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. Translocation sites will be identified, taking into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species. Selected translocation sites shall be coordinated with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to translocation site development. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project falls within a Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CASSA) per Sections 6.1.3 and 3.3.2 of the MSHCP for burrowing owl, thus a protocol -level survey was performed for burrowing owl. No burrowing owls were detected or observed during the focused surveys. However, suitable habitat occurs within the upland vegetation communities and disturbed habitat across the project site. Burrowing owls may colonize the project site between the completion of focused surveys and the start of construction. Individuals present during ground disturbing activities have the potential to be killed through burrow collapse from construction equipment or vehicles. MSHCP protocol within the CASSA for burrowing owl requires a pre -construction clearance survey if burrows or suitable habitat exist regardless of positive or negative finding. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2 requires that a qualified biologist conduct surveys of all suitable burrowing owl habitat identified on within the project area no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owls. If active nest are identified during surveys, take of active nest shall be avoided and passive or active relocation, as approved by the Regional Conservation Authority, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 - August 31). Coordination with CDFW and USFWS shall occur prior to translocation of burrowing owls. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2 would ensure that any potentially A-23 significant impact to burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl habitat would be minimized to the extent feasible and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 3. Impacts to Mountain Lions Impact BIO -3: The urban/wildland interface associated with the construction and operation of the project could have a significant effect on mountain lions and other wildlife. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to mountain lions. Specifically, the following measure as well as the mitigation measures established in other sections or for other issue topics (MM -AES -1, MM -BIO -6b, MM -BIO -7a, MM -BIO -7b, MM - BIO -7c, MM -N01-1 a and MM -N01 -1b) have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3: The following Best Management Practices shall be adhered to: • Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, or grading permit for the project, a qualified biologist (Project Biologist) with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites, shall be retained by the applicant to oversee compliance with the protection and avoidance measures for biological issues associated with the project. The Project Biologist shall have the authority to halt construction activities in the event of non-compliance. • The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to: vegetation removal, tree removal or trimming, grading, and restoration landscaping to ensure project activities remain in compliance with all applicable biological resource permits. • Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife species shall be prohibited. • Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the project site, and from feeding wildlife. • Proposed and existing Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Areas shall be protected in place by the installation of orange silt fencing. Fencing shall be maintained in working order and inspected weekly. Fencing repair shall occur within 2 working days following inspection. A-24 • All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and trash removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens and feral cats and dogs. • All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas beyond 100 feet of any drainage course, and be contained using appropriate protection measures. • Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project -proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. Nighttime construction which does occur outside these areas shall use directional lighting to minimize the impacts of increased artificial nighttime lighting. • All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than 45 minutes to minimize ambient noise produced by the project. b. Facts in Support of Findings The MSHCP promotes the conservation and recovery of biological resources in western Riverside County and provides coverage for Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) incidental take for listed species. Project impacts to the mountain lion and other wildlife are mitigated through the existing MSHCP under an existing incidental take permit. The project is subject to the UrbaniWildland Interface Guidelines in the MSHCP, Section 6.1.4. In addition to compliance with the MSHCP, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3 would require that the best management practices listed above are implemented to minimize impacts to mountain lions and other wildlife during construction. Consistency with the MSHCP Guidelines and implementation of the Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3 would ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts on mountain lions and other wildlife. 4. Impacts to Riparian or Riverine Habitat Impact BIO -4: Implementation of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian/riverine habitat and federally protected wetlands. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to riparian/riverine habitat and federally protected wetlands. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary agency permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters, wetlands and riparian resources, including USAGE, CDFW, and SDRWQCB. Impacts to riparian habitat shall be A-25 mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to unvegetated channel shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options: on- or off-site habitat restoration; purchase of credits from an in - lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective resource agencies (USAGE, SDRWQCB, and CDFW), it shall be prepared according to agency requirements and shall include, at a minimum, the following information: • Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas • An evaluation of the existing function and values, and a description of the function and values to be achieved through compensatory mitigation • Detailed plant and seed mix requirements • Detailed planting plan • Specific and measurable five-year success criteria • Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements • Invasive species management • Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of irrigation for at least two years prior to final sign -off • Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4b: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, a DBESP shall be approved by the RCA to address impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. The DBESP shall include the following information: • Definition of the project area • A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible • A written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping • Quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools associated with the project, including direct and indirect effects • A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects, such as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation difference, minimization and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement • A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted, used for comparison of biological equivalency A-26 • A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation, including habitat type, location, functional lift, and long-term stewardship responsibility • A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts, the habitat mitigation would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which is being impacted and would result in a net equivalent or superior ecological condition b. Facts in Support of Findings As outlined in Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4a, the project is required to compensate for impacts to riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio and impacts to unvegetated channel at a 1:1 ratio. The mitigation ratio and method will ultimately be determined during the wetland permitting process through the USACE, SDRWQCB, and CDFW, as applicable. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4b requires a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) be prepared in accordance with the guidelines established above and approved by the RCA to address project impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM - BIO -4a and MM -BIO -4b would ensure project impacts to riparian/riverine and federally protected wetlands would be in compliance with state and federal regulatory agency requirements and would be adequately mitigated to a less than significant level. 5. Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Habitat Impact BIO -6: Implementation of the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to sensitive vegetation communities and habitat. Specifically, the following measure and Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, and MM -BIO -7c have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to Tess than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -6a: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, or any phase thereof, the applicant shall pay Local Development Mitigation fees, as determined by the City of Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15, to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species. As provided for in the RCA's applicable fee ordinance and/or adopted resolutions, the applicant may request discretionary approval from the RCA fee credits for land conserved onsite that contributes toward the Reserve Assembly of the MSHCP. Any such A-27 request and approval shall not otherwise diminish or void the applicant's obligation to pay the required Local Development Mitigation fees. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO 6b: At the time of final map recordation for the project, or any phase thereof, lands identified to contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project (Conserved Lands) and included on the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the RCA or deed transfer of said parcels to the RCA, Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The project shall conserve onsite a minimum of 82.77 acres, which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to include Cells 7077, 7161, 7078, 7164, 7258, 7264, 7355 and 7356. b. Facts in Support of Findings Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -6a and MM -BIO -6b require the payment of development mitigation fees and the conservation of lands in favor of the Western Riverside RCA, which would ensure that the project has adequately mitigated for impacts to sensitive habitat covered under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 6. Impacts to Wildlife Corridors Impacts BIO -7 and BIO -8: The project could interfere with the movement of wildlife species, and with established migratory wildlife corridors. The project could have direct and indirect impacts to the movement of mountain lion and other wildlife in Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to wildlife corridors, including Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Specifically, the following measures and Mitigation Measures MM -AES -1, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -6b, MM - N01 -1a, MM -N01-1 b and MM -N01-3 have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7a: The portion of Camino Estribo that lies between the South Parcel and the main development area within the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular speeds. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7b: The applicant shall install permanent fencing along the Western Bypass where the Bypass right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSHCP Conserved Lands, to keep animals within the wildlife corridor. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed A-28 fencing plan for review and approval by the City Community Development Department, RCA, CDFW, and USFWS. The fencing plan shall include, at a minimum, the fencing location, fencing specifications, plant list, and method and timing of installation. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7c: A Slope Revegetation Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. The Plan shall be submitted for approval to the City Community Development Department prior to the construction of the Western Bypass. The Plan shall include, at a minimum: • The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to the first six inches along selected portions of the ground disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in restoring disturbed areas • Equipment and methods for planting • A planting plan, including the amount and species of seed necessary to revegetate the target habitat types • Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year period following installation • Specific BMPS for erosion control during and after revegetation • A requirement for five years of maintenance of the revegetated areas, including removal of invasive species and irrigation (if necessary) • A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance with the success criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using an adaptive management approach • Identification of entity responsible for installation, maintenance, and monitoring b. Facts in Support of Findings Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -7a through MM -BIO -7c would reduce impacts to Linkage 10 by conserving approximately 83 acres of land onsite within Linkage 10; retaining Camino Estribo as a dirt road to slow any traffic; installing permanent fencing between Conserved Lands and the Western Bypass to reduce potential human/wildlife interaction; and revegetating graded slopes along the Western Bypass abutting existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas within Proposed Linkage 10 to maximize the wildlife corridor width and functionality. The project would also be required to adhere to the Urban/1lVildland Interface Guidelines in the Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Application of project design features that include locating the proposed Western Bypass as far to the east as feasible, consistency with the UrbanlWildland Interface Guidelines as required in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, and implementation of the Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -7a A-29 through MM -BIO -7c would ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Linkage 10. Project features that would buffer wildlife activity along Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 include dense plantings on top of an approximately 10 -foot high berm on the southern side of the building area of the South Parcel, and the installation of "living walls" (green walls or modular vegetated walls) on the south and west sides of buildings located on perimeter Tots associated with the South Parcel. The project would also be required to adhere to the UrbanNVildland Interface Guidelines in the Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AES -1, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -6b, MM-NOI-1 a, MM-NOI-1 b and MM -N01-3 would safeguard and minimize impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Application of project features, consistency with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines as required in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would result in Tess than significant impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. 7. Conflicts with Provisions of Local Policies and Conservation Plans Western Riverside County MSHCP Impact BIO -9: The project would have an onsite shortfall of conserved acres for impacts to riparian and grassland habitat. Impact BIO -10: Project impacts to riparian/riverine habitat could result in the project being inconsistent with the MSHCP_ Impact BIO -11: Project impacts at urban/wildland interface areas could result in the project being inconsistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. Impact BIO -12: The project could have a significant effect on Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, and, therefore, could be inconsistent with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors. Impact BIO -13: Project design and construction of the Western Bypass, a Covered Activity, could result in the project being inconsistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria of the MSHCP. a. Findings The project has a potential to conflict with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the potential conflicts stated above with the MSHCP. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1, MM -BIO -2, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, MM - BIO -6a through MM -BIO -7c, MM -N01 -1a, MM -N01 -1b, MM -N01-3, MM -HYD -1, MM- A -30 HYD -2, and MM -HYD -3 are imposed on the project to ensure that project impacts are less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings The MSHCP protects and preserves certain habitats and species in the region. The project falls within the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project is consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly goals as determined by the Area Plan Subregional analysis contained in the Draft EIR, in conjunction with the proposed Project Conservation Features. Implementation of the mitigation measures above would ensure that the project is consistent with the MSHCP as the project would be in Rough Step with the MSHCP reserve goals; implement mitigation for impacts to riparian and riverine habitat; and would be consistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (Impacts BIO 9-11). In regards to consistency with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors, Proposed Linkage 10 and Propose Constrained Linkage 13, application of project features and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would require the such things as Tight and glare standards for the development; permanent fencing between Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; conservation of land within Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; noise reduction measures and application of BMPs during construction; slope revegetation for manufactured slopes along the edge of Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; and adherence to operational exterior noise standards. Incorporation of the above referenced mitigation measures would align the project with the goals and requirements of the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors (Impact BIO -12). With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1, MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, MM - BIO -6b, MM -BIO -7c, the project would be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria, Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP, as shown in the consistency analysis on page 3.3-65 and 3.3-66 in Section 3.3, Biological Resources (see Draft EIR). Therefore, implementation of the referenced above mitigation measures would allow for the redesign of the Western Bypass to be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria and impacts would be less than significant (Impact BIO -12). 8. Cumulative Biological Impacts a. Findings The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development within the jurisdiction of the MSHCP, could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to biological resources, especially special status wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities and wildlife corridors. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to biological resources. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -4a, A-31 MM -BIO -4b, MM -BIO -6a, MM -BIO -6b, MM -BIO -7a, MM -BIO -7b, and MM -BIO -7c would reduce impacts to less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings Development of the proposed project would contribute to the urbanization of the City of Temecula. The City, along with other jurisdictions in western Riverside County, participates in the MSHCP. The MSHCP is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in western Riverside County. Project compliance with the MSHCP fully mitigates for impacts on covered species and ensures Targe segments of natural communities in western Riverside County will be preserved. As such, participation in and compliance with the MSHCP ensures the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be Tess than cumulatively considerable. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Historical and Archaeological Resources Impact CUL -1: The project area is considered moderately to highly sensitive for cultural resources. In addition, a portion of the project area is within the Origin Landscape Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), one of the most sacred areas for the Pechanga Tribe. The lack of identified intact subsurface archaeological materials reduces the likelihood of encountering buried archaeological resources during project implementation, but does not preclude the possibility that archaeological resources may be present in areas not subject to archaeological investigation. In the event that archaeological resources are inadvertently encountered during project implementation, disturbances to such resources could result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Disturbances to archaeological resources would require consideration of impacts to any archaeological resources individually and as contributors to the larger National Register -listed archaeological district (P-33-11443 — MCAA), as well as consideration as contributors to the National Register -listed Origin Landscape TCP. a. Findings The proposed project has a potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical and archaeological resources. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant effects to historical and archaeological resources. The project applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of the required mitigation measures and the City shall ensure applicant compliance with the measures. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's impacts are Tess than significant. A-32 Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -la — Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1b - Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -lc — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training: The qualified archeologist or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new A-33 construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1d — Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -la and Ib. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and Native American Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly Togs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -le — Unanticipated Discovery: If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083,2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is A-34 determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -lb. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -If - Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP: The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project area was investigated by a professional archaeologist, who concluded that seven known cultural resources are located within the project area. Ground -disturbing activities during construction and development of the project would have the potential to uncover previously unidentified archaeological resources within the project area. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1 a through MM -CUL -1d requires the retention of a qualified archaeologist and a professional Pechanga Tribal monitor, completion of preconstruction cultural resources training, archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitoring during ground -disturbing activities, and the resurvey of the South Parcel after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. Also, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1e establishes the appropriate protocol in the event of an inadvertent discovery of buried cultural resource. If cultural resources are discovered, work must halt immediately within 100 feet of the discovery and avoidance or mitigation is required as appropriate based on a determination of the Tribe member and archaeologist. Specific to the Origin Landscape TCP, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f mandates that the City and the Project Application shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Origin Landscape TCP south of the proposed Civic Center area. If activities which could affect the integrity of the TCP should be proposed, the City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation. As such, this mitigation measure would ensure that any potential unanticipated impacts to historical and archaeological resources are reduced to Tess than significant. A-35 2 Impacts to Paleontological Resources Impact CUL -2: The potential exists for unique paleontological resources to be located beneath the ground surface in the project area, specifically within the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp), which has high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Construction activities could result in the inadvertent discovery and damage of these paleontological resources, which would be a significant impact. a. Findings The proposed project has a potential to result in impacts to a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to paleontological resources. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential cultural and paleontological resource impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP): The applicant shall implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot- checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and A-36 mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2b — Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project area is underlain by Jurassic to Cretaceous metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, Cretaceous granodiorites, and the Pauba Formation (both the fanglomerate and sandstone facies). Although the Jurassic to Cretaceous metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, Cretaceous granodiorite of Rainbow, and Pauba Formation fanglomerate have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources, the Pauba Formation sandstone facies is considered to have high sensitivity and the Pauba Formation fanglomerate is considered to have undetermined sensitivity per the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines. The paleontological records search (see Kennedy and Wirths 2013) and the research conducted for this analysis indicate that fossil localities have been documented in the vicinity of the project area. In accordance with the City's General Plan (Implementation Program OS -26), Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -2a and MM -CUL -2b would require the preparation and implementation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) during project implementation as well as establishes the appropriate protocol in the event of an inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. As such, if project construction uncovers any unanticipated paleontological resources, these mitigation measures would ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant. 3. Impacts to Human Remains Impact CUL -3: Because the proposed project would involve ground - disturbing activities, it is possible that such actions could unearth, expose, or disturb previously unknown human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery. a. Findings Construction of the proposed project has a potential to disturb human remains. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to human remains. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain Tess than significant. A-37 Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains: If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. b. Facts in Support of Findings Although no human remains have been identified on the project Site, implementation of the proposed project would include ground -disturbing construction activities that could result in the inadvertent disturbance of currently undiscovered human remains. Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands are mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and by CEQA in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e). According to these provisions, should human remains be encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The remains are required to be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and their disposition has been made. The Riverside County Coroner would be immediately notified, and the coroner would then determine whether the remains are Native American. Any discovery of human remains within the project Site would be subject to these procedural requirements. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 expressly requires that construction work halt if human remains are identified. Compliance with these requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 would ensure impacts to human remains would be Tess than significant. A-38 4. Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts a. Findings The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development within the City of Temecula, could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources and buried human remains. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to cultural resources. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1 a through MM - CUL -1f, MM -CUL -2a, MM -CUL -2b, and MM -CUL -3 would reduce impacts to less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the City of Temecula could occur if the project and other cumulative projects had or would have impacts on cultural resources that, when considered together, would be cumulatively significant. The project vicinity contains a significant archaeological and historical record that, in many cases, has not been well documented or recorded. Thus, there is the potential for ongoing and future development projects in the vicinity to disturb known or unknown cultural resources, including archaeological sites, historic -period built resources, and resources of traditional and cultural significance to Native American tribes. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -la through MM -CUL -le would ensure that any potentially significant impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a Tess than significant level by implementing the appropriate archaeological protocols and methods. Three of the identified cumulative projects (refer to Table 4-1 in the Draft EIR) are within the Origin Landscape TCP. The majority of the Origin Landscape TCP is located within the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which is protected from significant development; therefore most of the Origin Landscape TCP would not be impacted by past, present, or future development. The three cumulative projects within the Origin Landscape TCP would be expected to have similar impacts on the TCP, and would likely incorporate similar mitigation measures as the proposed project (Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f). The proposed project includes several mitigation measures that reduce potential impacts to the TCP to less than significant, at the project level. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the project's contribution to a cumulative impact would less than cumulatively considerable. Excavation activities associated with the project and cumulative projects could contribute to the progressive Toss of fossil remains, at -yet unrecorded fossil sites, associated geological and geographic data, and fossil bearing strata. The project would have a less than significant impact to paleontological resources with incorporation of mitigation measures (MM -CUL -2a and MM -CUL -2b). With the implementation of these measures, the projects contribution to cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would be less than cumulatively considerable. A-39 1. Consistency with GHG Emissions Reduction Plans or Policies Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 would mitigate the project's potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and the project's contribution to a cumulative impact to human remains would less than cumulatively considerable. E. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS Impact GHG-2: The project could potentially conflict with the goals of the City of Temecula's Sustainability Plan to reduce GHG emissions. a. Findings Implementation of the proposed project could potentially conflict with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan and the Temecula Sustainability Plan. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to consistency with a GHG Reduction Pian or Policy to less than significant. Specifically. the following measure as well as Mitigation Measures MM -AQ -1 a through MM -AQ -1 e have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain Tess than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the project applicant shall submit an application for a Pre -Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. If the application meets the LEED- ND prerequisites, the project applicant shall continue with the certification, and the project shall receive a minimum base -level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build -out. If Pre -Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied, the project applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen -percent (15%) reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards by undertaking the following: 1) Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations; 2) Subsidize public transit and expand transit network (e.g., help fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share programs); 3) Provide an enhanced pedestrian network, including pedestrian connections to the local community; 4) Provide traffic calming measures and urban non -motorized zones; 5) Install bicycle parking and storage, as well as dedicated bike lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas; A-40 6) Prohibit wood -burning fireplaces; 7) Where practicable, install or ensure facilities are compatible with renewable energy (e.g. solar photovoltaics); 8) Install energy efficient boilers and appliances, including programmable thermostat timers; 9) Install energy efficient street and area lighting, including LED traffic lights, motion detection lighting, and limited outdoor lighting for security and safety purposes; 10) Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard equipment; 11) Provide for use of reclaimed water; 12) Install low -flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures (e.g., faucets, toilets, and showers); 13) Install water efficient irrigation systems; 14) Where practicable, reuse or recycle materials from operation and construction activities. b. Facts in Support of Findings Out of the Recommended Actions contained in CARB's Scoping Plan, the actions that are most applicable to the project would be Actions E-1 (increased Utility Energy efficiency programs including more stringent building and appliance standards), GB -1 (Green building), and W-1 (Increased water use efficiency). CARB Scoping Plan Action E-1, together with Action GB -1 (Green Building), aims to reduce electricity demand by increased efficiency of Utility Energy Programs and adoption of more stringent building and appliance standards, while Action W-1 aims to promote water use efficiency. The project would be designed to comply with the CALGreen Code to ensure that the new residential and non-residential uses would use resources (energy, water, etc.) efficiently and significantly reduce pollution and waste. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM - AQ -1d would further require that buildings implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2016 Title 24 standards by 15 percent or include onsite renewable energy, such as the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset, both of which are reflected in the emission inventory for the project presented in Table 3.6-2 (refer to the Draft EIR). Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Scoping Plan measures through incorporation of stricter building and appliance standards. The Sustainability Plan is designed as a blueprint by which the City of Temecula can address sustainability and climate change by setting targets for GHG reductions, energy A-41 and water use, growth planning, reducing waste and championing emerging technologies. The initiatives contained in the Sustainability Plan include a variety of goals aimed at reducing GHG emissions city-wide and advancing development that enhances the pedestrian and transit environment. The project, which would be subject to the building requirements of the CALGreen Code, would support the City's effort of reducing GHG emissions related to energy demand. Also, the Specific Plan includes many elements that would serve to promote alternatives to vehicle use or otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions consistent with the Sustainability Pian. Additionally, eliminating hearths will also reduce GHG emissions. Increasing energy efficiency over Title 24 or incorporating renewable energy sources onsite, as identified in Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1d, will also provide a reduction in GHG emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-GHG- 1 would require the Project Applicant to apply to obtain at minimum base -level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build -out; if the project is denied the LEED-ND certification, the Project Sponsor will be deemed to have exercised best efforts to achieve full certification and no further action is required. With incorporation of the mentioned above mitigation measures, the project would include to the maximum extent feasible technologies and means to reduce GHG emissions and would be consistent with all applicable GHG emission reduction plans. F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Hazards associated with Wildfires Impact HAZ-1: The project site is near a high fire hazard area which could increase the threat of wildfire on human populations and property. a. Findings The project site is near a high fire hazard area, where development and residents could be at an increased risk of damage from wildfires. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from wildfires to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that development of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to wildfires. Measure MM-HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Fire Modification Plan (FMP) for the project to the City Community Development and Fire Departments for review and approval. The FMP shall address areas within the project boundary that are adjacent to a proposed Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Area. The FMP shall include, without limitation, the following information and standards: A-42 • Environmental setting that describes the topography and geology, climate, flammable vegetation in and around the project site, water supply for fire protection, fire access roads, and fire protection systems and equipment • General description of fire behavior in the project area based on such factors as predominant fuel types, topography and climate • The establishment of a 100 -foot wide fuel modification area located within the project boundary for land adjacent to a proposed MSHCP Conservation Area • A fuel modification area shall have two distinct fuel modification zones: Zone 1 and Zone 2 • A site plan identifying the location of the fuel modification area and zones • Zone 1 shall extend 30 feet from any habitable structure; Zone 2 shall extend 70 feet beyond Zone 1 • Zone 1 shall include the following minimum standards: No habitable structures o New construction (i.e. fences, walls, gazebos) must be non- combustible and/or have a minimum 1 -hour fire rating o Plants should be primarily low growing (less than 4 feet in height), low -fuel, and fire resistant Regular Maintenance to include thinning and pruning of trees and plants • Zone 2 shall include the following minimum standards: Regular maintenance to include selective thinning and pruning of native and nonnative plants to reduce fuel load • A list of plants not recommended to be used within the fuel modification zones • Identification of entity responsible for regular maintenance b. Facts in Support of Findings According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Map Data, a portion of the project is near a High Fire Hazard Area. The Western Bypass will serve as a fire break between wildland areas and proposed development. In addition, mitigation measure HAZ- 1 requires that a Fuel Modification Plan 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 would be 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. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant. G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Operational Impacts to Stormwater Runoff and Drainage System Capacity Impact HYD -1: Future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan could result in impacts to hydrology. a. Findings Operation of the proposed project has a potential to affect stormwater runoff and drainage system capacity. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to hydrological impacts to Tess than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County, and engineering standards. The final study shall identify storm water runoff quantities from the development of this site, and shall identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property or any substantial adverse change in receiving water quality or habitat values; the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities and any features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff impacts. Features to be included in the site design shall conform with the City of Temecula MS4 permit and Stormwater Ordinance, and may include, for example: A-44 1) Non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs; 2) Infiltration basins, detention basins, vegetated swales, and media filters; 3) Pervious concrete, storm drain stenciling or signage, protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall; and 4) Other low impact development (LID) BMPs, including measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity, then onsite detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls shall be required as needed to avoid damage to public or private property and alterations in water quality or habitat values. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project proposes an onsite storm drainage system to collect and transfer storm flows through the site as required by the City of Temecula. The onsite storm drainage system would be a dual system that would minimize the potential comingling of runoff from the developed and non-developed areas of the project as urban stormwater would be required to be treated while runoff from non-developed areas would not. This secondary system would collect and carry storm flows from the natural open spaces west of the proposed Western Bypass, through the project site, and directly into Murrieta Creek. The other storm drain system would collect and treat surface runoff from the proposed development, before exiting the site. The presence of new development within the project area and changes in the extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction and volume of overland flows during both wet and dry periods. A preliminary drainage study has already been prepared for the site to determine the peak post -developed onsite 100 -year flow rates for the site. Preliminary hydrologic analyses have been performed for Altair. The analyses determined since the majority of the project discharges directly into Murrieta Creek, detention should not be required. However, existing condition analyses have not been performed, Mitigation Measure HYD -1 requires that a final drainage study be prepared by an engineer that will identify existing conditions and will verify the capacity of the existing receiving drainage facilities. If the receiving facilities are determined to under capacity, then detention would be considered. Further, overland flows and drainage at each development would be assessed and drainage facilities designed such that development project within the project site would be required to implement low impact design (LID) BMPs that are designed to retain onsite the pollutants contained in the volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour, 85th percentile storm event; and post -project runoff conditions would not exceed pre - development runoff conditions by more than 10 percent. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 and adherence to the requirements found in the MS4 permit would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur and that the existing A-45 capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded. Impacts would be less than significant. 2. Construction Impacts to Water Quality and Water Quality Standards Impact HYD -2: Construction of future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan could result in impacts to water quality. a. Findings Construction of the proposed project has a potential to violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to water quality and water quality impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2: The developer shall obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. When the anticipated total construction disturbance would be greater than one acre, the Construction General Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, which would examine existing site conditions, identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during construction and would describe the implementation and maintenance of erosion control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or other pollutants to mix with storm water runoff during construction. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project would be developed in three phases over an approximate 10 -year time frame, with the phased construction of streets, utilities and other infrastructure, as needed, for each respective phase. Construction of each phase is estimated to take approximately three years to complete. Construction activities associated with new development would involve earthwork activities, including grading and stockpiling of soils. Disturbance of soils formerly protected with vegetation or covered by asphalt or concrete could become exposed to winds or water flows that could result in the discharge of sedimentation and/or pollutants which would degrade surface water quality. Furthermore, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction -related building materials and chemicals, such as concrete, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, which would result in a significant impact to surface water quality. A-46 However, according to Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2, when the anticipated total construction disturbance would be greater than one acre, the developer would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires the development to prepare and implement a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The QSD prepared SWPPP would identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges during construction and describe the implementation and maintenance various BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or pollutants to come into contact with stormwater runoff during construction. The common types of construction BMPs that would likely be included in the project -specific SWPPP include sediment, erosion, and waste management BMPs, as described further in Table 3.8-5 (refer to the Draft EIR). The QSD would ensure the SWPPP is designed such that the environment is protected to the maximum extent practicable throughout the entirety of construction. In addition, the Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities, as required by the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would be amended and BMPs revised, as determined necessary through field inspections, to protect against substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Developments disturbing Tess than one acre would not be required to comply with the Construction General Permit, but would be required to submit a facility construction BMP plan per SDWQCB MS4 Permit requirements at the time of construction. The construction BMP plan would detail seasonally appropriate and effective BMPs for construction of individual projects and would require approval from the City of Temecula. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2 and compliance with the above referenced regulations, construction -related impacts to water quality from the project would be Tess than significant. 3. Operation Impacts to Water Quality and Water Quality Standards Impact HYD -3: Operation of future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan could result in impacts to water quality. a. Findings Operation of the proposed project has a potential to violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to water quality and water quality impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff A-47 Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each project -specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project would include a residential mixed-use development with supporting civic uses and open space. The introduction of residential and commercial uses to an area previously containing open space uses would introduce the potential for new pollutants associated with residential and commercial uses to be generated in the area. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters either directly or during storm water runoff events, resulting in degradation of surface water quality. The waterbody near the project area (Murrieta Creek) is currently listed as impaired on the EPA's 303(d) list by point, nonpoint and urban runoff sources, including metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity. Operation of the project could create new or exacerbate existing impairments within this waterbodies, which would result in a significant impact related to water quality. However, operation of future developments within the project site would be required to comply with the development planning requirements of the SDRWQCB MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. These include implementation of non-structural, structural, and source control and treatment control BMPs during the planning process prior to project approval for development projects. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared that identifies the BMPs for stormwater treatment facilities, source control, and site design (Appendix G of the Draft EIR). The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project -specific constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of storm water runoff. The runoff from the proposed developed surfaces would be treated for water quality purposes. The proposed treatment train would incorporate a variety of biofiltration and bioretention facilities along with bioswales where feasible to reduce any potential water quality impacts on Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River Watershed. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3 would require each future development proposed under the Specific Plan to prepare and implement a project -specific WQMP to ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each future development proposal occurring under the proposed Specific Plan would be assessed individually to ensure compliance with applicable NPDES requirements. Implementation of site-specific source control and treatment control BMPs in accordance with the SDRWQCB MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance, per Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3, would remove potential pollutants from runoff and would not contribute additional pollutant loads into receiving waters. The SDRWQCB MS4 permit and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance require that each project -specific A-48 WQMP shall include a drainage hydrologic/hydraulic analysis that details the site's anticipated runoff calculations. With implementation of these requirements, the individual development projects that would be implemented by the proposed Specific Plan would not result in adverse impacts to water quality during project operation. Impacts would be less than significant. H. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. Conflicts with Provisions of an HCP or NCCP Impact LU -1: The project could be inconsistent with the MSHCP goals and objectives governing the assembly of conservation lands, wildlife linkages, and riparian/riverine resources. The project's potential impacts to or conflicts with the Western Riverside County MSHCP are discussed in the Biological Resources section above to address the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G standard of whether the project would conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Nonetheless, the EIR restates this standard of significance in its Land Use and Planning analysis without additional discussion. As such, the project's potential impacts to or conflicts with the Western Riverside County MSHCP are presented again here. a. Findings The project has a potential to be inconsistent with the MSHCP goals and objectives governing the assembly of conservation lands, wildlife linkages, and riparian/riverine resources. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to conflicts with a habitat conservation plan. Specifically, Mitigation Measures MM -BIO - 1, MM -BIO -2, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, MM -BIO -6a, MM -BIO -6b, MM -BIO - 7a, MM -BIO -7b, MM -BIO -7c, AES -1, NOI-1 a, NOI-1 b, and NOI-31 b, described in the Aesthetics, Biological Resources, and Noise and Vibration sections, would ensure that the project would be consistent with all applicable guidelines of the MSHCP and impacts would be Tess than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings The MSHCP protects and preserves certain habitats and species in the region. The project falls within the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project is consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly goals as determined by the Area Plan Subregional analysis contained in the Draft EIR, in conjunction with the proposed Project Conservation Features. Implementation of the mitigation measures above would ensure that the project is consistent with the MSHCP as the project would be in Rough Step with the MSHCP reserve goals; implement mitigation for impacts to riparian and riverine habitat; and would be consistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. A-49 In regards to consistency with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors, Proposed Linkage 10 and Propose Constrained Linkage 13, application of project features and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would require the such things as light and glare standards for the development; permanent fencing between Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; conservation of land within Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; noise reduction measures and application of BMPs during construction; slope revegetation for manufactured slopes along the edge of Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; and adherence to operational exterior noise standards. Incorporation of the above referenced mitigation measures would align the project with the goals and requirements of the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1, MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, MM - BIO -6b, MM -BIO -7c, the project would be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria, Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP, as shown in the consistency analysis on page 3.3-65 and 3.3-66 in Section 3.3, Biological Resources (see Draft EIR). Therefore, implementation of the referenced above mitigation measures would allow for the redesign of the Western Bypass to be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria and impacts would be less than significant. The project would be consistent with the MSHCP with implementation of the mitigation measures referenced above and would result in less than significant impacts associated with consistency with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. I. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. Violation of City Exterior Noise Standards during Operation Impact NOI-3: New developments within the project area may introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at adjacent properties to and/or near the new development sites. a. Findings Operation of the proposed project has the potential to violate the City's exterior noise standards at the adjacent properties and/or near the new development sites. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from operational noise levels to Tess than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to operational noise levels. Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for future developments in the project, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the proposed development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent properties. If City noise standards at the adjacent properties would be exceeded, design measures shall be A-50 taken to ensure that operational noise levels associated with the proposed development would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. b. Facts in Support of Findings The City has established exterior noise standards that correlate with land use zoning classifications and represent the maximum acceptable exterior noise level, as measured at the property boundary (refer to Table 3.10-5 of the Draft EIR). Under the project, new land uses that would occur in the project area include residential, commercial, institutional, primary education, community recreation, open space/parks, roadways and mixed-use developments. The nearest offsite land uses that would be exposed to operational noise levels generated by the project's new land uses would be those that are currently located along and immediately adjacent to the project site's eastern boundary. However, because open space areas are proposed to be located between the adjacent offsite land uses to the east and the new neighborhood villages within the project site, it is not anticipated that operational noise levels generated by the new onsite land uses would result in violations of the City's exterior noise standards at the existing offsite land uses. As development of new land uses gradually occur within the project area over the 10 -year buildout period, operational noise levels could potentially exceed the City's exterior noise standards at an adjacent land use which has already been development within the project area. The determination of operational noise impacts associated with any violation of the City's exterior noise standards at the future properties within the project area would be too speculative at this point in the planning process, as the specific location of individual projects and their distances from each other is currently unknown. However, for the purpose of conducting a conservative analysis in the EIR, it is anticipated that there would be scenarios in the future where the operation of a future individual development project within the project area would result in the violation of the City's exterior noise standards at an adjacent or nearby land use. These impacts are considered to be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3 would require applicants of future developments in the project area to demonstrate compliance with the City's permissible exterior noise standards prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City. Where the City's exterior noise standards would be exceeded for a new development, adequate design measures would need to be incorporated into the new development (e.g., noise walls, landscaping, setbacks) such that the noise standards can be achieved. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-N0I-3 would ensure that future development under the Specific Plan would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards and impacts related to operational noise impacts would be less than significant. A-51 2. Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact NOI-4: New development within the project area could expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient levels due to operation of HVAC equipment; or to noise levels from the operation of mechanical equipment such that interior noise residential noise levels could exceed 45 dBA Ldn. a. Findings Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to permanently increase ambient noise levels due to operation of HVAC equipment or other mechanical equipment. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from an increase in ambient noise levels to less than significant. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to an increase in ambient noise levels due to operation of mechanical equipment. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a: The applicant of individual development projects within the project area shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. b. Facts in Support of Findings The proposed project could introduce new noise sources that would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Typically, a permanent increase in ambient noise levels can result from the operation of a stationary noise source that generates constant noise levels. Upon completion and operation of the various new developments that would occur under the project, these stationary noise sources would consist predominantly of mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and exhaust fans. As an industry practice, the design of the onsite HVAC units and other noise - generating mechanical equipment associated with the new developments in the project area would typically be installed on the rooftops of residential, commercial, institutional, A-52 and mixed-use buildings and located either within an enclosure or behind other intervening structures that would provide a level of noise shielding for nearby noise - sensitive uses. With implementation of these standard design measures, the noise generated from the HVAC units at the new development sites would likely not be perceptible at adjacent or nearby uses. However, to ensure that nearby noise -sensitive uses to the project site would not be adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise, Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a would be implemented, which prohibits noise from HVAC equipment from exceeding the ambient noise level on the premises of other occupied properties by more than 5 dBA_ Specifically, Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a would require future development projects to locate their HVAC equipment away from receptor areas, install proper acoustical shielding for their HVAC equipment, and incorporate the use of parapets into their building design to ensure that noise levels generated from the HVAC equipment would not be audibly perceptible on the premises of other existing developments. Thus, although noise from HVAC equipment is exempt from the City's noise standards, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a would ensure that the potential for HVAC -related noise from new developments to be audibly perceptible at existing neighboring developments would minimized and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the maximum of 1,750 multi -family dwelling units proposed in the project area are also sensitive receptors that could be affected by the operation of mechanical equipment on adjacent properties. In order to ensure that the future residents in the project area would not be adversely affected by operational noise associated with mechanical equipment from adjacent properties, Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b would be implemented to ensure that all exterior windows associated with the proposed residential uses would be constructed such that sufficient sound insulation is provided to ensure that interior noise levels would be below a Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any residential unit, which would comply with Title 24 standards of the California Building Code. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b, the interior noise limit of 45 dBA Ldn or CNEL would be achieved at all proposed residential uses and any potential noise impacts on the future residential uses in the project area from mechanical equipment from adjacent properties would be Tess than significant. 3. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Impact NOI-5: With addition of the Western Bypass that would run along the western boundary of the project area, new development projects proposed in the project area adjacent to the Western Bypass may not meet the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise standards established by the City. A-53 a. Findings Development under the Specific Plan located along the western boundary of the project area may not meet the applicable noise/land compatibility noise standards established by the City with the addition of the Western Bypass. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from exceeding the noise/land use compatibility noise standards to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in Tess than significant impacts related to noise/land use compatibility. Mitigation Measure MM-N0I-5: All future residential developments located adjacent to the proposed Western Bypass in the project area shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the Western Bypass. If this minimum setback distance cannot be achieved, other measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldn, including, but not limited to, greater setback distances, the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping. b. Facts in Support of Findings Based on the City's noise/land use compatibility matrix shown in Table 3.10-6 (refer to the Draft EIR), the City allows new residences to be constructed where the average noise environment in outdoor activity areas is up to 70 dBA Ldn, while new commercial and office buildings may be constructed in areas where the average outdoor noise level is up to 75 dBA Ldn. The project area currently consists of 270 acres of undeveloped open space, where the current noise environment is relatively low when compared to the offsite areas located adjacent to the project site's eastern boundary that are occupied by existing developments. Thus, the relatively quiet noise environment within the currently undeveloped project area would be compatible with the new land uses proposed (i.e., residential, commercial, school. etc.) as part of the project. In addition, development under the project would also entail construction of the Westem Bypass, which is a proposed four -lane thoroughfare that would run along the western boundary of the project area, to Zink Temecula Parkway to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Road. Traffic noise levels generated on the Western Bypass could be audible at the new land uses that are proposed along the western boundary of the project area. As shown in Table 3.10-12 (refer to Draft EIR), future traffic noise levels along the segment of the Western Bypass between A Street and Pujol Street would reach 66.5 dBA Ldn at 100 feet from its centerline. As shown, the 75 dBA Ldn noise contour for this segment of the Western Bypass, which runs along the entire western boundary of the project area, would be located within the roadway lanes, while the distance from the 60, 65, and 70 dBA Ldn noise contours would be 442, 140, and 44 feet, respectively. As new commercial and office buildings may be constructed in areas where the average outdoor A-54 noise level is up to 75 dBA Ldn, and given that the 75 dBA Ldn noise contour for the Western Bypass would be located within the roadway lanes, all future commercial- and office -related developments that would be developed along the Western Bypass in the project area would meet the noise/land use compatibility guidelines as shown in Table 3.10-6. With respect to residential uses, the City allows new residences to be constructed where the average noise environment in outdoor activity areas is up to 70 dBA Ldn. As shown in Table 3.10-12, the distance from the 70 dBA Ldn noise contour for the Western Bypass would be 44 feet from the centerline. Because the exact locations of future residential developments located along the western boundary of the project area and their specific setback distances from roadways have not been determined at this time, the determination of noise/land use compatibility impacts for each individual residential development project, or a combination of these projects, would be too speculative at this point in the planning process. As such, for the purposes of conducting a conservative analysis, it is anticipated that there would be future residential developments proposed in the project area along the Western Bypass that would not meet the City's noise/land use compatibility standards. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5 would require all future residential developments associated with the project to be set back at distances greater than 45 feet from the centerline of the Western Bypass or to implement other measures to ensure that the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldn for residential uses would be achieved. The location of future residential developments beyond this distance would ensure that these new developments would be exposed to noise levels less of Tess than 70 dBA Ldn from the Western Bypass, which would meet the City's noise/land use compatibility guidelines for residential uses. Therefore, implementation Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5 would ensure the noise/land use consistency of future residential uses adjacent to the Western Bypass and would reduce this impact a less than significant level, 4. Cumulative Vibration Impacts a. Findings The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development within the vicinity of the project area could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to groundbome vibration. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant cumulative impacts associated with groundborne vibration levels during construction. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -N01 -2a and MM -N01 -2b, described below, would ensure that cumulative vibration impacts would be less than significant. A-55 b. Facts in Support of Findings Cumulative development in the City may result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration. The nearest related project to the proposed project is the proposed townhouse development located adjacent to the project site. Due to this distance, the proposed project and this cumulative project are in close enough proximity to each other such that vibration levels generated during construction could potentially affect the same sensitive receptors should construction occur simultaneously. The nearest sensitive receptors that would be affected by the concurrent construction are the existing single- and multi -family residential uses located along and adjacent to Pujol Street near the southem portion of the project area. Thus, this cumulative impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -N01 -2a and MM -N01 -2b would require specific buffer distances between construction equipment and sensitive receptors, which would reduce potentially significant cumulative impacts from construction -related groundbome vibration on these nearest offsite sensitive uses to a less than significant level. Thus, with implementation of these mitigation measures, the project would not contribute considerably to cumulative vibration impacts, even if concurrent construction occurs for the project and the related project. As such, cumulative impacts associated with groundborne vibration from construction activities would be less than significant. J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. Traffic Impacts on Local Roadways in Existing (2015) plus Project Conditions Impacts TRA -1 through TRA -6: When considered the addition of project - generated traffic volumes to existing (2015) traffic conditions, the proposed project would degrade the level of service (LOS) at six intersections to unacceptable levels (LOS E or F). Impacts would be potentially significant in Existing plus Project conditions. a. Findings Traffic generated by the proposed project in Existing plus Project conditions would degrade the LOS at six intersections to unacceptable levels, which would result in potentially significant impacts. Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen traffic impacts to local roadways in Existing plus Project conditions. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been included to ensure that traffic impacts in Existing plus Project conditions would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing A-56 Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Ynez Road and Rancho California Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -3: Prior to the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of I- 15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this improvement with Caltrans_ Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -4: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway operate an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -5: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install stop signs on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and First Street, converting the intersection from side -street stop -control to all -way stop control. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -6: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 2, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left turn lane and signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Facts in Support of Findings Intersection operations forecasted for Existing plus Project conditions are shown in Table 3.13-8 (refer to Draft EIR). Six study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or worse) under Existing plus Project conditions with the proposed project: A-57 • Int. 2 — Jefferson Avenue/Rancho California Road (PM peak hours only) • Int. 5 — Ynez Road/ Rancho California Road (PM peak hour only) • Int. 10 — 1-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour only) • Int. 14 — Margarita Road/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours) • Int. 15 — Pujol Street/First Street (PM peak hours only) • Int. 17 — Ynez Road/Santiago Road (PM peak hours only) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -TRA -1 through MM -TRA -6 would be required to address and minimize impacts related to the specific roadway operating conditions at each identified intersection above under Existing plus Project conditions. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -TRA -1 through MM -TRA -6 would improve conditions to acceptable LOS levels at each of the above -referenced intersections as described more fully in the EIR and would ensure that project impacts to the six identified intersections would be less than significant. 2. Traffic Impacts to Local Roadways under Cumulative (2025) Conditions Impacts TRA -8 through TRA -10: When considered existing, proposed, planned, and approved development in the region through 2025, the addition of project -generated traffic volumes to cumulative traffic conditions would degrade the LOS at three intersections to unacceptable levels (LOS E or F). Impacts would be potentially significant in cumulative (2025) traffic conditions. a. Findings Traffic generated by the proposed project in combination with traffic generated by other development within the region under Cumulative Traffic conditions would degrade the LOS at three intersections to unacceptable levels, which would result in potentially significant impacts. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen cumulative traffic impacts to local roadways in 2025 conditions. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been included to ensure that the impacts remain less than cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -8: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost for the construction of one additional exclusive right turn lane for eastbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, for acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. A-58 Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -9: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost for the construction of a fourth through lane for eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway at La Paz Road, for acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -10: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 15 percent of the cost for the construction of an exclusive right turn lane for westbound Temecula Parkway at Margarita Road, for acquisition of right- of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. b. Facts in Support of Findings Intersection operations forecasted for Cumulative (2025) Traffic conditions are shown in Table 3.13-11(refer to Draft EIR). Three study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or worse) with the proposed project: • Int. 4 — 1-15 Northbound Ramps/Rancho Califomia Road (PM peak hour only) • Int. 11 — La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours) • Int. 14 — Margarita Road/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours) The addition of project -generated trips in combination with cumulative development within the region is forecasted to result in significant impacts at the above three study intersections. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -8 through MM -TRA -10 would improve conditions to acceptable LOS levels at each of the above -referenced intersections as described more fully in the EIR and would ensure that all potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the project under cumulative (2025) conditions would be reduce to less than significant levels. 3. Traffic Impacts to Local Roadways under Cumulative (2025) Conditions Impacts TRA -12 and TRA -13: When considered the addition of project - generated traffic volumes to General Plan Build Out (2035) traffic conditions, the proposed project would degrade the LOS at two intersections to unacceptable levels (LOS E or F). Impacts would be potentially significant in General Plan Build Out conditions. a. Findings Traffic generated by the proposed project in Existing plus Project conditions would degrade the LOS at two intersections to unacceptable levels, which would result in potentially significant impacts. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen traffic impacts to local A-59 roadways in General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been included to ensure that the impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -12: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 43 percent of the cost to construct improvements at the west Ridge Park Drive leg to allow for right -in / right -out turn movements only at the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making northbound left and westbound left turning movements at the intersection. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -13: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 17 percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol Street and First Street b. Facts in Support of Findings Intersection operations forecasted for General Plan Build Out (2035) traffic conditions are shown in Table 3.13-13 (refer to Draft EIR)_ Two study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or worse) with the proposed project: • Int. 6 — Vincent Moraga Drive/Ridge Park Drive (both AM and PM peak hours) • Int. 15 — Pujol Street/First Street (PM peak hour only) The addition of project -generated trips in combination with increased traffic volumes anticipated with General Plan Build Out conditions is forecasted to result in significant impacts at the above two study intersections. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM - TRA -12 through MM -TRA -13 would improve conditions to acceptable LOS levels at each of the above -referenced intersections as described more fully in the EIR and would ensure that all potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the project under General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions would be reduce to less than significant levels. 4. Conflicts with an Applicable Congestion Management Program Impact TRA -14: The proposed project may conflict with applicable plans and congestion management programs by resulting in temporary but prolonged adverse effects on intersection LOS during project construction. a. Findings Construction of the proposed project would generate a variety of truck and employee trips during site grading and construction of the proposed Specific Plan, which has the potential to cause a temporary but prolonged impact due to lane closures, need for temporary signals, traffic hazards to bikes/pedestrians, damage to roadbed, or truck traffic on A-60 roadways not designated as truck routes. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen impacts related to conflicts with an applicable congestion management programs. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -14: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities within the Specific Plan area, or at offsite locations for improvements associated with the Specific Plan, the project applicant(s) shall prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for review and approval by the City of Temecula as part of the permit application. The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic volumes entering the roadway system (including local roads) during AM and PM peak hours. At a minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include the following implementation measures: • Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and from the construction site. • Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction, the project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary, to minimize traffic impacts. This may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage, flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone. • The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required, the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula and other affected jurisdictions (i.e., Caltrans, and/or County of Riverside) to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes. b. Facts in Support of Findings Construction of the proposed project would generate a variety of truck and employee trips during site grading and construction of the proposed Specific Plan. Since the magnitude of these trips during peak hours would be less than that of the proposed project, absolute impacts (in terms of delay and queuing) when compared to project operations would not be significant. However, construction staging and lane closures could cause adverse effects if not carefully planned. Thus, the proposed project could potentially cause a temporary but prolonged impact due to lane closures, need for temporary signals, traffic hazards to bikes/pedestrians, damage to roadbed, or truck traffic on roadways not A-61 designated as truck routes, However, implementation of mitigation measure MM -TRA -1 4 would require the preparation of Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) to minimize the effects of construction traffic on the surrounding roadways as well as to incorporate the appropriate protocols for road closures, lane closures, or other typical construction activities which affect the local roadway network. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM - TRA -14 would ensure that impacts associated with construction -generated traffic would not conflict with applicable congestion management programs or plans and impacts would be less than significant. VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation In the environmental topical areas of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), Noise, and Transportation and Circulation, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable despite the inclusion of all feasible mitigation, as discussed below: A. AIR QUALITY 1. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Operation Impact AQ -1: Operational activities occurring after the buildout of the project would violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. a. Findings Operation of the project would result in long-term regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO that would exceed the SCAQMD's applicable threshold, which would result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS. While Mitigation Measures MM -AQ -1 a through MM -AQ -1 e would help to reduce operational emissions, operational emissions generated under the proposed project would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's applicable regional thresholds. While several of the mitigation measures are unquantifiable, it is not likely that even with their full implementation all emissions would be reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds, and there is no additional feasible mitigation that would reduce these impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the project's impacts related to regional operational emissions will be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -la: No wood burning fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1 b: The lease or purchase agreements for all non-residential units shall include the following: A-62 a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all buildings. b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep. c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and/or work -at-home programs as appropriate to the business developed. (non -quantifiable) Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1c: All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically operated. Landscape contracts for all multi -family residential and non- residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be electrically operated. Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1d: All residential and non-residential buildings shall be constructed such that they meet one of the following conditions: a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2016 Title 24 standards by 15 percent; or b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy, for example the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -le: The lease or purchase agreements for all multi -family residential and non-residential units shall: a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi- family residential buildings and employee/student areas for non- residential buildings. Additionally, building management shall encourage a ride -share program within the specific plan area such that employees as well as residents have more access to car- pooling opportunities. (non -quantifiable) b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as, but not limited to, special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles. (non -quantifiable) A-63 c) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces (per multi -family and non-residential development) shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles. (non -quantifiable) b. Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 3.2-7 (refer to Draft EIR), the maximum unmitigated daily operational emissions generated by the project would result in long-term regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO that would exceed the SCAQMD's applicable thresholds. The majority of the emissions are from either mobile sources or area sources related to hearth and consumer product usage. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AQ -1a through MM -AQ -1 e will reduce the project's operational emissions of criteria pollutants (as shown in Table 3.2-8 of the Draft EIR). However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AQ -1 a through MM -AQ -1 e, operational emissions generated under the proposed project would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's applicable regional thresholds. While several of the mitigation measures are unquantifiable, it is not likely that even with their full implementation all emissions would be reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project's impacts related to regional operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, as indicated in Table 3.2-1, applicable ozone standards have regularly been exceeded at the nearest (Lake Elsinore) monitoring station between 2011 and 2013 and the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is designated as a non -attainment region for ozone. The proposed project's ROG and NOx emission increases could contribute to additional air quality violations in the SCAB region by contributing to more days of ozone exceedance or result in air quality index levels that are unhealthy for sensitive groups and other populations. On unhealthy days, persons are recommended to avoid both prolonged outdoor activities and activities requiring heavy exertion outdoors. Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. In addition to causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. 2. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts - Operation a. Findings Operation of the proposed project would generate long-term emissions, which would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx and CO, which would result in significant impacts to air quality. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the project's potential operational impacts related to air quality because the proposed project could conflict with SCAQMD's air quality planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in A-64 nonattainment pollutants during operations. Cumulative impacts associated with operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings The SCAB is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, where cumulative development consisting of the project and cumulative projects could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Based on SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project, as shown in Tables 3.2-7 and 3.2-8 (refer to Draft EIR), would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx and CO. Even though the proposed project would be consistent with SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan, the proposed project could conflict with SCAQMD's air quality planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants, which would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in nonattainment pollutants during operations, particularly ozone precursors ROG and NOx. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with operational emissions would be cumulatively considerable. B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 1. Generation of GHG Emissions Impact GHG-1: The project could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. a. Findings The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright -line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM - AQ -la through MM -AQ -le and MM-GHG-land project design features aimed to reduce GHG emissions, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation is considered to be significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 3.6-2 (refer to Draft EIR), the project's total net annual GHG emissions after the incorporation of MM -AQ -1 a through MM -AQ -1 e would be approximately 24,953 MTCO2e per year which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright -line threshold of A-65 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. This would result in a potentially significant impact. The proposed project incorporates many elements that would serve to promote alternatives to vehicle use or otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions and these elements are consistent with standards identified in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND). LEED-ND credits are awarded for access to transit, housing -jobs proximity and provision of bicycle facilities, to name a few. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to strive to achieve LEED-ND certification for the Altair Specific Plan, LEED-ND certification requires a project to receive 40 points out of a total of 110 total possible points. If the LEED-ND certification is denied, the applicant is required to incorporate a list of measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen -percent (15%) reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards. This project is transit -oriented and incorporates a lengthy list of "smart growth" principles, all of which aim to reduce vehicle miles travelled and the accompanying GHG emissions. The project incorporates a mixture of land uses, including homes, retail, and recreational opportunities, increasing walkability and reducing the need for transit in single -occupancy vehicles. The project design incorporates infrastructure for alternative transportation, including complete streets that equally accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, public transit, and vehicles. Despite the fact that the project incorporates all of the design elements described above, project -level emissions would still likely exceed the 3,000 MTECO2e per year threshold even with LEED-ND certification. Therefore, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation is considered to be significant and unavoidable. 2. Cumulative GHG Emission Impacts a. Findings Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's considered bright -line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. No mitigation measures are feasible to reduce cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions to a less than significant level. Implementation of the project would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions. b. Facts in Support of Findings As discussed in Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, CEQA considers a project's impacts related to GHG emissions to be inherently cumulative. As concluded in Section 3.6, the project's total net annual GHG emissions after the incorporation of MM -AQ -1 a through MM -AQ -1 e would be approximately 24,953 MTCO2e per year which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright -line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. This would result in a significant impact. While incorporation of the additional mitigation measure MM-GHG-1 would reduce the A-66 amount of GHG emissions generated, the level of GHG emissions would not be reduced below a level of significance. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. C. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. Construction Noise Impacts 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. a. Findings During construction, the proposed project would temporarily generate noise levels that may result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable local standards and a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which would reduce impacts related to construction noise. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -N01 -la and MM-NOI-1 b, the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed development sites in the project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -1a: Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits for a phase or sub phase (project -specific future development within a construction phase), the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Factors the City shall consider when granting a noise exception include, but are not limited to, the consideration of the level of noise, duration of noise, constancy or intermittency of noise, time of day or night, place, proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud noise. If a construction -related exception request is not approved by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art A-67 mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb: The applicant shall comply with the following noise reduction measures during construction: • Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration -sensitive land uses. • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible, as determined by the City of Temecula's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible, as determined by the City's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. • Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, and shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. • Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented. A-68 b. Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 3.10-1 (refer to Draft EIR), the existing daytime noise levels measured at locations surrounding the project site range from approximately 52 dBA to 65 dBA Leq. As construction noise levels associated with new developments in the project area could reach as high as 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from a construction site, an increase in noise levels of 20 to 30 dBA could potentially occur at a neighboring receptor to a construction site. This increase in the ambient noise levels at a neighboring receptor would be considered to be substantial, since, for the purpose of providing perspective, a change in noise levels of 10 dBA is subjectively heard as doubling of the perceived loudness. Consequently, Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -1b, which would require the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction activities for the new developments occurring under the project, would be implemented to reduce the construction -related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent feasible. Nonetheless, under circumstances where future construction sites within the project area are located immediately adjacent to other land uses, the noise impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the proposed project would remain significant as the noise reduction devices and techniques prescribed under Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -lb would not be able to fully attenuate construction noise levels. Although Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 b would reduce the project's construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible, there is no other feasible mitigation that would reduce these impacts to less than significant and it is anticipated that the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed developments in the project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, the project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on the nearby existing land uses. 2. Construction Vibration Impacts 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. a. Findings During construction, the proposed project would temporarily generate noise levels that may result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable local standards and a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which would reduce impacts related to construction noise, Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -N01 -2a and A-69 MM -N01 -2b, the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed developments in the project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2a: The operation of construction equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional structures during construction activities to the extent feasible. Small, rubber -tired construction equipment shall be used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects, where feasible. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2b: The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities, to the extent feasible. b. Facts in Support of Findings As future project -specific developments would be spread over the designated neighborhood villages within the project area and construction events would be short- term in nature, it is anticipated that there would be an infrequent amount of vibration events per day at sensitive land use receptors resulting from the construction of individual development projects. However, depending on how close an actual receptor location is to a construction site and the type of building the receptor is (e.g., non -engineered timber and masonry building, historical building, etc.), the vibration levels at a receptor location could exceed the FTA's vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance. As such, vibration impacts during construction associated with the project could be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -N01 -2a and MM-NOI- 2b would reduce the possibility of exposing sensitive land uses to excessive vibration level as they require setback distances for various types of construction equipment from adjacent structures. However, while implementation of MM -N01 -2a and MM -N01 -2b would reduce vibration levels, the type of residential development allowed under the Specific Plan may make it difficult to achieve the desired distance between these existing land uses and active construction. As such, Mitigation Measures MM -N01 -2a and MM- NOI-2b cannot guarantee that construction vibration levels will be reduced below establish thresholds and there is no other feasible mitigation that would do so. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 3. Cumulative Noise Impacts — Construction a. Findings Construction of the proposed project would generate substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at surrounding existing noise -sensitive land uses. While Mitigation Measures MM -N01-1 a and MM -N01-1 b would reduce impacts related to construction noise, these measures would not reduce these impacts to a less than A-70 significant level. Thus, implementation of the project would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to construction noise. b. Facts in Support of Findings Development of the project in combination with other projects in the cumulative scenario would result in an increase in construction -related and traffic -related noise in the City. However, each of the cumulative projects would be subject to Section 9.20.040 of the City Municipal Code, which establishes the allowable interior and exterior noise standards for various types of land uses in the City. In addition, Section 9.20.070 (Exceptions) of the City Municipal Code allows for construction -related exceptions from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the Code to be requested from the City Manager. Furthermore, the construction activities associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would also be subject to Section 9.20.060(D) of the City Municipal Code, which establishes the permitted hours for construction. Construction noise is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to the proposed project. The nearest anticipated project to the project site is the proposed townhomes development (#PA 13-0155), which is located adjacent to the southern portion of the project site in the vicinity of Pujol Street. Due to this distance, a substantial increase in the ambient noise levels of the existing single- and multi -family residential uses located along and adjacent to Pujol Street would occur should construction of this cumulative project occur at the same time as the proposed project. As such, the cumulative noise impact related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at these existing noise -sensitive land uses would be potentially significant. During construction of the proposed project, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 a and MM-NOI-1 b would reduce construction noise levels for nearby offsite residents to the maximum extent feasible. However, due to the proximity of the proposed project to these existing offsite sensitive uses, it is anticipated that these offsite land uses would still experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during the project's construction activities. Therefore, the project's contribution to this construction -related noise impact would be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. Traffic Impacts on Local Roadways in Existing (2015) plus Project Conditions A-71 Impact TRA -7: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the level of service at the existing 1-15 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. a. Findings As shown in Table 3.13-8 (refer to Draft EIR), implementation of the proposed project would generate traffic volumes which would degrade the LOS at the intersection of the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway under Existing plus Project conditions. There are no feasible mitigation measures which would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings While the project would generate traffic which would degrade the LOS at the intersection of the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway, it is acknowledged under the Existing plus Project scenario that a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) by the City of Temecula, entitled "1-15 / SR 79 South (Temecula Parkway) Ultimate Interchange", has been permitted and fully funded. The CIP is scheduled to start construction well ahead of the first building permit being issued for the project. The intersection is within Caltrans' jurisdiction and requires Caltrans approval. Scheduled improvements to this intersection will remove this intersection; replacing it with a reconfigured intersection of Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway to accommodate a southbound loop off -ramp and southbound on-ramp for 1-15. These improvements would reduce project impacts at this intersection to below a level of significance. However, the schedule for the improvements is outside the control of the City of Temecula, and it cannot be guaranteed that the improvements will be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project. Based on this information, and to exercise a conservative approach to impact assessment, it is possible that there could be a potentially significant impact at this intersection and there is no feasible mitigation to reduce this potential impact to less than significant. For these reasons, impacts to the intersection at the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway under Existing plus Project conditions would be significant and unavoidable. 2. Traffic Impacts to Local Roadways under Cumulative (2025) Conditions Impacts TRA -11: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the General Plan Build Out (2035) level of service at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (Intersection #5) to degrade during the AM peak hour. The project will cause the average delay to increase by more than the 2.0 second threshold of significance at an unacceptable LOS of E. A-72 a. Findings Traffic generated by the proposed project in General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions would degrade the LOS at the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road to an unacceptable level, which would result in a potentially significant impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures which would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings Intersection operations forecasted for General Plan Build Out (2035) traffic conditions are shown in Table 3.13-13 (refer to Draft EIR). The study intersection at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road is forecasted to operate at a deficient LOS with the proposed project. The addition of an exclusive eastbound right turn lane as identified under Cumulative plus Project conditions and the construction of one additional northbound left turn lane would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D. This mitigation would require widening of the roadway; however, all four quadrants of this intersection are developed and there is limited right-of-way surrounding the intersection. The additional northbound left turn lane improvement would encroach into the adjacent pond/park on the southeast quadrant and would be infeasible to construct. Given the right-of-way constraints at this location, there is no feasible mitigation to improve LOS at this intersection. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 3. Cumulative Traffic Impacts — General Plan Build Out (2035) Conditions a. Findings Development of the Specific Plan would cause the General Plan Build Out (2035) LOS at the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (Intersection #5) to degrade to 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. There are no feasible mitigation measures which would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings Transportation and Traffic inherently analyzes the cumulative scenario in its analysis of project -related traffic impacts because it must take into consideration future conditions in order to analyze the project's full contribution to future traffic scenarios. The analysis uses a blended approach that includes a list -of -projects approach (refer to Table 4-1 in the Draft EIR) and a plan -based approach (General Plan)_ Development of the Specific Plan would cause the General Plan Build Out (2035) LOS at Ynez Road and Rancho Califomia Road to degrade to 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. The addition of an exclusive eastbound right turn lane A-73 as identified under Cumulative Plus Project conditions and the construction of one additional northbound left turn lane would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D. This mitigation would require widening of the roadway; however, all four quadrants of this intersection are developed and there is limited right-of-way surrounding the intersection. The additional northbound left turn lane improvement would encroach into the adjacent pond/park on the southeast quadrant and would be infeasible to construct. Given the right-of-way constraints at this location, there is no feasible mitigation. Therefore, the project's contribution to this traffic impact under General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions would be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. VIII. Project Alternatives The EIR considered and analyzed three alternatives to the proposed project: Alternative 1—No project/No Development; Alternative 2—No project/Existing Specific Plan; and Altemative 3—Relocate Civic Use. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the EIR analyzed and considered two "No Project" alternatives because there are two possible outcomes if the City does not approve the Project: either the "No Development" alternative or the "Existing Specific Plan" alternative. In addition, no alternative sites were considered in the Alternatives analysis as objectives of the project rely on proximity to Old Town for providing a residential community within walking distance and for development of the Western Bypass, which is intended to alleviate traffic congestion that currently exists within Old Town. Therefore, it would not be feasible to consider other site locations for this project, as further described in section 5.1.3 of the EIR. The three alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR are discussed below, including the basis for rejecting each alternative. In addition, comparison of the alternatives is available in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 of the EIR. Each alternative's environmental impacts are considered and analyzed, along with an analysis of whether it achieves any of the project's objectives as shown below. • Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. (A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is needed to achieve these goals and policies.) • Balance the need for local infrastructure improvement and demand for new housing in and around Old Town while minimizing physical and visual impacts to the hillside escarpment, wildlife movement, and conservation areas. • Develop a high-quality residential component on the project site that focuses on providing diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety of age groups and household sizes, support the commercial enterprises of Old Town Temecula, help to fulfill the city's regional housing needs, and foster a unique community identity where each neighborhood is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive. A-74 • Create a project that reduces dependency on the automobile and encourages the use of an extensive multi -use trail system that would Zink neighborhood villages and community -wide uses within the project and to Old Town Temecula • Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood -oriented commercial uses to serve the needs of the project's residents, such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or small restaurants. • Promote design that minimizes water usage by using a relatively drought -tolerant landscape palette, clustered development, and attractive community spaces rather than traditional water -intensive private lawns. • Provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside attributes. • Establish an efficient, interconnected multi -modal transportation network that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center -of -city traffic conditions. • Provide public amenities close to OId Town Temecula that include a park in the center of the project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an elementary school accommodating 600-730 students, which further diversify and contribute to the OId Town's amenities. • Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building square feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public, and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that maximizes compatibility with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong visual connection and close access to Interstate 15. A. ALTERNATIVE ONE — NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT 1. Summary of Alternative Alternative 1 evaluates the environmental impacts if the project site were to remain in its current state as vacant land for the foreseeable future. The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the Altair Specific Plan would not be adopted and implemented. Instead, the planning area would be left in its current undeveloped and mostly undisturbed state. Under Alternative 1, no development would occur on the project Site for the foreseeable future and the Site would remain in its current graded and undeveloped condition. Although Alternative 1 could occur if the City does not approve the project, it is not what can most reasonably be expected to occur on the Site if the project is not approved because development is permitted on the Site as discussed and analyzed under Alternative 2. A-75 2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative Alternative 1 is the "No Development" alternative in which no development would occur on the project site. The site would remain undeveloped and mostly undisturbed land. Environmental impacts in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources correlate primarily with the footprint of site development because they relate to the location of a project and the development of vacant land. The project's impacts in these categories are all less than significant or mitigated to Tess than significant. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would result in reduced impacts in these impact categories (Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources) because the project site would remain undeveloped and undisturbed. For aesthetic impacts, Alternative 1 would also not impact views, scenic resources, or the visual character and quality of the site because no development would occur and the site would remain in its current condition. The project's aesthetics impacts are all less than significant without mitigation. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would have no impacts to aesthetics and therefore would reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. Air quality impacts would be reduced under Altemative 1 as there would be no construction -related emissions (from construction activities, vehicles and equipment), and no operational emissions (associated with increased traffic and consumer usage) as is associated with the proposed project. The project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality. Since Alternative 1 would result in no development, it would have no impacts to air quality and would therefore reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. Similar to air quality impacts, GHG emissions would similarly be reduced under Alternative 1. Because no development would occur on the site, it would not result in any stationary or mobile -source GHG emissions. The proposed project's GHG emissions are significant and unavoidable, primarily due to mobile -source emissions arising from vehicles to and from the project. Alternative 1 would reduce these impacts, as no development would occur at the site. No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on the project site. As compared to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would have a lower potential to release unknown and unanticipated hazardous materials as it includes no development and no storage of hazardous materials on-site. As such, Alternative 1 would have no impact to hazards and hazardous materials and impacts would be further reduced from the proposed project's less than significant impacts. Impacts related to airport and wildfire hazards would be similar because the project site remains the same. For land use impacts, under Alternative 1, no development would occur and the onsite open space would remain in its current state. As such, this alternative would not change existing land use or have an effect on land use plans and policies related to the project site. The proposed project would be consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan A-76 upon adoption of the General Plan Amendment. In addition, with implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of the EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and objectives of the MSHCP. While the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to land use with mitigation incorporated, Alternative lwould result in fewer effects on adopted land use plans and policies compared to the project. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from temporary construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area which could potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels and vibration. Under Alternative 1, there would be no change to existing ambient noise levels or introduction of a new source of noise, or an increase in vibration. The significant construction noise and vibration under the proposed project would not occur. This alternative would result in fewer impacts from noise and vibration compared to the project. Population and housing impacts would not occur under Alternative 1 because no development of the site would occur. As such, Alternative 1 would not result in population growth. Neither the proposed project nor Alternative 1 would remove housing or displace persons, as there are no housing units on the project site. Alternative 1 would have no impact regarding population and housing and therefore would have less impact than the proposed project, which already has a less than significant impact. Impacts to public services and utilizes would be less under Alternative 1 due to the lack of development. Although the fire department and police department would respond to the site in case of a fire or a crime committed on the site, the demand for public services and utilities would be the same as it exists currently. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to law enforcement, fire protection, schools, libraries, or hospitals and parks and recreation. Additionally, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and solid waste capacity and facilities. While none of the proposed project's impacts would require new or expanded facilities, the proposed project would increase the demand for all of the public services and utility facilities in the City. As such, Alternative 1 would have no impact to public services and utilities, compared to the less than significant impacts under the proposed project. Altemative 1 would result in no increases in traffic or demand for public transit or bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Alternative 1 would not result in additional pedestrian facilities or to existing roadways and would not increase the demand for public transportation. The proposed project would result in the addition of sidewalks/walking paths that do not currently exist on the project Site and would not result in significant impacts to public transit or bicycle/pedestrian facilities. However, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to various intersections in the project area in the Cumulative (2025) Traffic and General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions. As such, Alternative 1 would have fewer impacts when compared to the proposed project regarding transportation and circulation. A-77 Overall, Altemative 1 would reduce environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. However, Alternative 1 does not satisfy any of the ten project objectives. Since Alternative 1 would not develop the site, it would fail to provide the following: diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety of age groups and household sizes; alternative transportation options and a network of trails; limited/incidental commercial uses to serve the project area; water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside; an efficient, interconnected multi -modal transportation network that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center -of - city traffic conditions; public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a central park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and a civic site of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public. Whereas the proposed project satisfies each project object, Alternative 1 fulfills none of the objectives. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 1 would not meet any of the project objectives. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 1, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 1. B. ALTERNATIVE 2 — NO PROJECT/ESTABLISHED SPECIFIC PLAN 1. Summary of Alternative Alternative 2 provides the comparison of the proposed project versus what can reasonably be expected to occur on the site should the proposed project not be approved but future development occurs under the existing land use and zoning designations. This "No project/Established Specific Plan" alternative does not necessarily mean the site will remain undeveloped; as currently entitled per the existing zoning designation, the site could be developed with the approved Westside Villages Specific Plan (SP -8). The Westside Villages Specific Plan would involve development of a 154.1 -acre area, which is a smaller area than the project site for the proposed project and would not include the 55 -acre South Parcel that is located roughly to the south of Camino Estribo. Under this alternative, the project site would be bisected by the Western Bypass and divided into five separate planning areas (A through E), where each has a separate land use; however, it would not be developed with the "villages" concept that is proposed under the proposed project. Planning Area A is located in the center of the project site, closest to Old Town. This area would allow for a "Wild West," open-air arena and a hotel. Planning Area B, which is located at the intersection of First Street and the Western Bypass, and is designated for neighborhood commercial uses, would allow for local -serving retail uses, such as a small market or drug store. Planning Area C, which is located in the southern portion of the project site, would allow for high-density residential uses. The Mixed Use designation of Planning Area D, which is located in the northern section of the Specific Plan area, is intended to act as a transitional area between the special event uses of the A-78 Specific Plan and the existing office and business park uses located to the north of the Specific Plan area. As such, Planning Area D would allow for service commercial, office, and light industrial uses. Planning Area E, which would be west of the Western Bypass would be designated for 80 gross acres of open space and would remain undeveloped. The project would also provide for pedestrian connectivity between the various planning areas and Old Town. Table 5-1 (refer to Draft EIR) outlines the land uses and amount of development for each planning area under this alternative. Although this alternative would allow for more commercial development (120,000 square feet versus the maximum 22,000 square feet proposed as part of the project), overall, it would represent a reduced project alternative to the proposed project due to the significantly fewer residential units that would be developed, and the absence of the civic use and elementary school. Many environmental impacts analyzed in an EIR are related to the project's location, such as such as biological, cultural, geologic, and visual impacts. However, some environmental impacts are related to the type of project, such as traffic and traffic's effects on air quality, GHG emissions, and noise. This is because different uses produce different amounts of traffic. 2. Reason for Reiectinq Alternative For aesthetic impacts, under Alternative 2, a 120,000 -square -foot entertainment and tourist retail shopping area would be developed as compared to the maximum 22,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial under the proposed project. This entertainment area would include retail commercial buildings, an open-air, tented arena, and a hotel. Development standards allow a maximum building height of 150 feet (approximately five stories). High density multi -family residential with active and passive open space would be located at the southeastern portion of the project, and mixed-use (commercial, office, business park) located at the northeastern portion of the project site. While Alternative 2 would have less building square footage than the proposed project, the height and mass of individual buildings could have similar visual impact on the landscape. Overall, aesthetic impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project. Air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable with implementation of the proposed project as long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors, primarily from mobile sources, would exceed applicable thresholds. According to the traffic study prepared for the project, development of the project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a conservative estimate of 7,446 vehicle trips per day. This reduction in vehicle trips and related mobile -source emissions would result in Alternative 2 having fewer impacts to air quality than the proposed project. In regards to biological resources, the project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 181 acres of upland habitat and approximately 1.2 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. With mitigation, the proposed project would have a Tess than significant impact on adjacent wildlife corridors. Under Alternative 2, the 55 -acre South Parcel would not be A-79 developed as it would not be part of the project site. This would reduce impacts to wildlife corridors that occur under the proposed project, in particular Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13. However, Alternative 2 maintains the original alignment for the Western Bypass. This alignment is located further west of the new alignment under the proposed project and would result in impacts to an additional 55 acres of sensitive habitat and greater reduction in corridor width along Proposed Linkage 10 compared to the project. As such, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to biological resources compared to the project. Related to cultural resources, construction of the proposed project would include soil excavation, which has the potential to encounter historical and paleontological resources. With mitigation, the proposed project's impact on these resources is less than significant. Under Alternative 2, the 55 -acre South Parcel at the south end of the proposed project would not be developed, which would avoid the TCP and any potential cultural resources that could be encounter during soil excavation at that site. As such, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts to cultural resource compared to the project. Geology, soils, and seismicity impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed project. Alternative 2 would have 1,449 fewer residential dwelling units at maximum buildout, and, therefore, would expose fewer people and structures to potential adverse effects of seismic ground shaking. However, development under Alternative 2 would be subject to the same building codes and regulations as the proposed project, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. As a result, Alternative 2 would have similar exposure to geologic hazards as the proposed project. Greenhouse gas emissions would be less under Alternative 2 and would also result in a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact because Alternative 2 results in a larger development scenario. The proposed project's greenhouse gas emissions are also cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable, with no feasible mitigation available to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Approximately 80 percent of the proposed project's GHG emissions result from mobile source and this percentage would be similar under Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts related to GHG would also be significant and unavoidable under Alternative 2, but impacts would be reduced under the alternative scenario. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant with mitigation with implementation of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste. As such, Altemative 2 would have similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the project. With mitigation incorporated, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Alternative 2 would have higher intensity commercial development (120,000 square feet versus 22,000 square feet) but lower intensity residential development (302 dwelling units versus 1,750 dwelling units) than the project. Overall, it would represent a reduced project alternative to the proposed project A-80 due to the significantly fewer residential units that would be developed, and the absence of the civic use and elementary school. The reduced alternative would have less impervious surface than the proposed project. As such, Alternative 2 would have fewer effects on hydrology and water quality compared to the project. In regards to land use, the project would require a General Plan Amendment which would modify the City's existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and sections in the Land Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential villages, institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. In addition, with implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies of the MSHCP. It is expected that development under Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to similar measures. Alternative 2 would result in a greater buffer between urban development and an area where three streams converge (Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River) south of the project site. This would result in a greater degree of consistency with MSHCP goals and policies associated with wildlife corridors. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts to land use and planning compared to the project. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from temporary construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area which could potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels and vibration. Under Alternative 2, it is assumed that construction phasing would occur not unlike the proposed project and individual lots within the project site would be developed over the course of 10 years. As such, Alternative 2 would have similar effects on nearby receptors during construction compared to the project. Population growth under Alternative 2 would be less than under the proposed project. Using an average household size of 2.63 persons per household, the proposed project could generate a new population of between 2,288 and 4,603 people. Using the same persons per household ratio, Altemative 2 is estimated to generate a new population of between 515 and 794 people. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts on population and housing compared to the project. Alternative 2 would decrease demand for public services and utilities as compared to the proposed project because it would generate considerably fewer new residential units and would not develop the 55 -acre parcel with institutional/civic uses. As a result, there would be less demand for public services and utility facilities and Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts on public services compared to the project. Traffic generation under Alternative 2 would be reduced because of the reduction of building potential and decreased population growth. The project would result in a significant cumulative impact on traffic due the unfeasibility of widening Temecula Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane. The project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a conservative estimate of 7,446 vehicle trips per day. The reduction in daily vehicle trips A-81 under Altemative 2 may avoid the significant cumulative impact along Temecula Parkway that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Overall, Alternative 2 would have reduced traffic impacts when compared to the project. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to aesthetics. biological resources, geology, soils, and seismicity, and noise and vibration as compared to the proposed project. All other impacts would be reduced under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed project. However, Alternative 2 fails to satisfy four of the ten project objectives. It would not provide diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety of age groups and household sizes; provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside; provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a central park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and provide for a civic site of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative but would not fully achieve the benefits of the project objectives, including the linkage with Old Town and the emphasis on pedestrian -focused development, and does not avoid significant environmental impacts. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 2, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 2. C. ALTERNATIVE 3 — RELOCATE CIVIC USE 1. Summary of Alternative Alternative 3 would maintain the majority of the project elements including the eight residential villages with the proposed residential densities, a small amount of neighborhood -serving commercial uses, the educational/institutional use, and the extension of the Western Bypass along the proposed alignment. However, under this alternative, the proposed educational/institutional use (e.g., college) would be relocated from the South Parcel to the area of the proposed elementary school site (Village C); and the elementary school eliminated from the proposed project. The intent of this alternative is to reduce potential impacts to biological and cultural resources; namely, for biological resources, the restricted wildlife corridor widths associated with Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; and, for cultural resources, the National -register -listed Origin Landscape TCP and an archaeological site located on the South Parcel. 2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative For aesthetics, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. Under Alternative 3, the civic use would be relocated from the 55 -acre South Parcel to the elementary site, and the elementary school eliminated from A-82 the development. The introduction of an educational/institutional use with up to 450,000 square feet of building area would result in an increase in building height and mass compared with an elementary school. However, considering that residential structures up to five stories would occur at the perimeter of the civic use, the visual character of Altemative 3 as viewed from nearby public roadways would be similar to the project. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts on aesthetics as the project. Air quality emissions are based on a project's size and the number of project -related daily vehicle trips. Operation of the proposed would have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality. Under Alternative 3, daily vehicle trips would be reduced by an estimated 791 trips. This minor reduction in trips would be not result in a significant reduction in mobile -source emissions. As a result, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to air quality compared to the project. The proposed project would incorporate mitigation measures to reduce impacts on adjacent wildlife corridors to less than significant. Under Alternative 3, the 55 -acre South Parcel would not be developed and the site would be conserved as open space. This would provide greater wildlife corridor width at the southern end of the project where Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 converge, thereby reducing any potential effects on wildlife movement in this vicinity. As a result, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts to biological resources compared to the project. Similar to the proposed project, construction of Alternative 3 would include soil excavation which has the potential to encounter historical and paleontological resources. However, Alternative 3 would be required to incorporate similar mitigation for ground -disturbing activities to reduce these impacts to less than significant. In addition, the 55 -acre South Parcel would not be developed under Alternative 3, which would result in the avoidance of a TCP and potential cultural resources that could be encounter during soil excavation at the 55 -acre site. As such, Alternative 3 would have less potential to impact cultural resource compared to the project. Altemative 3 would have a reduced development footprint with the elimination of the elementary school compared with the project; and, therefore, would expose fewer people and structures to potential adverse effects of seismic ground shaking. However, development under Alternative 3 would be subject to the same building codes and regulations as the proposed project, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. As a result, Alternative 3 would have similar exposure to geologic hazards as the project. Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from Alternative 3 would exceed applicable standards. Alternative 3, at buildout, would have an estimated 791 vehicular trips per day Tess than the proposed project. The resulting reduction in GHG emissions when compared with the project would be negligible. As a result, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts compared to the project. No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on any of the project site. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be required to follow applicable regulations and A-83 guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the project. With mitigation, the proposed project would result in Tess than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Alternative 3 would eliminate the elementary school and leave the 55 -acre South Parcel in its existing, undeveloped condition; resulting in the development of fewer impervious surfaces compared to the project. As such, Alternative 3 would have fewer effects on hydrology and water quality compared to the project. In regards to land use, the project would require a General Plan Amendment which would modify the City's existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and sections in the Land Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential villages, institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. In addition, with implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies of the MSHCP. It is expected that Alternative 3 would also involve a General Plan Amendment and be required to adhere to similar mitigation measures. Alternative 3 would have similar land uses (except for the elimination of the elementary school) compared to the project but under a reduced density scenario that would provide a greater buffer between urban development and an area where three streams converge (Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River) at the southern end of the project site. This would result in a greater degree of consistency with MSHCP goals and policies associated with wildlife corridors and conserved lands. However, relocating the civic use to the proposed elementary school site would introduce a higher intensity land use that would be less compatible with the planned residential uses for that area, and would have an adverse effect on the internal street system. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to land use and planning compared to the project. Similar to the proposed project, construction phasing would be similar to the proposed project and individual lots within the project site would be developed over the course of 10 years. Although the development of the 55 -acre site would not occur, Alternative 3 would have similar effects from noise impacts on nearby receptors during construction compared to the proposed project. Population growth under Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed project. Using an average household size of 2.63 persons per household, the proposed project could generate a new population of between 2,288 and 4,603 people. Alternative 3 would allow the same range of dwelling units as the project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts on population and housing as the proposed project. Demand for public services and utilities would be similar under Alternative 3 generate similar population as the project but would not have an elementary school and associated recreation/open space. As such, there would be a greater demand for public services such as public parks and open space, but fewer demands police and fire protection, library A-84 services and hospital services. Overall, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts on public services compared to the project. With mitigation, the proposed project would result a less than significant impact on traffic, except under the Cumulative (2025) Traffic and General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions The proposed project would result in a significant cumulative impact on traffic due the unfeasibility of widening Temecula Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane. The project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in 791 less vehicle trips per day than the project, which would be a negligible decrease in vehicle trips compared to the project. However, relocating the educational/institutional use to the elementary school site would shift additional trips to the north end of the project site and throughout the site's internal network, likely having an adverse impact on the internal street network as planned, requiring additional improvements to intersections along Rancho Califomia Road and the Western Bypass; specifically at Rancho California Road and the Western Bypass, Vincent Moraga Drive and Park Ridge Drive, and A Street and the Western Bypass. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar or greater impacts to traffic compared to the project. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on utilities and water supply). Alternative 3 would eliminate the elementary school resulting in less demand on utilities such, as solid waste, and water supply compared to the project. As such, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts on utilities and water supply. Alternative 3 will have many of the same impacts as the proposed project but would reduce impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and utilities, However, Alternative 3 fails to satisfy two of the ten the project objectives. Alternative 3 would fail to provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a central park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and provide for a civic site of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 would not fully meet the project objectives; it is not the environmentally superior alternative; and does not avoid significant environmental impacts. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 3, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 3. A-85 ATTACHMENT 6B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CIVIC USE) Mitigation Measures Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DRAFT INSTITUTIONAL USE MMRP MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Aesthetics Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following Tight and glare standards shaN be applied to all future development within the project area: • The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures in public areas contain "sharp cut-off" fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing. and night lightlsecurity lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell. and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the development shall take advantage of landscaping, onsite architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall sub nit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards. o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens: o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the Pre -Construction f Construction / Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project 1 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance InitiaIs Date Remarks Air Quality Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1a: No fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield; c, A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting; c Specification of each light fixture and each light shield: City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1 b: The lease or purchase agreements Post -Construction o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre. and o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. City of Issuance of for all non-residential units shall include the following: • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the development is in compliance with the design standards in Altair Specific Plan. Mitigation Certificate of Building Official Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all or other City of 655. buildings. b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Designee Temecula Air Quality Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1a: No fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. Pre -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1 b: The lease or purchase agreements Post -Construction City of City of Issuance of for all non-residential units shall include the following: Temecula Temecula Certificate of Building Official Occupancy by a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all or other City of buildings. b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Designee Temecula Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep. Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 2 ESA 1150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MmGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and/or work -at-home programs as appropriate to the business developed. (non-quantlfiable) Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1c: All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically operated. Landscape contracts for all multi -family residential and non-residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be electrically operated. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1d: All residential and non-residential buildings shah be constructed such that they meet one of the following conditions: a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by 15 percent. or b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy, for example the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Pre -construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -le: The lease or purchase agreements for all mufti -family residential and non-residential units shall: a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi-familyresidential buildings and employee/student gDesignee areas for non-residential buildings. Additionally, building management shall encourage a ride -share program within the specific plan area such that employees as well as residents have more access to car-pooling opportunities. (non -quantifiable) bI Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as, but not limited to. special parking for altemative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehides. (non -quantifiable) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces (per multi -family and non-residential development) shal be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles. (non - quantifiable) Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or D signr Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy by TCey of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 3 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2: The site shall be watered four times per day during ground disturbance (grading) activities for all project development phases. During drought conditions, defined as Water Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by the Rancho Califomia Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit Water District. use of reclaimed water or non -water chemical stabilizers shall be implemented such that fugitive emissions reductions are comparable. Permission to use potable water for dust control activities during drought conditions shall be granted by the Qualified and sign -off by City of Temecula Building Official if the General Contractor shows in writing that (1) Reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from recycled wastewater treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site. and (2) Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from wells and groundwater sources located within 10 miles of the construction site. Biologist City of Temecula Biological Resources Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: To the extent feasible. clearing and Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian breeding Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit season, which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If clearing Qualified and sign -off by and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season, a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys. The survey shall occur no more than 7 days prior to any clearing. grubbing, construction or ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project area, the nest shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own and are no longer relying on the nest for survival). A 500 -foot construction setback from any active raptor nesting location (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, the birds' response/habituation to human presence. and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed. as determined by a qualified biologist. A 300 -foot construction setback (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, and the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be established tor all other migratory birds. If no active nests are identified. construction may commence. All construction setbacks shall be Biologist City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 4 ESA r 150642 Jury 201? Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate material (flagging, staking. construction fencing. etc.) and verified by a qualified biologist. Such fencing shall be maintained and monitored until the nest is confirmed to be inactive. If an avoidance buffer is not feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City. noise walls or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent disturbance to the nest. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Suitable burrowing owl habitat Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of a identified on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist Temecula Temecula grading permit using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Qualified and signed off Instructions for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biologist by the City of (EPD. 2006) no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine presence or absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified, no additional mitigation is necessary and activities may commence. If a burrowing owl is detected, the Temecula City of Temecula and the RCA will be notified. If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the applicant shall implement the following measure: Take of active nests shall be avoided. Passive or active relocation (use of one way doors and collapse of burrows), as approved by the RCA, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 - August 31). If active relocation is selected, translocation sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. Translocation sites will be identified, taking Into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species. Selected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior to translocation site development. Mitigation Measure MM -B104: The following Best Management Construction City of City of Issuance of Practices shall be adhered to: Temecula Temecula Qualified Grading Permit and signed off • Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, or grading permit for the project. a qualified biologist (Project Biologist by the City of Temecula Biologist) with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites, shall be retained by the Cypress Ridge Proles MMRP 5 SSA! l r,0G42 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks • applicant to oversee compliance with the protection and avoidance measures for biological issues associated with the project. The Project Biologist shall have the authority to halt construction activities in the event of non- compliance. The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing activities, including. but not limited to: vegetation removal. tree removal or trimming, grading. and restoration landscaping to ensure project activities remain in compliance with all applicable biological resource permits. • Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife species shall be prohibited. • Workers shall be prohibited from bonging pets and firearms to the project site. and from feeding wildlife. • Proposed and existing Westem Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Areas shall be protected in place by the installation of orange silt fencing. Fencing shall be maintained in working order and inspected weekly. Fencing repair shall occur within 2 working days following inspection. • All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and trash removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens and feral cats and dogs. • All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas beyond 100 feet of any drainage course, and be contained using appropnate protection measures. • Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project -proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. Nighttime construction which does occur outside these areas shall use directional lighting to minimize the impacts of increased artificial nighttime lighting. • All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than 45 minutes to minimize ambient noise produced by the project. Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 6 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measuros Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Data Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of a permit for the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary agency Temecula Temecula grading permit permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters, wetlands and riparian Building Official by the City of resources, including the U.S. Amty Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the or other Designee Temecula Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Impacts to riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to unvegetated channel shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options: on- or offsite habitat restoration: purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective resource agencies (USAGE, RWQCB, and CDFW). it shall be prepared according to agency requirements and shall include, at a minimum. the following information: • Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas • An evaluation of the existing function and values, and a description of the function and values to be achieved through compensatory mitigation • Detailed plant and seed mix requirements • Detailed planting plan • Specific and measurable five-year success criteria • Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements • Invasive species management • Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of irrigation for at least two years prior to final sign -off • Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 7 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4b: Prior lo the issuance of a grading permit for the project, a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) shall be approved by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority to address impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. The DBESP shall include the following information: • Definition of the project area • A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible • A written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping • Quantification of unavoidable impacts to ripariar/riverine areas and vernal pools associated with the project, including direct and indirect effects • A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects, such as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation difference. minimization and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement • A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted, used for comparison of biological equivalency • A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation, including habitat type, location. functional lift, and long- term stewardship responsibility A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts, the habitat mitigation would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which is being impacted and would result in a net equivalent or superior ecological condition Pre -construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Qualified Biologist Issuance of a grading permit by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -6a: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, or any phase thereof, the applicant shall pay Local Development Mitigation fees. as determined by the City of Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of a budding permit by the City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 8 ESA 1150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15, to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO 6b: At the time of final map recordation for the project, or any phase thereof, lands identified to contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project (Conserved Lands) and included on the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) or deed transfer of said parcels to the RCA. Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The project shall conserve onsite a minimum of 82.77 acres, which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to include Cells 7077, 7161, 7078, 7164, 7258, 7264, 7355 and 7356. Pre -construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Approval and Recordation of final map by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7a: The portion of Camino Estnbo that lies between the South Parcel and the main development area within the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular speeds. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineering Official or other Designee Issuance of a grading permit verified and signed off by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7b: The applicant shall install permanent fencing along the Western Bypass where the Bypass right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSHCP Conserved Lands, to keep animals within the wildlife corridor. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed fencing plan for review by the City of Temecula and the wildlife agencies (CDFW and USFWS). and approval by the City. The fencing plan shall include. at a minimum, the fencing location, fencing specifications. plant list, and method and timing of installation. The fence shall be Installed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading and Building Permits by the City of Temecula Cypress R.dpe Prgecl WARP 9 ESA) 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -7c: A Slope Revegetation Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. The Plan shall be submitted for approval to the City prior to the construction of the Western Bypass. The Plan shall include at a minimum: • The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to the first six inches along selected portions of the ground disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in restoring disturbed areas Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of grading and building permits by the City of Temecula • Equipment and methods for planting • A planting plan. including the amount and species of seed necessary to revegetate the target habitat types • Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year period following installation • Specific BMPs for erosion control during and after revegetation • A requirement for five years of maintenance of the revegetated areas, including removal of invasive species and irrigation (if necessary) A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance with the success criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using an adaptive management approach Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -la — Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Intenor s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior. 2012). and as approved by the City of Temecula. to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians (Pechanga Tnbe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate Pre -construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Qualified Archeologist Issuance of a grading permit and project approval by the City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 10 ESA / 150642 July 2017 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -16 - Retention of a Professional Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of Pechanga Tribal Monitor: At least 30 days prior to seeking a Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga qualified Project Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed Archaeologist Approval; grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop and Pechanga verification by a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources. the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional tribal representatives City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Pechanga Tribal Monitors dunng grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling, terms of compensation for the monitors. including overtime and weekend rates. in addition to mileage reimbursement: and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may indude avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -lc — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of Training: The qualified archeologist. or an archaeologist working Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula under the direction of the qualified archaeologist. and a qualified Project representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction Archaeologist Approval: cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a beef review and Pechanga verification by of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to tnbal City of inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered. and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction representatives Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 11 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigabon Monitonng and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1d — Archaeological and Native Pre -construction/ City of City of Issuance of a American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel: Prior to Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation qualified and project removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological Archaeologist approval by the monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the and Pechanga City of applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not tribal Temecula; limited to. brush clearance and grubbing. grading, trenching. excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -la and 1b. The archaeological and Pechanga representatives verifiCity oation by of Temecula in consultation with Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate Treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart. additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required, Pechanga Tribe The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly Togs. After monitoring has been completed. the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastem Information Cenler at the University of California, Riverside. Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 12 ESA 1 150642 July 2017 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -le — Unanticipated Discovery: If Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing qualified Project activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the Archaeologist Approval: qualified archaeologist. who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of and Pechanga verification by discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the tribal representatives City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs. customs. and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist. in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important. are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis. reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -lb. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f — Completed Avoidance of Pre -construction/ City of City of Verification by Impacts to the TCP: The City and the Project Applicant/Land Construction Temecula Temecula City of Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Qualified Temecula in Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements. Water Department impacts, Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities. or others as indicated. be proposed, the City and the Archaeologist and Pechanga tribal representatives consultation with Pechanga Tribe Cypress Ridge Protea MMRP 13 ESA 7 150642 July 2917 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Data Remarks Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Pre -Construction City of City of Verification by Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP): The applicant shall Temecula Temecula City of implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the qualified Temecula in PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths. 2013) during project implementation. Paleontologist consultation with The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources. initial excavations into the unit shall be spot-checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Pechanga Tribe Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring. as warranted. if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed. and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited fadiity. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report 10 be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2b — Unanticipated Paleontological Construction City of City of Verification by Resources Discoveries: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the Temecula Temecula City of Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 14 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. Construction/ Post- City of qualified Paleontologist Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains: If human Pre -Construction/ City of City of Verification by remains are uncovered during project construction. the applicant Construction Temecula Temecula City of shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and qualified Paleontologist Temecula Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority. the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains. who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of. with appropriate dignity. the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances. is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project Construction/ Post- City of City of Issuance of and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the project sponsor shall submit an application for a Pre -Certified construction Temecula Temecula Building Official Certificate of Occupancy by I FFD -ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council If the or other the City of application meets the LEED-ND prerequisites. the project sponsor shall continue with the certification, and the project shall receive a minimum base -level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build -out. If Pre -Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied, the project applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve Designee Temecula Cypress Ridge Proler.1 MMRP 15 ESA 1150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen -percent (15%) reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards by undertaking the following: Pre -construction City of City of Issuance of 1) Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations; Temecula Temecula Grading Permit 2) Subsidize public transit and expand transit network (e.g., help fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share programs); Building Official by the City of 3) Provide an enhanced pedestrian network, including pedestrian connections to the local community; or other Designee Temecula 4) Provide traffic calming measures and urban non -motorized zones; 5) Install bicycle parking and storage, as well as dedicated bike lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas; 6) Prohibit wood -burning fireplaces; 7) Where practicable, install or ensure facilities are compatible with renewable energy (e.g. solar photovoltaics); 8) Install energy efficient boilers and appliances, including programmable thermostat timers; 9) Install energy efficient street and area lighting, including LED traffic lights, motion detection lighting. and limited outdoor lighting for security and safety purposes; 10) Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard equipment; 11) Provide for use of reclaimed water; 12) Install low -flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures (e.g., faucets, toilets. and showers); 13) Install water efficient irrigation systems: 14) Where practicable, reuse or recycle materials from operation and construction activities. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Prior to issuance of a grading Pre -construction City of City of Issuance of permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil Temecula Temecula Grading Permit engineer in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual Building Official by the City of and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The final study shall identify storm water runoff quantities from the development of this site and upstream of the site, and shall identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property or any substantial adverse change in receiving water quality or habitat values; the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities and any or other Designee Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 16 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff impacts. Construction City of City of Issuance of a Features to be included in the site design shall conform with the City of Temecula MS4 permit and Stormwater Ordinance, and may include, for example: Temecula Temecula grading permit 1) Non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control Building Official by the City of BMPs; or other Designee Temecula 2) Infiltration basins, detention basins, vegetated swales, and media filters: 3) Pervious concrete. storm drain stenciling or signage, protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall; and 4) Other low impact development (LID) BMPs, including measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity. then onsite detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls shall be required as needed to avoid damage to public or private property and alterations in water quality or habitat values. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of future development project will be required to generate a project- specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by Construction/ Post- Construction Temecula Temecula Building Official Building Permit, review of plans. the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the or other field verification City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the Designee and sign -off by City of City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each project -specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. Temecula NOISE Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -1a: Prior to the issuance any grading Construction City of City of Issuance of a or building permits for a phase or sub phase (project -specific future Temecula Temecula grading permit development within a construction phase), the applicant shall Building Official by the City of provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see Table 3.10- or other Designee Temecula 5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks the project's construction noise levels would be granted an exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Factors the City shall consider when granting a noise exception include, but are not limited to. the consideration of the level of noise, duration of noise. constancy or intermittency of noise, time of day or night, place, proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud noise. If a construction -related exception request is not approved by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 b: The applicant shall comply with Construction City of City of Field verification the following noise reduction measures during construction: Temecula Temecula and sign -off by Building Official City of • Ensure that noise and groundbome vibration construction activities whose specific location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing. general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration -sensitive land uses. or other Designee Temecula • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g.. jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shaN be used; this muffler can Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 18 ESA 1160642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible: this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools. shall be used whenever feasible. as determined by the City of Temecula's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. as determined by the City's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. • Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, and shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers. neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2a: The operation of construction Construction City of City of Issuance of equipment that generates high levels of vibration. such as large Temecula Temecula Grading Permit bulldozers. loaded trucks, and caisson drills. shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional Building Official and field verification and Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 19 F.SA! 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks structures during construction activities to the extent feasible. Small, rubber -tired construction equipment shall be used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects, where feasible. or other Designee sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2b: The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities. to the extent feasible. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N013: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for future developments in the project. the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the proposed development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent properties. If City noise standards at the adjacent properties would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels associated with the proposed development would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include. but are not limited to. the erection of noise walls. use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a: The applicant of individual development projects within the project area shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment. such as ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 20 ESA/150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Dab Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b: Prior to City approval of a Construction City of City of City of residential development project within the project area, the applicant Temecula Temecula Temecula shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows Construction Building Official project approval; associated with a proposed residential development will be or other and field constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an L. or CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. Designee verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5: All future residential developments Post -Construction City of City of Field verification located adjacent to the proposed Westem Bypass in the project area Pre -Construction/ Temecula Temecula and sign -off by shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the Construction Temecula Building Official City of Western Bypass. If this minimum setback distance cannot be achieved, other measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA L,,, including, but not limited to, greater setback distances, the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping. or other Designee Temecula Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of of the project. the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Temecula Temecula Grading Permit funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings Construction Engineer or and Issuance of and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since other Designee a Certificate of Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Occupancy Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts.. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings Engineer or and Issuance of and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Ynez other Designee a Certificate of Road and Rancho California Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Occupancy Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 21 ESA l 1511042 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -3: Prior to the completion of Phase 2 Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of of the project. the project proponent/developer shall Install or provide Construction Temecula Iemecula Grading Permit funding for signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle Engineer or and Issuance of length) at the intersection of 1-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula other Designee a Certificate of Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this improvement with Caltrans. Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -5: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install stop signs Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and Engineer or and Issuance of First Street, converting the intersection from side -street stop -control to all -way stop control. other Designee a Certificate of Occupancy Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 22 ESA / 150642 July 2017 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -6: Prior to the completion of Phase 2 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left tum lane and signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -7: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase 1 of the project. the City shall have completed the Capital Improvement Project entitled 1-15 / SR 79 South (Temecula Parkway) Ultimate Interchange". Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -8: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost to construct one additional exclusive right turn lane to the eastbound Rancho California Road approach to the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho Califomia Road, toward the possible acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection Pre -Construction/ Construction City o1 Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -9: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost to construct a fourth through lane to both the eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway approaches to the intersection of La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway, toward the acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -10: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project. the project proponent/developer shall contribute 15 percent of the cost to construct an exclusive right turn lane to the westbound Temecula Parkway approach to the intersection of Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway, toward the acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -12: Prior 10 the completion of Phase 3 of the project. the project proponent/developer shall contribute 43 percent of the cost to construct improvements at the west Ridge Park Drive leg to allow for right -in / right -out tum movements only at the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive, to Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 23 ESA 1150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making northbound left and westbound left turning movements at the intersection. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -13: Pnor to the completion of Phase Construction City of City of Issuance of 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 17 Temecula Temecula Grading Permit percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol Engineer or and Issuance of Street and First Street. other Designee a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -14: Pnor to the issuance of any Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities Temecula Temecula Grading and within the Specific Plan area, or at offsite locations for improvements associated with the Specific Plan. the project applicant(s) shall prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for review and approval by the City of Temecula as part of the permit application. Engineer or other Designee Building Permits The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic volumes entering the roadway system (including local roads) during AM and PM peak hours. At a minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include the following implementation measures: • Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and from the construction site. • Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction, the project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary. 10 minimize traffic impacts. This may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage, flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone. The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required, the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Protect MMRP 24 ESA 150642 July 2017 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Agency Compliance Monitoring Phase Agency Verification of Compliance 1 nitials Date Remarks and other affected jurisdictions (Le., Caltrans, and/or County of Riverside) to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes. Cypress Ridge Pro1ed MMRP 25 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 ATTACHMENT 6C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (CIVIC USE) STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS — CIVIC USE -- The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Altair Specific Plan (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to: • Air quality at the project and cumulative level give that the City is in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which is a non -attainment region for ozone; • Greenhouse gas emissions at the cumulative level for exceeding the conservative threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year even with incorporation of Smart Growth development standards, which promote walking and alternative transportation: • Noise and vibration impacts during construction; and • Traffic impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions (prior to completion of the Ultimate interchange improvements, which are under construction), and for a decrease in Level of Service at Rancho California Road and Ynez Road during the AM peak hour. Although the FEIR concludes there are significant and unavoidable impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions, it should be noted that this is a conservative approach as the ultimate intersection improvements are under construction and once complete, the improvements will reduce the project impacts below a level of significance. In making this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. Furthermore, the following primary public benefits are required by Conditions of Approval. and in the Development Agreement: A. An estimated $28 million dollars of regional infrastructure (Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge over Murrieta Creek), and improved east -west connectivity in the City; The Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge are part of a regional facility. identified in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The Regional System needs to be expanded to accommodate anticipated future growth in the City of Temecula and southwestern Riverside County; the Project provides critical infrastructure to assist the City in meeting this need. B. A 5 -acre Central Park and "Grand Staircase" connection to Main Street in Old Town on the west side of 1-15 for public use; Currently, the City does not have a park of sufficient size for residents on the west side of 1-15 to accommodate parks and recreation programs. Residents west of 1-15 have to travel to the east side sports parks. The Central Park will accommodate existing and future growth, and provide an important destination and gathering place for passive and active recreation in and around Old Town. C. An elementary school site to serve existing and future residents on the west side of 1-15; Similar to the City's current situation with a lack of parks and programming relative to population on the west side of 1-15. the elementary school site has the ability to provide a neighborhood school in walking distance for many that will help eliminate the need to rely exclusively on schools on the east side of 1-15. D. Over eight miles of pathways and trails connecting to the City's bike lane and trail network; The Quality of Life Master Plan identifies six core values as identified by the community. Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts. Altair is designed as a "Smart Growth" development which makes walking easy and promotes a healthy and active lifestyle. Furthermore, the proposed trails. pathways, and sidewalks connect to the surrounding network closing gaps and increasing opportunities for active transportation. E. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant will provide $150,000 dollars of "start-up" funding for a shuttle connecting to RTA transit stops and/or a bikeshare program; Again, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts. This funding will assist in promoting active transportation in an effort to relieve auto congestion in the City. F. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant is committed to provide Project conservation features in excess of what is required as environmental mitigation, including the following: • 55 -acre reduction in hillside escarpment/Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) impacts associated with the shortened Western Bypass alignment, as compared to the current alignment in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the approved West Side Specific Plan and MSHCP; • Facilitation of the sale of an additional 8.97 acres of hillside escarpment adjacent to the project site to the Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for conservation; • Additional funding for conservation efforts (up to $500.0000) to be used for a wildlife connectivity study, engineering feasibility. and/or land acquisition in the special linkage area south of the Project. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone. is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO REVISE THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED WESTERN BYPASS, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPOSED LAND USES IDENTIFIED IN THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN BY REPLACING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP), OPEN SPACE (OS), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (H), AND HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) WITH SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (SPI) ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310- 013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development in the proposed Project area. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearinghouse from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." G. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "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 APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO REVISE THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED WESTERN BYPASS, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPOSED LAND USES IDENTIFIED IN THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN BY REPLACING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP), OPEN SPACE (OS), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (H), AND HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) WITH SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (SPI) ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." H. On December 12, 2017, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project and EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations proior to and at the public hearing. I. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17 - and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. J. All legal preconditions to the adopting of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. The City Council in approving the General Plan Amendment hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest. The existing General Plan Land use designations to be replaced include Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR). The revised General Plan Land Use designations proposed in the Altair Specific Plan will be Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) to include Active Open Space (AO), Natural open Space (NO), Residential (R), Mixed -Use (M), Mixed -Use Residential (MR), Educational (E), and Institutional (I). The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest because it diversifies the City's housing stock and provides options besides single family dwelling units, builds regional infrastructure (western bypass), provides parks and trails, and a civic site for public use. B. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. uses. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The General Plan Amendment will ensure compliance with all Building, Fire and Development Code requirements. These codes set policies and standards that protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. In addition, the General Plan Amendment is tied to a Specific Plan, which establishes specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the General Plan Amendment and concluded that the General Plan Amendment is in the best interest of and is compatible with the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The development that will be allowed by the General Plan Amendment 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 clientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The General Plan Amendment will allow up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. C. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The Specific Plan that is tied to the General Plan Amendment conforms to the City's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the City's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. The Specific Plan is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preservation of the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well-designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preserve open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. This area has been planned for extensively as evidenced by the General Plan, Old Town Specific Plan, and Westside Specific Plan. The proposed Altair Specific Plan is consistent with the community vision for complementary uses to Old Town. These uses include single family, multi family, mixed use (residential, office and retail), parks, trails, civic uses and infrastructure. D. The General Plan Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Amendment will implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan specific to residential development west of Old Town, and implementation of the Western Bypass Corridor. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project includes Table 3.9-4, which identifies General Plan Goals and Policies with a comparison of Consistency, Non -Consistency, or Not Applicable. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable goals and polices of the adopted General Plan. Section 3. Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the proposed Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the proposed Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the proposed Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. B. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. C. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan. Section 4. Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, each Occupied Residential Property in the Specific Plan area shall pay Forty -Three Dollars ($43.00) per dwelling unit per year, to be increased each fiscal year by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's payment, to fund the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs. B. For the purposes of this provision, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. For the purposes of this provision "Wildlife Conservation Costs" means: (1) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority within the Interstate 15 freeway Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lions) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or (2) Acquisition by the City of lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project for conservation; and/or (3) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (i) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Specific Plan area. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. E. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan. Section 5. Amendment to the Land Use Policy Map and Circulation Element. The Land Use Policy Map Figure LU -3 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to identify that the designation of APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007 are changing from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) as provided in Exhibit "A". The Circulation Element, Figure C-2, Roadway Plan is hereby amended to identify the revised alignment to the Western Bypass Corridor as provided in Exhibit "B", attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference as thought set forth in full. Section 6. City Manager Authorization. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to implement this General Plan Amendment. Section 7. Consistency with the General Plan. The Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan, as amended by this Resolution, are consistent with the other elements of the General Plan, in conformity with Government Code Section 65300.5. Insofar as other portions of the General Plan need to be revised to effectuate this General Plan Amendment, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make all necessary revisions to effectuate this General Plan Amendment. Section 8. Severability. If any portion, provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution is rendered or declared to be invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Resolution. Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. _ "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Section 10. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of December, 2017. Maryann Edwards, 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. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 7A ALTAIR LAND USE MAP C Street Camino birth* Ridge Park Drive ► Altair Vhra-L- Western Bypass Corridor - SP -AO Altair Vino B Street North 5P -A0 -06 a Street South ri r" r 1 I we a feir SP -ND ZONING MAP Temecula, CaMomb Carome Il Troll A Street First Street ZONING MAP LEGEND SP -AO Active Open Space SP -NO Natural Open Space SP -R Residential Zone SP -M Mixed -Use SP -MR Mixed -Use/ Residential SP -E Educational SP -C Civic I 1 tar w bn I_f Ll SUM a=lWY . 5356.00 5.6 2015 ATTACHMENT 7B PROPOSED CIRCULATION ELEMENT WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940- 320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development in the proposed Project area. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." G. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." H. On , the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. I. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17 - and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Altair Specific Plan hereby makes the following findings: A. The Specific Plan, which is incorporated herein by this reference, complies with the requirements of California Government Code section 65451 based on, but not limited to, the following: (1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the Specific Plan (Sections 2, 3 and 8 of the Specific Plan). (2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the Specific Plan and needed to support the land uses described in the Specific Plan (Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Specific Plan). (3) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable (Sections 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Specific Plan). (4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing (5) measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above (Sections 5 and 11 of the Specific Plan). The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan). B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that: (1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the general plan and development code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Land Use Element identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The Specific Plan is consistent with these objectives. The Specific Plan provides a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Specific Plan respects existing topography and embraces existing scenic vistas as focal points for the community. The Specific Plan satisfies two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area," and "[I]ocating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The proposed Specific Plan is also consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which is to create a "regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." A significant portion of the Western Bypass Corridor project is accomplished in the Specific Plan, connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho Califomia Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The Specific Plan will create a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the Specific Plan implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." The Specific Plan development is predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the Specific Plan area as natural open space, thus consistent with Policy 1.5 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles." The Specific Plan will establish the design and development framework for the proposed Project. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as amended by this Ordinance. As proposed and conditioned, the Specific Plan will be consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of State Law and other Ordinances of the City. Further findings of consistency with the General Plan can be found in Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. (2) The proposed specific plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of, and is not detrimental to, the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The proposed specific plan 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 clientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The proposed specific plan will provide up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. The General Plan sets the policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The subject property is currently undeveloped land with only a few of the required public utilities located onsite. The proposed development within the Specific Plan area will provide the necessary connections, extensions, and upgrades as required to serve the area. (4) The proposed specific plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Specific Plan conforms to the City's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the City's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. In addition, the Specific Plan is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well- designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preserve open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. Section 3. Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the proposed Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the proposed Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the proposed Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the proposed Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. B. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. C. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan. Section 4. Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, owner shall pay to the City the following: (i) on or before the issuance of the first (1st) building permit for the proposed Project, the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) (the "Initial Wildlife Conservation Fee") less the cost of the land purchase and associated closing costs described in 4.4.5 (iv) of the Development Agreement; and (ii) as provided in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan and Section 4.5.2 of the Development Agreement, an annual payment of $43 per Occupied Residential Property, in perpetuity, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of two percent (2%) of the prior year's fee (the "Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee"). B. For purposes of this Section, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. The proceeds of the Wildlife Conservation Fee shall be used for the following purposes ("Wildlife Conservation Costs"): (1) The initial six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) of the Initial Wildlife Conservation Fee and the Wildlife Conservation Fee shall be held in an account by the City for the purposes of acquiring one hundred (100) acres of conservation lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the Property and/or in Riverside County and within ten (10) miles of the proposed Project site. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, a Joint Powers Agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. ("RCA") shall acquire such land and City shall reimburse RCA for the cost of its land purchase and associated closing costs, with interest, from the initial $6,000,000.00. The land acquisitions shall be in accordance with the equivalency standards for the acquisition of land submitted to the RCA and the City prior to the City Council's approval of the proposed Project. Once this objective has been satisfied, then the City shall use such funding thereafter for one or more of the conservation activities described below in subsections (2), (3) or (4). The interest rate for the reimbursement shall be compound interest at the rate equal to the average interest rate paid on deposits in the State Local Agency Investment Fund, Government Code Sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, during the year prior to July 1 of each year. Pursuant to Section 4.5.2 of the Development Agreement and Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan, owner, its successors to the property within the proposed Project, including End Users, shall fulfill this obligation of the Specific Plan with the proceeds of Special Tax C of the CFD(s), provided, however, that the obligation set forth herein and in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan remains regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it or whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. (2) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the RCA along Interstate 15 between the proposed Project site and the San Diego County Line whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lion) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or (3) Reimbursement to the RCA of its costs, with interest, for the acquisition of lands south of the proposed Project for conservation (the interest rate for the reimbursement shall be compound annual interest at the rate equal to the average interest rate paid on deposits in the State Local Agency Investment Fund, Government Code Sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, during the year prior to July 1 of each year); and/or (4) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (i) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Project Site undertaken by the City or RCA. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. E. Owner shall not be entitled to any fee credits in connection with such conservation funding. F. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan. Section 5. Section 17.16.070 (Approved specific plans.) of Chapter 17.16 Specific Plan Zoning District (SP-) of Title 17 (Zoning) is hereby amended to add the following, with all other provisions of Section 17.16.070 remaining the same: "SP -15 Altair Specific Plan" Section 6. Zoning Map Amendment. The City Council hereby amends the Official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula to change the zoning classification for the property located on 270 acres in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, west of Old Town (APNs 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007) to the Altair Specific Plan #15. The Altair Specific Plan including the zoning map amendment is attached as Exhibit "B" to this Ordinance and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 7. Consistency with General Plan. On , the City Council adopted Resolution No. , which amended the Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan, in conformity with Government Code section 65300. Therefore, the foregoing amendments outlined in this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula. Section 8. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the Altair Specific Plan subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Altair Specific Plan is on file in the City Clerk's office and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. Section 9. Severability. If any portion, provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Ordinance. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 11. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , 2018. Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 18- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12th day of December, 2017, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Planning Application No.: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: QUIMBY Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of Approval EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA14-0159 A proposed Specific Plan to include the four -lane divided Western Bypass, up to 1,750 residential units, an elementary school, up to 7,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, a clubhouse, civic site, parks, trails, and hillside preservation. The Specific Plan will also include off-site improvements for public infrastructure including, but not limited to, construction of the Western Bypass bridge over Murrieta Creek, road widening of Vincent Moraga, construction of Main Street north of Pujol, and off-site sewer, water and dry utility extensions 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310- 044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007 Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Exempt per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,128.00) which includes the Three Thousand and Seventy Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,078.00) fee, required by Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Fifty Dollars ($50.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Califomia Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City and its attorneys from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within twenty (20) years per the Development Agreement; otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. 5. Consistencv with Specific Plans. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 15, Altair Specific Plan. 6. Consistency with Development Agreements. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to Development Agreement (PA14-0161). 7. Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the EIR for Altair (SCH No. 2014111029). 8. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 9. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 10. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers, equipment walls, or other structures. 11. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 12. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 13. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 14. Subdivision Map Act. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. An Extension of Time may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 60 days prior to the expiration date. 15. Subdivision Phasing. If subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 16. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 17. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median, landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. 18. Class I Multi -Use Trails. Class I multi -use trails shall be provided as per the City of Temecula's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan. The construction plans for the Class 1 trails shall be included on the perimeter landscape plans and constructed in concurrence with the installation of the landscaping. 19. Class II Bicycle Lanes. Class II bicycle lanes, as specified in the City of Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan, shall be identified on the street improvement plans, and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 20. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Altair project is required to comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 21. Maximum Number of Rental Units (Apartments). Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City for a residential community in the Project, the Guest Builder shall provide a letter to the City declaring whether the project will include residential units for sale to homeowners (a "For -Sale Community") or residential units for rent (Apartments) to tenants (a "For -Rent Community"), and if it is a For -Rent Community, the number of Rental Units being proposed for the For -Rent Community. Further, in conjunction with the overall development of the Project, the Guest Builder will also provide a list of all previously approved For -Sale and For -Rent Communities in the Project and the number of Rental Units for each For Rent Community. There shall be a maximum of 750 Rental Units within the Project. Notwithstanding the forgoing, homes that are in a For -Sale Community that are sold to individuals and then later rented to the public shall not count towards the 750 Rental Unit threshold. 22. Project Phasing. The project shall be built in four phases per the attached "Phasing Exhibit, 10D." Infrastructure shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits in each phase per the phasing plan. 23. Fiscal Impact Compliance. Any development within the Altair Specific Plan will be required to address impacts to the City's budget as a result of the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the Project area substantially exceeding the municipal revenue generated from the Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has a received a Fiscal Impact Analysis dated October, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the Project, and their successors of interest, at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for a residential dwelling, shall pay the City the sum of two - hundred thirty-seven ($237) per residential dwelling unit within the project each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit. Owner and its successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through a Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq., provided however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to the pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owner and its successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 24. Trail Siting and Location on the South Parcel/Civic Site. In addition to the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for cultural resources, MM -CUL -1 a through MM -CUL - 3, City Staff will work with the Pechanga Tribe to determine the final trail alignment for an out and back, or loop trail. Using trail siting guidance identified in the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Section 7.0, the trail will utilize existing dirt roads whenever possible. Portions of existing trail may be eliminated, and revegetated to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Any new trail segment will be designed to discourage and prevent intrusion into adjacent environmentally sensitive areas. 25. Direction Fencing. Directional Fencing for wildlife shall be required as identified in the Specific Plan, EIR, and in conformance with the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). 26. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the RCA shall review and approve for conformance with the Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines the design of the applicant's Urban Wildlands Interface measures (fencing, lighting, access control, plant palette, drainage, etc.) for development adjacent to all conservation areas (Western Bypass, Villages A and G, and Nature Center). The Nature Center trails shall be reviewed and approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies for compliance with Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines and MSHCP Section 7.4.2, Conditionally Compatible Uses 27. Partial conservation lands totaling 65 acres (APNs 918-080-008 and 009) will be transferred to the RCA prior to any project grading. 28. Acquisition of an additional 100 acres of biologically equivalent or superior replacement lands by the RCA and funded by the proposed Altair Wildlife CFD. All CFD funding up to 6 million dollars will be directed to the RCA until the 100 acres is acquired. 29. The conservation easement over ungraded of the South Parcel will be offered either to the RCA or an entity with a management agreement with the RCA. 30. MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees will be paid for the project. Fee credits for onsite conservation acres will be consistent with RCA Resolution 2016-003, Fee Credit and Waiver Policy. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 31. Central Park Design Meeting. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits associated with the Central park area, a pre -design meeting shall be held to include Planning, TCSD, and Public Works to complete a final design for the Central Park. The Altair Specific Plan includes a conceptual plan for the park, however, final arrangement and location of amenities shall be determined prior to any grading and/or construction. 32. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check valves prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 33. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 34. Pechanga Mitigation Measures. The Altair project is required to comply with Mitigation measures MM -CUL -la through MM -CUL -3. 35. Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 36. Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 37. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation." 38. Archaeological Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property." 39. Tribal Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer." 40. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." 41. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 42. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1a — Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. 43. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1b - Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor. At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. 44. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1c — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. The qualified archeologist, or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. 45. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1d — Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -la and 1b. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. 46. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1e — Unanticipated Discovery. If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -1 b. 47. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f — Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP. The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. 48. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The applicant shall implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot- checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. 49. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2b - Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries. If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. 50. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains. If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. 51. MSHCP Pre -Construction Survey. A 30 -day preconstruction survey, in accordance with MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The results of the 30 -day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. 52. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30 -day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist." 53. Rough Grading Plans. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 54. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 55. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). 56. Quimby Requirements. Per the Development Agreement, the developer has satisfied the City's parkland dedication (Quimby) requirement through the provision of parks and open space identified in the Altair Specific Plan. These parks will be privately maintained, but open to the public. The Central Park in Village C will be dedicated to the City per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). 57. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 58. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 59. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 60. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 61. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 62. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 63. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas. 64. Wall and Fence Plans. Wall and fence plans shall be reviewed with all landscape plans, and shall be consistent with the Altair Specific Plan. 65. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 66. Landscaping Requirement for Phased Development. If any phase or area of the project site is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of grading, the landscaping plans shall indicate it will be temporarily landscaped and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. 67. WQMP Landscape Compliance. The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with Appendix A, Table 31 of the Low Impact Development (LID) Manual for Southern California for plant materials and treatment facilities, and shall reference the approved precise grading plan for WQMP features. 68. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 69. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 70. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 71. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 72. Final Map. A copy of the Final Map for each phase shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division. 73. Environmental Constraint Sheet. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division with the following notes: a. This property is located within 30 miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. 74. Submittal of CC&Rs. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project or any phase thereof shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development. The CC&Rs shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings, and landscaped and open areas, including parkways. Applicants shall provide a deposit in the amount of $3,750 for the review of the CC&Rs. Amended CC&Rs will require a $2,000 deposit. The applicant shall be responsible for al costs incurred during review of the CC&Rs and additional fees may be required during the course of the review. 75. Form and Content of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and its residents. 76. Preparation of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. 77. Review of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owners Association are subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development, Public Works Director, and the City Attorney. 78. CC&Rs and Management and Maintenance of Common Areas. The CC&Rs shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas, drainage facilities, and pollution prevention devices outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan for the project or any phase thereof. 79. CC&Rs and Public Nuisance. The CC&Rs shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated, and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. 80. Termination of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall provide that the association may not be terminated without prior City approval. 81. CC&Rs and Maintenance of Property. The CC&Rs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&Rs, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&Rs or the City Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. 82. Interest in Association. Every owner of a suite or lot governed by CC&Rs shall own as an appurtenance to such suite or lot, either: (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. 83. Maintenance of Open Areas. All open areas and landscaping governed by CC&R shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning Divisions and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 84. Reciprocal Easements. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives, parking areas, drainage facilities, and water quality features, shall be provided by the CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 85. Consent of Citv of Temecula. An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs, following the Declarant's signature, to read as follows: CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 36959, -1, -2, and -3, require the City of Temecula to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolutions of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs. Luke Watson Director of Community Development Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 86. Operation of Association. No lot or suite in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owners group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&Rs, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or suites and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&Rs shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 87. Recordation of CC&Rs. CC&Rs shall be finalized and recorded at the time of Final Map Recordation. 88. Copies of CC&Rs. Three copies of the final recorded CC&Rs shall be provided to the Planning Division. 89. General. The CC&Rs shall contain a provision requiring the HOA to perform yearly inspections of garages to ensure adequate parking. 90. General. The CC&Rs shall contain a list of all disclosures (tax rate — Mello Roos, wildlife, noise, etc.) as required by the City of Temecula and State of California. OUTSIDE AGENCY LETTERS 91. Rancho Water. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water transmittal dated August 26, 2014, a copy of which is attached. 92. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the RCFCWD transmittal dated March 5, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 93. Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the MWD transmittal dated April 14, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 94. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the ACOE transmittal dated May 18, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 95. Southern California Edison (SCE). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the SCE transmittal dated September 17, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 96. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the EMWD transmittal dated September 21, 2016, a copy of which is attached. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 97. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure for a 2 -hour duration for this projects. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 98. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x (2) 2' 'A" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent public streets. For all multi -family projects hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant for all and for single family dwellings and tract homes hydrants shall be 500 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 99. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 100. Water Maintenance Agreement. An agreement for the maintenance and repair of any and all existing underground Fire Department water systems, including all fire sprinkler supplies, and all fire hydrants and supplies, will be in place as a condition of this division to maintain available water in perpetuity Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 101. Turning Radius (Culdesac). Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 37 -feet for single family dwelling tracts and 45 feet for multi -family dwelling tracts. (CFC Chapter 5 along with the Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 102. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 103. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 104. Gradient Of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 105. Knox Box. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5) 106. File Format Requirements. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format, must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of alternative file formats which may be acceptable PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 107. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. 108. Developer shall execute a City Standard Subdivision Improvement Agreements for the applicable phase of the development to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map. These improvements include, but are not limited to paving, base, signing & striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, pedestrian ramps, drainage structures, and best management practices for stormwater treatment, reconstruction, replacement and repair of adjacent improvements where the subdivision transitions and connects to existing improvements as applicable. Said improvements shall be installed to City Standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 109. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map for each phase, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the Water District Engineer. 110. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase, Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along and within the subdivision boundary. 111. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots abutting the Western Bypass Corridor Road. 112. Developer shall cause Owner to make an offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for the Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. 113. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the Director of Public Works, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. 114. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights -of -ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 115. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Works, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 116. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 117. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with all street improvements on and off-site grading. Perimeter walls, where required, shall be treated with graffiti -resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 118. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06, unless otherwise provided for by a written agreement between the City and the Developer. 119. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein or by development agreement, and State laws, and shall conform to the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. 120. Approval of this Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are certified by the City Council. 121. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Temecula Valley Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to comply with all school district requirements. 122. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans for each phase shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans. 123. A detailed noise attenuation evaluation shall be conducted in a supplemental acoustical study to be submitted when the tract map is filed with the appropriate agency. 124. Prior to the approval of a development plan or tentative map for individual planning areas, the developer and City staff will review plans, especially for multi -family housing areas, commercial uses, and parks for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 125. Prior to approval of any development projects, appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review shall be obtained by the developer. These agencies shall be determined by the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works. 126. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the Director of Public Works for recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. 127. The developer or the developer's successor -in -interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement, litter removal and erosion control as applicable. 128. Prior to approval of any development projects, the developer shall investigate the feasibility of a reclaimed water system, to irrigate landscaping within the roadway medians, parkways, drainage channel, schools, the community park, the paseo park, neighborhood parks, and other common open space areas. The developer shall provide evidence that compliance with this condition is in accordance with Senate Bill 2095. 129. Developer shall provide to the Director of Public Works, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements (e.g. roads, driveways, sidewalks, utilities, water quality treatment facilities and private storm drain improvements, etc.) located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. 130. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 131. All lighting shall be reviewed by the City to assure compliance with the Ordinance No. 655. 132. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs consistent with the Specific Plan. Grading 133. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 134. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 135. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, erosion control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements as applicable. 136. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: a) Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. b) Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. c) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. d) Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. e) Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. f) Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 137. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 138. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of completion of grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 139. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 140. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 141. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 142. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 143. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 144. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 145. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Drainage 146. Floodplain/Floodway Development. If applicable, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, which requires a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. A FEMA -approved CLOMR shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The developer shall pay all fees required by FEMA (and City) for processing of the FEMA reviews. 147. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100 -year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site as required by the City. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 148. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 149. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 150. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 151. All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100 -year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 152. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the interim detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 153. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 154. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site as required by the Director of Public works. 155. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements as necessary. 156. During review of any future tentative map, an updated geotechnical/geologic report shall be prepared to include any necessary revisions to earthwork, foundation, design, and construction recommendations. 157. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 158. Geological Report. The developer shall complete any outstanding County geologist's requirements, recommendations and/or proposed Conditions of Approval as identified during entitlement. 159. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. WQMP / SWPPP 160. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; or other affected agencies 161. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal for any phase approval by Public Works. A copy of the final project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: http://www. citvoftemecu la. orq/Temecula/Government/PublicW orks/W QM PandNPDES/W QMP.htm 162. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http://www. citvoftemecula.orq/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/engineeringconstman ual.htm 163. 0 & M Agreement: The developer shall submit a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement for review and approval 164. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 165. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.aov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml Circulation 166. Prior to Final Map recordation for each phase, the Developer is responsible to bond for or construct the traffic signals at the project's accesses, as required, including the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications. 167. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to and from developments areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual tentative maps and/or development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works, consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 168. The exact location and number of access points shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works upon future tentative map and/or development plan approvals consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 169. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards or as approved with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Map. 170. All intersection intervals shall comply with City standards and requirements. 171. Developer, at its sole cost, shall design and improve Vincent Moraga Road to ensure that all driveways providing access from to adjoining properties shall be allowed for safe ingress and/or egress. Improvements may include, but not be limited to, truck deceleration, acceleration and turn -in lanes. The improvements shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for public roadway and rights of way consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 172. Developer, at its sole cost, shall fund the acquisition and installation of traffic signals and related roadway and right of way improvements, when warranted. The design and installation shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula, consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 173. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in accordance with City Engineering Standards. The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on all improvement, grading, or landscape plans prepared in association with the development. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor as defined by City of Temecula Engineering Standards. 174. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). Additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. 175. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Temecula Standards based on R -value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. 176. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown in the Altair Specific Plan. Any substantive re -phasing of the development must be approved by the Planning and Public Works Director through a re -phasing application. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. 177. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program 178. The Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be established in compliance with the approved mitigation measures identified in the approved Traffic Impact Analysis and shall be completed prior to issuance of first occupancy permit in each additional phases of the development as required by the Director of Public Works. Water and Sewer 179. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applicable thru completion of this development. 180. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase as subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 181. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 182. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at locations approved by the Water District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 183. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean -outs at locations approved by the Sewer District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. Final Map Notes 184. Add the following notes to the final map as non -mapping data: "All improvements within private Streets are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with including but not limited to: Curbs, gutter, A.C. paving, street lights, storm drains. All Storm Water treatment control facilities are considered private requiring private maintenance." Master HOA 185. Developer shall establish a Master homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a phase, the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: d. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. e. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to reasonably disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. f. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the "Common Area Lots and/or the Association's Easements," the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such g. maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements within the period specified by the City's notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. Special Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association's Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal pro rata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. h. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth on the "Developer Responsibility Map" of the Specific Plan. Lighting Restrictions on Private Residential Lots: Restrictions on lighting within residential lots adjacent to open space conservation areas shall be as set forth in the Specific Plan and Final EIR. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 186. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance when applicable, from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; e. Riverside County Health Department; f. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau; g. Planning Department; h. Department of Public Works; i. Community Services District; j. Caltrans; k. Rancho California Water District; I. Eastern Municipal Water District; m. Verizon; n. Telephone Company; o. Southern California Edison Company; p. The Gas Company; and q. Metropolitan Water District or other affected agencies 187. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid or fee credits have been provided. 188. Securities. For each of the phases, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the grading and erosion & sediment control improvements. 189. Area Drainage Plan (ADP) Fee to RCFC&WCD. For each phase, the developer shall demonstrate to the City that the flood mitigation charge (ADP fee) has been paid to RCFC&WCD. If the full ADP fee has already been credited to this property, no new charge will be required. 190. The developer shall provide proof to the Department of Public Works and Planning that the conditions of any Wildlife Agency or Army Corps permits if necessary for any restoration have been bonded for and shall be implemented consistent with the timing requirements of the permits. 191. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided in Altair Specific Plan and the Development Agreement. 192. The project shall comply with the latest disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the California Building Code. 193. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for each phase of this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the Director of Public Works. 194. This project requires off site grading. No grading for any improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records, and submits a recorded copy to the Director of Public Works a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the Director of Public Works and Planning Director. 195. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained: a. from Public Works for public offsite improvements; b. from the California Department of Transportation if encroaching within their right- of-way; and c. from Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) if encroaching within their right-of-way. 196. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the Director of Public Works for the proposed haul route. 197. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an "as -graded" geologic plan with the Director of Public Works. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24"x 36" mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 198. Final Map. Final Map shall be approved and recorded for the applicable phase. 199. The developer shall provide proof to the Director of Public Works that the has contributed its fair share towards regional traffic improvements systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area the area through a Development Agreement. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development of each phase. 200. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. Phasing 201. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 202. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Pian. 203. The Developer shall be permitted to seek a reimbursement agreement for qualifying facilities and improvements. The City and the Developer shall proceed in good faith to allocate appropriate reimbursements to the Developer pursuant to the City's then enforceable ordinance applicable to such reimbursement pursuant to Development Agreement. Tract Map 36959-1 (North Phasel In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of North Phase and prior to 151 building permit in North Phase: 204. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side of Vincent Moraga between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor northbound right turn lane improvements within this road segment. 205. Acquisition of right-of-way on the south side of Rancho California Road between Vincent Moraga Drive and the Murrieta Creek Bridge and construction of all intersection improvements within this road segment including an additional westbound left turn lane on Rancho California Road to Vincent Moraga Drive. 206. Traffic signal and utility relocation where needed and construction of the ultimate build -out of the Rancho California Road, Diaz Road and Vincent Moraga Drive intersection. 207. Construction of the designed onsite Western Bypass Corridor Phase 1 improvements from the project's northern property line to the future Altair Vista intersection. 208. Construction of the Ridge Park Drive and Western Bypass Corridor intersection improvements to provide left -turn ingress and right-in/right-out to Ridge Park Drive. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 209. Install Multi -Way Stop Controls at the First Street & Pujol Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 210. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the North Phase and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 350th building permit in North Phase, or ii) the 1st building permit in the Central Phase: 211. Acquisition of right-of-way on the west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 212. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side and west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Ridge Park Drive and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 213. Following the occupancy of both villages within this North Phase (Village A and Village B), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road; (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-2 (Central Phasel In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Central Phase and prior to lst building permit in Central Phase: 214. Construction of the designed Coromell Trail road segment between Altair Vista and First Street. 215. Installation of one (1) new left turn lane (re -stripe only), and modify signal operation, install signal indications and necessary equipment at Ynez Road and Santiago Road. 216. Construction of traffic signals at the Pujol Street and First Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 217. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase and completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on pads south of the Village C Park: a. Construction of the "A" Street vehicular bridge that crosses over the Village C Park. 218. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase, shall commence before the 700th building permit is issued in the project and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 950th building permit in the project, or ii) the l st building permit in the South Phase: a. Construction of either the Western Bypass Bridge or construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Civic Phase. 219. Following the construction of the Western Bypass Bridge and Phase 2 Road, optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-3 (South Phasel 220. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of South Phase and prior to lst building permit in South Phase: a. Construction of both the Western Bypass Bridge and construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Nature Center Phase. b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass Corridor and Altair Vista intersection. c. Construction of the designed "B" Street North road segment between Altair Vista and the Western Bypass Corridor. 221. Following the completion of the villages in this South Phase (Village D, Village E and Village F), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959 (Civic Phase' 222. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Civic Phase and prior to 1S1 building permit in Civic Phase: a. Construction of all remaining Western Bypass Corridor improvements (Phase 3 which includes 2 western lanes; southbound). b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass and "B" Street intersection. 223. Following completion of both villages in this Civic Phase (Village G and Nature Center), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road. (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (d) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (e) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (f) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 224. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 225. The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the 5 -acre community park, the proposed private Parks that are HOA owned and maintained including recreational areas identified in the Altair Specific Plan. 226. The actual design of the 5 -acre community park in Central Phase shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. Construction plans and specifications must be approved by the Director of Community Services. 227. All park plans submitted for consideration shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process. 228. The design of the community park in Central Phase shall provide for pedestrian circulation and access for the disabled throughout the park. 229. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, or Master HOA shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites and slopes/landscaping areas except as defined in the Development Agreement, on Developer Responsibility Map. 230. The 5 -acre community park shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 231. The developer may receive a credit against the park component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) based upon the actual cost of improving the community park in Central Phase. The fee/credit issue shall be addressed pursuant to the execution of a Development Agreement or a Park Improvement Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. COMPLETELY TEMECULA. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 November 2017 ,,v\v#011 1-01 r SPECIFIC PLAN Prepared by: COMMUNITIES 179 Calle Magdalena, #201 Encinitas, CA 92024 ELZEI*IEEZMERI carrierjohnson + CULTUR3 2850 Womble Road Suite 100-403 San Diego, CA 92106 1301 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 November 2017 2020 Camino Del Rio North Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92108 November 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Al f"Ai r 1 SUMMARY 1-1 1.1 Document Purpose 1-1 1.2 Related Application and Studies 1-1 1.3 Legal Authority and Process 1-1 1.4 Organization 1-2 2 iir i rzvouCTION 2.1 Vision 2-1 2.2 Smart Growth 2-1 2.3 Site 2-6 2.4 Design Concept 2-9 2.5 Land Use 2-15 2.6 Relationship to the General Plan 2-17 3 LAND USE 3.1 Summary 3-1 3.2 Relationship of Land Uses to Zoning 3-7 3.3 Open Space 3-7 3.4 Altair Villages 3-7 3.5 Village A 3-9 3.6 Village B 3-17 3.7 Village C 3-23 3.8 Village D 3-33 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 (TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 3.9 Village E 3-41 3.10 Village F 3-49 3.11 Village G 3-57 3.12 School Site 3-63 3.13 Civic Site 3-69 4 CIRCULATION PLAN 4.1 Pedestrian Walkways, Trails & Bikeways 4-3 4.2 Circulation Plan - Vehicular 4-19 5 GRADING PLAN 5-1 5.1 Grading Description 5-1 5.2 Grading Plan Standards 5-1 ru.ko i r u i uric AND UTILITIES 6-1 6.1 Drainage 6-1 6.2 Water 6-8 6.3 Sewer 6-17 6.4 Dry Utilities 6-21 PUBLIC SERVICES 7-1 7.1 Schools 7-1 7.2 Libraries 7-1 7.3 Fire Protection 7-3 7.4 Police 7-3 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 7.5 Parks 7-3 7.6 Hospitals 7-4 7.7 Public Transit 7-4 7.8 Waste Management 7-7 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN 8-1 8.1 Natural Open Space 8-4 8.2 Interstitial Open Space 8-5 8.3 Active Open Space 8-7 8.4 Private Open Space 8-10 8.5 Park Programming 8-10 8.6 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design 8-11 9 ucoiL,iv I.aUILJCLII'1 O 9.1 Design Objectives 9-1 9.2 Building Placement 9-1 9.3 Building Form 9-2 9.4 Building Frontage 9-9 9.5 Utility Placement and Screening 9-22 9.6 Fences, Walls and Gates 9-25 9.7 Slopes and Retaining Walls 9-27 9.8 Materials, Textures and Colors 9-32 9.9 Public Art 9-34 Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 IV 9.10 Monuments and Gateways 9-41 9.11 Wind Screening 9-45 9.12 Outdoor Lighting 9-45 9.13 Streets 9-46 9.14 Signage 9-47 9.15 Accessibility 9-48 10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10- 10.1 Application 10-1 10.2 Zoning 10-1 10.3 Height Limits and Vertical Projections 10-1 10.4 Setbacks and Build -To Line 10-4 10.5 Signage 10-8 10.6 Conceptual Landscape Plan 10-10 10.7 Parking 10-24 10.8 Fences, Hedges and Walls 10-26 10.9 Refuse and Service Areas 10-27 10.10 Building Types 10-28 10.11 Detached Housing 10-29 10.12 Multi-Plex 10-38 10.13 Rowhouse 10-42 10.14 Live/Work 10-47 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir 10.15 Multifamily Walk -Up 10.16 Multifamily Podium 10.17 Micro -Units 10.18 Mixed -Use 10.19 Iconic Tower 10.20 Civic Buildings / Nature Center 10.21 School Buildiings 10.22 Community Buildings 10-51 10-55 10-58 10-60 10-63 10-64 10-66 10-68 IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Regulations that Administer the Specific Plan 11-1 11.2 Capital Improvements 11-5 11.3 Phasing 11-5 11.4 Maintenance 11-7 11.5 Density Transfer 11-7 11.6 Lot Reconfiguration or Consolidation 11-9 11.7 Financing Strategies 11-9 11.8 Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments 11-10 11.9 Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee 11-10 11.10 Severability 11-11 APPENDICES Appendix A - Plant Lists SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 3 LAND USE Table 3-1 Zones and Development Intensity Table 3-1 Cont. Zones and Development Intensity $ OPEN a' rttCr tAi lieu Table 8-1 Open Space Summary Table 8-2 Park and Open Space Areas DEVELOPMENT ^T^ R'—,=" Table 10-1 Permitted Uses Table 10-2 Zoning Regulations Table 10-3 Parking Requirements Table 10-4 Building Types TABLES 3-4 3-5 8-2 8-2 10-2 10-3 10-25 10-28 VII SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 (TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE OF FIGURES Al f"Ai r 2 INTRODUCTION Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map 2-6 Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map 2-8 Figure 2-3 Connection to Open Space 2-10 Figure 2-4 Connection to Old Town Temecula 2-11 Figure 2-5 View Opportunities 2-12 Figure 2-6 Outdoor Rooms Linked Enfilade 2-13 Figure 2-7 Outdoor Rooms Linked in a "Daisy Chain" 2-14 Figure 2-8 Aerial Photograph 2-16 Figure 3-1 Natural Open Space 3-2 Figure 3-2 Land Use 3-3 Figure 3-3 Zoning Map 3-6 Figure 3-4 Village A - Plan Area 3-8 Figure 3-5 Vehicular Access - Village A 3-10 Figure 3-6 Pedestrian Circulation - Village A 3-11 Figure 3-7 Park Plan at Village A 3-14 Figure 3-8 Village B - Plan Area 3-16 Figure 3-9 Vehicular Access - Village B 3-18 Figure 3-10 Pedestrian Circulation - Village B 3-19 Figure 3-11 Park Plan at Village B 3-20 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 IX (TABLE OF FIGURES 1 X Figure 3-12 Village C - Plan Area Figure 3-13 Vehicular Access - Village C Figure 3-14 Pedestrian Circulation - Village C Figure 3-15 Park Plan at Village C Figure 3-16 Park Section at Village C Figure 3-17 Village D - Plan Area Figure 3-18 Vehicular Access - Village D Figure 3-19 Pedestrian Circulation - Village D Figure 3-20 Park Plan at Village D Figure 3-21 Village E - Plan Area Figure 3-22 Vehicular Access - Village E Figure 3-23 Pedestrian Circulation - Village E Figure 3-24 Park Plan at Village E Figure 3-25 Village F - Plan Area Figure 3-26 Vehicular Access - Village F Figure 3-27 Pedestrian Circulation - Village F Figure 3-28 Park Plan at Village F Figure 3-29 Village G - Plan Area Figure 3-30 Vehicular Access - Village G Figure 3-31 Pedestrian Circulation - Village G Figure 3-32 School - Plan Area 3-22 3-24 3-25 3-29 3-30 3-32 3-34 3-35 3-38 3-40 3-42 3-43 3-46 3-48 3-50 3-51 3-54 3-56 3-58 3-59 3-62 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 3-33 Vehicular Access - School Figure 3-34 Pedestrian Circulation - School Figure 3-35 Conceptual Site Plan - School Figure 3-36 Civic Site - Plan Area Figure 3-37 Vehicular Access - Civic Site Figure 3-38 Pedestrian Circulation - Civic Site CIRCULATION PLAN Figure 4-1 5 Minute Walk Figure 4-2 Circulation Plan - Pedestrian and Bicycle Figure 4-3 Class I Bikeway Section Figure 4-4 Key Walkway Section Figure 4-5 Plan at Mid -Block Crossing Figure 4-6 Typical Village Sidewalk Section Figure 4-7 Hiking Trail Section Figure 4-8 Bicycle Facilities Figure 4-9 Crossing at Coromell Trail Figure 4-10 Conceptual Plan at Grand Stair Figure 4-11 Vehicular Entries Figure 4-12 Vehicular Circulation Plan Figure 4-13 Street Section - Western Bypass Corridor 1 Figure 4-14 Street Section - Western Bypass Corridor 2 a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 1 TABLE OF FIGURES 3-64 3-65 3-66 3-68 3-70 3-71 4-2 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-9 4-10 4-11 4-13 4-16 4-17 4-18 4-23 4-24 4-24 XI (TABLE OF FIGURES 1 XII Figure 4-15 Street Axon - Western Bypass Corridor 2 4-25 Figure 4-16 Street Section - C Street + B Street South 4-26 Figure 4-17 Street Axon - C Street + B Street South 4-27 Figure 4-18 Street Section - Coromell Trail 4-28 Figure 4-19 Street Section - Coromell Trail - Split Lanes 4-28 Figure 4-20 Street Axon - Coromell Trail - Split Lanes 4-29 Figure 4-21 Street Section - Altair Vista - Planted Parkways 4-30 Figure 4-22 Street Axon - Altair Vista - Planted Parkways 4-31 Figure 4-23 Street Section - Altair Vista + A Street - Urban 4-32 Figure 4-24 Street Axon - Altair Vista + A Street - Urban 4-33 Figure 4-25 Street Section - Altair Vista one way 4-34 Figure 4-26 Street Axon - Altair Vista one way 4-35 Figure 4-27 Street Section - Altair Vista 4-36 Figure 4-28 Street Axon - Altair Vista 4-37 Figure 4-29 Street Section - Altair Vista Culverts + A St Bridge 4-38 Figure 4-30 Street Axon - Altair Vista Culverts + A St Bridge 4-39 Figure 4-31 Street Section - B Street North 4-40 Figure 4-32 Street Section - B Street North with Bikeway 4-40 Figure 4-33 Street Axon - B Street North 4-41 Figure 4-34 Street Section - Alley 4-42 Figure 4-35 Typical Alley at Cottages at Harveston 4-43 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 5 GRADING PLAN' Figure 5-1 Project Grading Diagram Figure 5-2 Project Grading Sections Figure 5-3 Retaining Wall Diagram o INFRAS i NUCTURE ANu � i lu lES Figure 6-1 Typical Drainage Draw Plan Figure 6-2 Typical Drainage Draw Section Figure 6-3 Storm Drainage Plan Figure 6-4 Enlarged Storm Drainage Plans Figure 6-5 Domestic Water Plan Figure 6-6 Enlarged Domestic Water Plans Figure 6-7 Sewer Plan Figure 6-8 Enlarged Sewer Plans PUBLIC SERVICES Figure 7-1 Public Services Figure 7-2 RTA Route Map Figure 7-3 Smart Shuttle Route Proposal 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN Figure 8-1 Parks, Open Space and Amenities Plan Figure 8-2 Open Space and Recreational Images a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 5-3 5-4 5-5 6-3 6-3 6-4 6-6 and 6-7 6-9 6-11 and 6-12 6-16 6-18 and 6-19 7-2 7-5 7-6 8-3 8-9 1 TABLE OF FIGURES XIII (TABLE OF FIGURES 1 XIV fESIGN GUIDELINES Figure 9-1 Motor Court Elements 9-6 Figure 9-2 Building Frontage 9-8 Figure 9-3 Straight Stoop 9-10 Figure 9-4 Sideways Stoop 9-10 Figure 9-5 Projecting Porch 9-12 Figure 9-6 Integral Porch 9-12 Figure 9-7 Recessed Entry 9-14 Figure 9-8 Walled Yard 9-15 Figure 9-9 Raised Yard 9-16 Figure 9-10 Entry Court 9-19 Figure 9-11 Shopfront 9-20 Figure 9-12 Arcade 9-21 Figure 9-13 Utility Locations 9-22 Figure 9-14 Retaining Wall Section where Visible to Public 9-27 Figure 9-15 Stepped Buildings 9-28 Figure 9-16 Roundabout 1 - Plan 9-36 Figure 9-17 Roundabout 1 - Elevation 9-37 Figure 9-18 Roundabout 2 - Plan 9-38 Figure 9-19 Roundabout 2 - Elevation 9-39 Figure 9-20 Roundabout 3 - Elevation 9-39 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 1 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 9-21 Roundabout 3 - Plan 9-40 Figure 9-22 Major Entry Monument A - Plan 9-41 Figure 9-23 Major Entry Monument A - Elevation Figure 9-24 Entry Monuments + Gateways Figure 9-25 Major Entry Monument B - Elevation Figure 9-26 Major Entry Monument C - Elevation Figure 9-27 Gateway Bridge Figure 9-28 Street Organization 10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Figure 10-1 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Porch Figure 10-2 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Stoop Figure 10-3 Allowable Setback Encroachments - WaIIs+Trellises 9-41 9-42 9-43 9-43 9-44 9-47 10-4 10-5 10-5 Figure 10-4 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Awnings, Balconies, Roofs 10-6 Figure 10-5 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Arcades 10-7 Figure 10-6 Building -Mounted Signs 10-8 Figure 10-7 Monument Signs Figure 10-8 Conceptual Landscape Plan Figure 10-9 Landscape Exhibit 1 10-9 10-11 10-12 Figure 10-10 Landscape Exhibit 2 10-13 Figure 10-11 Landscape Exhibit 3 10-14 a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 XV (TABLE OF FIGURES 1 XVI Figure 10-12 Landscape Exhibit 4 10-15 Figure 10-13 Street Tree Plan 10-16 Figure 10-14 Urban Parkway with Tree Grate 10-23 Figure 10-15 Urban Parkway with Planter Pocket 10-23 Figure 10-16 Detached Housing with small entry yard 10-29 Figure 10-17 Detached Housing clustered around common green space 10-30 Figure 10-18 Detached Housing Facing Street 10-31 Figure 10-19 Detached Housing around Motor Court 10-32 Figure 10-20 Detached Housing Clustered around Green 10-33 Figure 10-21 Typical Landscaping at Bungalow Court and Rose Court 10-34 Figure 10-22 Typical Front Yard Landscaping at Detached Housing 10-35 Figure 10-23 4th Floor Limits in Detached Housing 10-36 Figure 10-24 Typical Massing at Detached Housing 10-36 Figure 10-25 Detached garages and/or accessory dwelling 10-37 Figure 10-26 Typical Massing at Multiplex 10-39 Figure 10-27 Multiplex Housing with shared Driveway & Motor Court 10-40 Figure 10-28 Rowhomes along a street facade 10-42 Figure 10-29 Rowhouse massing and articulation 10-45 Figure 10-30 Typical Live/Work Building 10-47 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 10-31 Example Live/Work Building Section Figure 10-32 Typical Massing at Multifamily Walk -Up Figure 10-33 Motor Court at Multifamily Housing Figure 10-34 Multifamily Walk -Up Housing Arrangement Figure 10-35 Multifamily Podium example with street -level entries Figure 10-36 Multifamily Podium Building Figure 10-37 Resident Courtyard at Multifamily Podium Housing Figure 10-38 Micro -Units Typical Layout Figure 10-39 Building with Micro -Units Figure 10-40 Iconic Tower IMPLEMENTATION Figure 11-1 Public and Private Roads at Altair Figure 11-2 Altair Conceptual Phasing Plan Figure 11-3 Developer Responsibility Map a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 1 TABLE OF FIGURES 10-48 10-51 10-52 10-53 10-55 10-56 10-57 10-58 10-58 10-63 XVII SUMMARY 1.1 Document Purpose The Altair Specific Plan serves as the regulatory document and planning instrument for the future development of a 270 -acre land parcel west of the Old Town planning area in the City of Temecula. This Specific Plan is a mechanism for implementing the City of Temecula General Plan in the area defined therein as Altair. 1.2 Related Applications and Studies SUMMARY N�f"Ail' The Altair Specific Plan is one of several concurrent studies and approvals necessary for the complete entitlement of Altair. These include: • PA14-0158 General Plan Amendment to amend the land use and allowable density and to revise the alignment of the Western Bypass Corridor. • PA14-0159 Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2014111029) • PA14-0160 Tentative Tract Map • PA14-0161 Development Agreement, including a Fiscal Impact Analysis and formation of a Community Facilities District. 1.3 Legal Authority and Process The City of Temecula General Plan authorizes in its Land Use Element the use of Specific Plans that comply with Section 65451 of the California Government Code and with the City's Development Code. California Government Code Section 65450-65457 grants local planning agencies the authority to create specific plans to execute the applicable general plan for any area within that general plan. Both the General Plan and the Development Code of the City require approval of a specific plan prior to any land use entitlement or building or grading permit in designated specific plan areas of 100 or more acres. Altair is in such a designated area and, therefore, requires an approved specific plan for development. Both the General Plan and the official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula designate the majority of the subject property as SP -8, Westside Specific Plan. This was a previously adopted document that never developed as a built project. Therefore, the new Altair Specific Plan requires a rezone process with a general plan amendment to revise the land uses for the site and remove the SP -8 designation. Specific plans in the City of Temecula require a Planning Commission hearing and City Council hearing, both with public notice. Additionally, the EIR / CEQA process requires a public scoping meeting. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council based on findings listed in the Development Code. Council will then consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission as well as the findings to determine whether to SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 1-2 adopt the Specific Plan. Adoption will be by ordinance. The findings that must be made are: 1. The proposed specific plan is consistent with the general plan and development code. 2. The proposed specific plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. 3. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. 4. The proposed specific plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. Upon adoption of the Altair Specific Plan, it becomes the regulatory document for Altair. All future development plans, tentative maps, parcel maps or other entitlements and public improvements located within the boundaries defined by this plan must be found to be consistent with this Specific Plan. All regulations, policies and implementation measures described in this Specific Plan shall be considered individually. If any provision is determined to be without legal basis by a presiding State or Federal court, the remaining document and stipulations shall continue to be valid and enforceable. 1.4 Organization The Altair Specific Plan is organized in eleven sections to cover the various aspects of planning and regulation for development and construction at Altair. Section 1 offers a short summary of the purpose and process of this document and associated approvals. Section 2 introduces the vision and design concept for the Altair community, discusses the smart growth principals that guide this concept and explains the plan's consistency with the City of Temecula General Plan. Section 3 discusses land use and describes the individual Villages and civic plan areas. Section 4 outlines the circulation plans for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles to achieve a walkable community. Section 5 explains the grading work needed for the site and provides standards to prevent erosion and minimize the visual impacts of grading. Section 6 discusses infrastructure and utilities, including stormwater drainage and treatment, water, sewer, electricity and natural gas services. Section 7 discusses public services available to the project, including libraries, police, fire and rescue, parks, public transit, waste management, schools and the site available for a new elementary school. Section 8 describes the extensive network of parks and open space proposed for Altair, and how open spaces are integrated with the villages concept and with the historic terrain. The Design Guidelines that will ensure the aesthetic quality of development in Altair are located in Section 9. Section 10 includes development standards regulating the site for zoning, building parameters, building type, parking and landscaping. Finally, Section 11 outlines the implementation of this Specific Plan, including proposed phasing, capital improvements and maintenance responsibilities. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANC4i// INTRODUCTION 2.1 Vision The name "Altair" derives from the Latin roots for "a high place" and "an altar". The combined meaning is "a high place of significance or prominence". Altair is also the name of a star in the constellation Aquila. The name is appropriate to this site that sits above the heart of Temecula and is easily seen from many points in the City. The ridge line above Altair has long been a visual backdrop to the City and will only be enhanced by this neighborhood at its base. The community of Altair will play a prominent role in the physical, social and economic evolution of Temecula. INTRODUCTION Al f"Ai r OLD TOWN FRONT STREET IN TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 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 clientelle 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. 2.2 Smart Growth "Smart growth" is a collection of land use and development principles that aim to enhance our quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Smart growth principles ensure that growth is fiscally, environmentally and socially responsible and recognizes the connections between urban development and quality of life. Smart growth enhances and completes communities by placing priority on infill, redevelopment, and densification strategies. The Altair Specific Plan is founded in the philosophy of smart growth. The following is a summary of 10 smart growth principles and how the Altair project embodies each. %m SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 2-1 INTRODUCTION 2 10 Smart Growth Principles 1. Mix Land Use' Each neighborhood has a balanced mixture of homes, retail, business, and recreational opportunities to stimulate vitality throughout the day. A. The Altair Specific Plan meets this principle by providing a mix of housing types and active open space in an area of the City currently dominated by commercial uses. B. Old Town is the shopping and nightlife center of Temecula. However, it is separated from the existing housing base east of 1-15, the majority of which is suburban in nature, predominantly single-family homes dependent on vehicular circulation. Altair introduces urban housing adjacent to Old Town to form a larger community integrating a mix of mutually supportive uses. 2. Build well-designed compact neighborhoods Residents can choose to live, work, shop and play in close proximity. People can easily access daily activities, transit is viable, and local businesses are supported. A. Altair is inherently compact and walkable due to the size, scale and density of the development. Figure 4-1 of this Specific Plan overlays 1/4 mile walking radius on the project map to demonstrate ease of access to Old Town and other parts of the community without driving. B. Safety — landscaping, lighting and visibility are considered and integrated into the design. C. Eyes on the street - dense communities with buildings that face circulation routes and public spaces have many observers to deter crime or notice someone in trouble. D. Livability — each unit has access to private and public open space. Functional needs, such as parking and trash service, are fully considered and accommodated with no negative impacts on the neighborhood. E. Environmental design — homes and open spaces have shade and shelter from the wind. Stormwater is treated and contained to prevent flooding. 3. Provide a variety of transportation choices. Neighborhoods are attractive and have safe infrastructure for walking, cycling and transit, in addition to driving. A. The Altair plan focuses on walking and cycling for both transportation and recreation. Residents walk between villages, to parks, to the neighborhood elementary school, nearby Old Town, and can access a regional trail system. B. Altair features complete streets, that equally accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete streets support social interaction and neighborhood vitality beyond the simple need for circulation. C. A potential shuttle route has been coordinated with RTA to connect with the bus system. D. A variety of bike lanes and trails, from sharrows to Class 1 trails, are provided to match different cycling modes. E. A true walkable neighborhood like Altair results in physical and social public health benefits. Residents are more fit, interact more with their neighbors and breathe cleaner air. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 2 INTRODUCTION 4. Create diverse housing opportunities. People in different family types, life stages and income levels can afford a home in the neighborhood of their choice. A. The Altair development is very different from the rest of the City, especially east of the freeway, which is characterized by single family housing interspersed with shopping centers and few apartments. B. At Altair, housing is available for all stages of life. Housing types range from micro -units and apartments to rowhouses to detached housing on small lots. Development parcels are small and in close proximity to encourage a mix of people of different ages and lifestyles. C. The Elementary School site will serve younger families. D. The zoning allows day care, either in homes or day care centers, to support young families and provide opportunities for employment. E. Senior housing is encouraged. More importantly, Altair strives to provide communal resources, flexible housing and a supportive neighborhood that allows inhabitants to age in their own homes. 5. Preserve upea spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas. Development respects natural landscape features and has a higher aesthetic, environmental, social and financial value. A. Altair preserves over 68 acres of the existing hillside west of Old Town as MSHCP corridor. The Western Bypass Corridor alignment has been revised from previous designs to achieve this significant conservation land, an increase from the land conserved by the prior alignment. This hillside is a critical viewshed seen from Old Town, the freeway and surrounding neighborhoods. B. Additionally, Altair conserves almost 35 acres of land containing native oak trees at the south end of the site. C. Altair features active and passive recreation parks in each village to form a "string of pearls". The main park at Village C is directly visible from Old Town along Main Street, so that the visual link is to open space. D. Altair protects Temecula's green infrastructure, which is as important to the health, happiness and welfare of its residents as roads and utilities. E. Altair sustains the region's shade trees and urban forests, the organic plant and soil materials that filter our water and air, attenuate noise, ease wind, prevent erosion and flood damage, and moderate temperatures. F. Bio-swales and stormwater retention basins are designed to look natural, and are not fenced -off detention ponds. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 2-3 2-4 INTRODUCTION 2 6. Urban riPckin is imnnrtan* Site plan trumps architecture, meaning the basic arrangement of the building on the site is far more important than the exterior appearance and "envelope" of the structure. There are three rules of urban design which when combined result in well designed compact neighborhoods: A. Require build -to lines. As opposed to setbacks that establish areas where a building cannot be constructed, build -to lines specify where a building is to be built on the lot. Establishing build -to lines can facilitate a sense of enclosure, and provide a method of creating visually interesting, pedestrian -oriented streetscapes by arranging buildings and entrances to the front of lots. B. Make the building front "permeable" (i.e., no blank walls) and building entrances easily identifiable. Whether commercial or residential, patios, porches, windows and doors are important to activate the street, create pedestrian scale and define public and private space. It is never appropriate to have a blank facade or sidewall along a pedestrian thoroughfare, regardless of topography. All buildings respect this principle and front on Altair Vista. C. Prohibit parking lots in front of buildings. Pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods start with the location of the parking lot. In an urban village, there are no parking lots along the street front. While parking lots are a necessity, on-site parking should be located below, behind through an alley, or behind from a street, and buildings should be placed at or near the sidewalk. Pedestrians interact with building facades, not cars. While site plan trumps architecture, building height, massing, and materials are all extremely important and should be designed to have a lasting permanence, both programmatically and materially. 7. Foctpr a iiniriuir naighhnr4ir444prrf+#r Each community is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive. A. Rooftop patios and balconies take advantage of spectacular views overlooking the City, and help define the unique character of Altair. B. The clubhouse has portions open to the public, including a large terrace overlooking a central park, which helps create synergy between Old Town and Altair. C. Public art is strategically located throughout Altair and helps to define place. D. "Hidden treasures" - utilitarian components treated in creative and fun ways - are woven throughout the community, such as messages or footprints in concrete, painted utility boxes, wayfinding or informational signage, creative bike racks, etc. E. Spaces under bridges are decorated or landscaped to discourage graffiti. F. Design guidelines and regulations are flexible to encourage design ingenuity and allow neighborhoods to express their own November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 2 INTRODUCTION distinct ideas of beauty and form. This means that rigidly historical styles are not imposed. G. Strong neighborhood identity increases a sense of ownership and belonging, resulting in better maintained communities, less turnover and higher property values. 8. Direct uevecujmera tUvridiU ex sr` ng CUilfitilUilitieS with urban infrastructure. Avoid the physical impact and high cost of new infrastructure associated with suburban development by building adjacent to existing infrastructure. A. The Altair development is a logical and efficient extension of existing gray infrastructure — streets, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water, cable, gas, electric - and essentially defines the southwestern edge of the City. B. The project provides much needed infrastructure, in the Western Bypass and bridge over Murrieta Creek, to ease existing traffic congestion. Old Town, in particular, will have less vehicular through - traffic and will therefore be more pedestrian -friendly as a result of these improvements. C. Technology — wireless communications, cell towers, satellite, street lights - will be thoughtfully considered and planned into the design to promote modernization with little impact. D. Solar energy opportunities exist. 9. Nurture engaged citizens. Places belong to those who live, work, and play in them. Engaged citizens participate in community life and decision-making. A. People are more aware of social opportunities when they are discovered in the course of daily activities. The centrally located community center overlooking a central park in close proximity to the elementary school, City Hall, museum, theater, Children's Museum, shopping, and special events in Old Town create a synergy that will help to promote civic engagement. B. The site zoned for civic use lies in close proximity to the 1-15 interchange and serves as an anchor to Altair and Old Town. 10. Make Deveiupment ueusiuns Predictable, Fair, and Cost Effective. For a community to be successful in implementing smart growth, its vision, objectives, and actions must be embraced by the private sector. Local governments must make an effort to make development decisions that support innovation in a more timely, cost effective, and predictable way that is mutually beneficial to the City and its residents, and to developers. A. The Altair Project includes a General Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, Specific Plan, Development Agreement, Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Fiscal Impact Analysis. The resulting documents and associated Conditions of Approval will provide clear direction for preservation of natural resources, development processing requirements, timing of infrastructure improvements, and mitigation of impacts. Afir Sources: Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation (ICMA.org) City Comforts: How to Build an Urban Village (David Sucher) 10 Smart Growth Principles (www.smartgrowth.bc.ca) SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 2-5 INTRODUCTION 2 — 2.3 Site The Altair Specific Plan area encompasses 270 acres west of Old Town and Murrieta Creek within the City of Temecula in Riverside County in southern California. The City limits form the western edge of the property. The subject land area is comprised of two portions: the majority 215 acres 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. Riverside • Box ings MounSprtain Park CO Yucaipa Upland Game Hunting Area Mystic Lake Lake Perris State Recreation Area Lake Mathews *Perris Reservoir Lake Mathews Estelle Mountain Reserve Santiago Peak Winchester Ronald W. Caspers Wildernes Park Lake 15 Elsinore Murrieta Doheny State Park Santa Rosa Plateau Rancho Santa Rosa Historic Area Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve NI, imp CO 0 San Bernadino National Forest Hemet Diamond Valley Lake erg Skinner Reservoir Camp Pendleton Capistrano Par Oceanside Pt Vail Lake m Cleveland National Forest CO Bi. Morongo Canyon Preserve 62 Mt. San Jacinto Palm Springs Idyllwild County Park San Bernadino National Forest Palomar Mountain Palomar Mountain State Park Hellhole Canyon Reserve Cleveland National Forest Los Coyotes Reservation Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 2 INTRODUCTION The Western Bypass proposed in the Altair Specific Plan establishes the western edge through most of the planned development and acts as a buffer and fire break between development and the MSCHP wildlife corridor, providing a clear line of distinction between urban civilization and natural habitat. The alignment of the Western Bypass Corridor is determined by several factors. It's southern end is anchored by the approved and permitted design of the bridge over Murrieta Creek that will connect the Bypass to Temecula Parkway (SR -79) and planned interchange improvements at Interstate 15. The position of this bridge also constrains the curve and slope of the Bypass as it climbs above the proposed development. The bridge, improved interchange and high visibility from Interstate 15 make the 55 -acre portion of the site south of the Bypass ideally suited for civic or visitor uses, offering direct access to Interstate 15 and Temecula Parkway. The potentially higher traffic volumes associated with these uses are, therefore, separated from the main community, maintaining its safe, walkable character. A civic use at the south parcel will be an anchor to Altair and Old Town due to its function, visible location, and history. This proposed civic site is proximate to the Temeku Village Site where the Luiseno Native Americans originally settled. A facility to pay respect to the Traditional Cultural Place (TCP) and Origin Area, in partnership with the Pechanga Tribal Council, is one possible use for the civic site or a portion thereof. The north end of the Bypass is controlled by the existing alignment of Vincent Moraga Drive, which will become the link to Rancho California Road. A previous plan extended the Bypass further to the north and west, crossing Rancho California Road with a flyover bridge. Traffic studies did not support the high cost of this approach or it's impact to natural habitat. The revised alignment preserves more habitat corridor, specifically Linkage 10 of the MSHCP. Access points off the Western Bypass are restricted, allowing only two vehicular entries into the project from the Bypass, at the north and south ends respectively. This separates the grading and geometry of the Bypass design from the project's internal streets and allows for the most efficient bypass alignment, with less impact to existing terrain. The north entry is the ideal location for the elementary school, allowing convenient pick-up and drop-off from Rancho California Road and the Bypass with minimal disruption to the Altair neighborhood. The east entry to Altair is via Coromell Trail from First Street. This will be the most direct vehicular route to Old Town Temecula. The First Street entry allows Coromell Trail the necessary length to negotiate the grade up to Altair Vista. A vehicular connection at Main Street is not possible, given the topographical constraints of the site. However, direct pedestrian connectivity to Old Town is provided, indeed celebrated, with a grand staircase and plaza at the west end of Main Street. The Main Street axis extends into Altair through the community's focal park and terminates at a plaza and second set of grand steps with seating framed by the recreation center and clubhouse. This axis aligns with Temecula's Civic Center, Town Square and Main Street Bridge. Benefitting from the topography, the park and clubhouse will be visible from Old Town, and the club house terrace will look out onto the park, town and hills beyond. The sloping park lends itself to a natural ampitheater where the public may relax and enjoy the view. Because of this vantage point, a destination restaurant or event facility may possibly be located in the clubhouse. llyjiSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 2-7 INTRODUCTION 2 NvGOL4 W N0RTE RENA WY 215 -Acre Parcel Altair Specific Plan Area 55 -Acre Parcel NZA C6) 15 Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN CII City Limits Highways Roads 2 INTRODUCTION r r 2.4 Design Concept Altair consists of several neighborhood "villages", each centered on a node or focal point and separated by landscaped terrain. The open space between the villages mimics the existing ravines extending from the hillside above and preserves the sculptural quality of the site. It is the character of the node that gives identity to each village. These public spaces are shared outdoor rooms, typically a plaza or park, that function as the "living room" of each neighborhood. View opportunities from these common spaces are featured. The edges of the villages are less important. There are no high walls or entry monuments. None of the communities at Altair are gated. One should feel as if they have arrived at the center, not entered through a boundary. The village nodes are linked by a main north -south road, Altair Vista, and by a network of pedestrian and bicycle paths, a "string of pearls". This concept provides cohesion to a very linear site while conserving much of the existing land forms, allowing similar drainage patterns and maintaining views to the hillside above. There is a hierarchy to the scale and character of the neighborhoods reflecting their environment and location within the overall scheme. The primary village occupies an existing promontory with views to and from Old Town. This neighborhood encompasses a large park and features a community center at the high point, directly on axis with Main Street and Temecula City Hall. A pedestrian path allows direct access to Main Street. This primary village is higher in density and scale with buildings potentially up to five stories in height. A tir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 2-9 INTRODUCTION 2 )50 ' Z 3c 0 m - I I l i -iii r Civic Center reef_ 7 First Street Um,"� vi<9 y Figure 2-3 Connection to Open Space November 2017 0 300' 600' View to Open Space Gully Altair Vista Natural Open Space N 1200' SCALE: 1" = 1200'-0" SPECIFIC PLAN Grand Staircase Civic Center Promontory Plaza,+Steps First Street Figure 2-4 Connection to Old Town Temecula 1IiIISPECIFIC PLAT‘ November 2017 2 INTRODUCTION • • +) Visual Axis Park/Open Space Altair Vista Natural Open Space 0 300' 600' 1200' 2-11 INTRODUCTION 2 Rai o ca/1 Ra L u) I o, - Main �(1)- i 1I 2I iII - FY1 -1 L I_ —� - Li - ! Civic 10 - , IIL Center L L eet P Onoo 1 Panoramic View View Up to Open Space/Ridge Park/Open Space Altair Vista Natural Open Space Figure 2-5 View Opportunities November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200' SPECIFIC PLAN 2 INTRODUCTION The village centers are linked by a primary north -south road, Altair Vista, and by a network of pedestrian and bicycle trails, forming a "string of pearls". The experience when traveling along the string is a rhythm of intensity followed by release, just as a well-designed series of interior spaces will play upon volumetric compression and expansion between rooms. The enfilade arrangement of the villages, where one leads to the next, is critical to the spirit of Altair. By passing through each village, residents understand the community as a whole, the personalities of different neighborhoods, and what makes their own village unique. Figure 2-6 Outdoor Rooms Linked Enfilade Each village node has an open space with a vantage point unique to its geographic and topographic location. These views combine with the design, function and materials of the open space and the buildings framing it to imbue each village with its distinct character. Artwork, special activities or events add to the individuality of a village. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 2-13 INTRODUCTION 2 Altair Vista, the principal roadway linking the villages, is designed in straight segments that hinge at each village node. This arrangement brings focus to the nodes at the same time that it creates a sequence of unfolding events from village to village. Important to this progression are the exterior spaces formed by the buildings framing the nodes. These spaces serve as outdoor "rooms" for community gathering and neighborhood identity. To extend the analogy, the more narrowly framed sections of Altair Vista between nodes serve as corridors and the ravines separating villages are like natural, diaphonous walls. The buildings framing the outdoor rooms and corridors are, therefore, extremely important to the overall design concept for Altair. Setbacks are minimized and build -to lines are mandated in this Plan in order to create a strong and consistent building edge that clearly defines the outdoor spaces between. Figure 2-7 Outdoor Rooms Linked in a "Daisy Chain" Configuration I November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 2.5 Land Use 2 INTRODUCTION The predominant land use at Altair is residential, consisting of multifamily, attached and detached housing types. Housing types are further defined in Sections 10.10-10.20. Densities range from 4 to 33 dwelling units per net acre, with the higher densities at the village nodes, in the primary village and at the north end of the property. Development will be phased, achieving 870 to 1,750 dwelling units at full build -out. A Community Center to include a recreation center and clubhouse is provided for residents. Some ancillary retail or restaurant space may be included, depending on market demand, as well as a limited number of live/work units located within certain village centers, where street frontage lends itself to ground floor business storefronts. Commercial and live/work uses are allowed in all residential and mixed-use zones with a limit on the total area of such uses in Altair, as described in Table 3-1. An approximate 7 -acre site is set aside for an elementary school and playfield. The school site is located adjacent to the recreation center and near the main park to facilitate shared parking and common amenities. The separate 55 -acre property to the south, referred to as the Civic Site in this Plan, provides the opportunity for a public amenity or tourism use for the City of Temecula to promote its culture and its connection to nature. Possible uses include a nature center with cultural and/or environmental sustainability exhibits. The existing oak tree groves at the west side of the Civic Site will be preserved for their ecological and historical significance. Land Use is discussed in further detail in Section 3. 2-15 %m SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 INTRODUCTION 2 Figure 2-8 Aerial Photograph 2-16 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN ��/r 2.6 Relationship to the General Plan 2 INTRODUCTION The City of Temecula General Plan presents a Vision for the Future that creates and maintains a "strong business community, quality housing stock, scenic open space, and cultural amenities" to support a "positive community identity". The Altair Specific Plan aligns with this vision by increasing and diversifying housing choices in close proximity to the existing business and mercantile community of Old Town. The Specific Plan also preserves open space and provides park and civic amenities for use by residents and the surrounding community. The General Plan is organized into elements addressing key City planning issues. Each element lists goals and policies to achieve those goals. The Altair Plan supports many of these policies, as described below. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates certain specific plan areas to establish policies, planning guidelines and implementation strategies for those segments of the City. The Altair development area is already anticipated in the General Plan as Specific Plan Area SP -8 Westside/ Villages at Old Town. The identified Plan Area Objectives are: "To provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 INTRODUCTION 2 The Altair Specific Plan is consistent with these objectives. The Plan provides a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Plan respects existing topography and embraces existing scenic vistas as focal points for the community. The Altair Specific Plan satisfies two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: • "Providing infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area. • Locating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The Circulation Element of the General Plan presents several measures to improve mobility in the Temecula region. One of these measures is the Temecula Five Year Capital Improvement Program, which lists multiple projects, including a "Western Bypass Corridor from SR -79 South to French Valley Parkway/' The Western Bypass will help to satisfy a major goal of the Circulation Element: Goal 2 A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community. Policy 2.2 Develop a bypass system of roadways on the east, west and south sides of the City to accommodate traffic flow from development outside the City and improve center -of -town traffic conditions. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN A kir 2 INTRODUCTION A significant portion of the Western Bypass project is accomplished in the Altair Specific Plan, connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. This proposed route differs from the bypass route shown in the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2 of the General Plan). The advantages of the proposed route are discussed further in Section 4 of this document. The Western Bypass route will be revised through a General Plan amendment, concurrent with the adoption of this specific plan. Goal 3 An efficient City circulation system through the use of transportation system management and travel demand management strategies. Policy 3.3 Goal 5 Policy 5.1 Provide a comprehensive system of Class I and/or Class II bicycle lanes to meet the needs of cyclists traveling to and from work and other destinations within the City. Safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City. Promote pedestrian and bicycle safety by adhering to uniform trail standards and communicating safety practices to the public. Policy 5.3 Ensure the accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled. Policy 5.4 Provide a comprehensive network of multi -use trails and bikeways between residential areas and commercial/ employment activity centers, public institutions, and recreation areas. The Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was developed to advance these policies. Altair is designed as a pedestrian -oriented community with its own system of trails and bikeways that will complement and tie into the citywide system and master plan. The trail system is discussed further in Section 4 of this specific plan. The Housing Element explains that single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in Temecula. A greater range of housing types is needed. Afir Goal 1 Provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula. Policy 1.2 Encourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 INTRODUCTION 2 Policy 1.3 Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people 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. The Land Use section of this specific plan describes the diversity of residential types and the concentration of densities at village nodes and plazas. Development is predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the property as natural open space. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan addresses both the need for active parks and recreational space for residents and conservation of natural open space to protect wildlife and resources. Policy 1.1 A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the diverse recreation needs of residents. Ensure sufficient parkland and recreation facilities to support new development through acquisition and/or dedication that meets the requirement for 5 acres of useable park land per 1,000 population. Policy 1.5 Coordinate long-range park, trail and open space planning with Riverside County and the City of Murrieta. Policy 1.6 Encourage the establishment of natural habitat spaces for recreational hiking and nature education. The neighborhoods at Altair are designed around village greens and parks that serve as focal points identifying each village. These urban green spaces are then linked by a system of pedestrian walkways and trails across open space — a "string of pearls". The core village is developed around a large central park linked to Main Street in Old Town Temecula, both visually and via a pedestrian path. The proposed nature center at the civic site will conserve open space, add trails and educate the public about the natural environment in Temecula. An historic stand of oak trees will be preserved, as will open space views to this parcel from the Temeku Village Site. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Goal 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. 2 INTRODUCTION The Altair Specific Plan is consistent with the many General Plan policies aimed at achieving this goal. Water conservation and protection strategies are detailed in the Drainage Plan and Water Plan portions of Section 6, as well as in the Landscape Guidelines in Section 10. Goal z Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors and general biodiversity. Policy 3.3 Policy 3.4 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Encourage developers to incorporate native drought -resistant vegetation, mature trees, and other significant vegetation into site and landscape designs for proposed projects. Goal 5 Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment .... and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. Policy 5.13 Utilize natural, undeveloped greenbelts as buffers between developments and on outskirts of the City to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula. Portions of the Altair site lie within Proposed Linkage 10 in the Southwest Region of the MSHCP Plan Area. This linkage is intended to provide both "live-in habitat" for various species and a movement corridor connecting the Santa Margarita and the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserves. The proposed Western Bypass as well as roads at the north and south ends of the site will serve as a buffer between development and the Linkage. Edge treatment along these roads will be developed through the environmental review process with input from Riverside County and MSHCP stakeholders. The Linkage conserves the ridgeline and escarpment west of Old Town and includes the highest elevations of the Altair property. a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 INTRODUCTION 2 The Growth Management / Public Facilities Element seeks to ensure that growth in the City occurs in such a manner that services may be provided efficiently and adequately. Orderly and efficient patterns of growth that enhance quality of life for Temecula residents. The proximity of Altair to Old Town Temecula lends efficiency to the project and City since the facilities needed to serve the land uses are close by. The location eliminates the need to install and maintain long utility distribution mains. In addition, on site facilities such as the school and parks can serve the surrounding neighborhood. A quality school system with adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula. Policy 4.4 Coordinate with the School District to provide safe access for school children walking, bicycling, or driving to and from school sites. Policy 4.5 Policy 4.6 Pursue the establishment of a trade school, a junior college, and/ora four-year college that offers education required by the engineering, biotechnical and biomedical industries located in Temecula. Plan for the joint use of school/municipal facilities wherever feasible and desirable, including: school grounds, buildings, City parks, multi-purpose buildings, and recreation facilities. Altair includes a site of approximately 7 acres for a public elementary school and playfield to be built by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The school site is near the main park and community center. Opportunities for shared use of school and community facilities will be pursued with the School District. The Civic Site also has the potential to be developed as a nature center, which could include an educational program. November 2017 SPECIFIC PL 2 INTRODUCTION The Air Quality Element strives to improve regional air quality through better land planning, reduction of automobile emissions and energy conservation. Goal 2 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula. Policy 2.2 Encourage infill development near activity centers, within Mixed Use Overlay Areas, and along transportation corridors. Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions. Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. Altair is a walkable community connected with pedestrian and bicycle trails to the employment, shopping and entertainment activities of Old Town Temecula. Both the location and design of the project will give residents a choice other than automotive transportation. The Community Design Element proposes to enhance the City's image through quality design that strengthens Temecula's many assets. Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs. Goal 4 A streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image. Goal 5 Protection of public views of significant natural features. Goal 7 Community gathering areas which provide for the social, civic, cultural and recreational needs of the community. Altair is a comprehensive plan that strongly integrates landscape design with the planning and architectural concept. The overlay of the trail system and streetscapes with communal open spaces highlighting major vistas results in a composition that engages the surrounding context and natural beauty of the region. a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 2-23 INTRODUCTION 2 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 3 LAND USE 3.1 Summary LAND USE The Altair Specific Plan depicts a 270 -acre community of primarily residential development with supporting civic uses and open space. It presents an urban lifestyle in its density, convenience of activities and close relationship to the shopping, dining and entertainment venues of Old Town Temecula. Altair is intended to house multiple demographics, spanning age groups and household types. A dominant pedestrian network linking active open spaces encourages interaction amongst these diverse residents. Due to the property's shape and location, the Altair Specific Plan area is physically and conceptually divided into three main parts. To the south is a 55 -acre area that is separated from the remaining site by a parcel under ownership of the Metropolitan Water District. The location of the original Luiseno Native American settlement, the Temeku Village Site is immediately adjacent to the south. The parcel also lies within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) corridor, discussed in more detail in Section 8 of this Specific Plan, and supports an existing stand of oak trees. Because of these significant cultural and biological considerations, the southern parcel is mostly reserved as open space. The remaining area of approximately 13 acres is intended for civic or community use that will provide opportunities for environmental and/or cultural education, recreation trails benefitting the public, and that will promote civic pride and engagement. Possible uses include a nature center or visitor center. The remaining 215 -acre parcel is bifurcated by the Western Bypass road that carries through - traffic around Old Town Temecula. To the west of this road is predominantly natural open space that is a component of the Proposed Linkage 10 of the MSHCP (discussed in Section 8.1). Only two small residential components lie west of the Bypass, villages A and G. The area east of the Bypass is developed with the most density. Uses are mainly residential with supporting civic and community uses (including a school) and interstitial and active open space. These residential uses are described in the following Community Design narrative and in the village descriptions that follow. All residential uses allow a small amount of accessory commercial use to support the neighborhood. These might be a corner coffee shop, ice cream parlor or live/work units with ground floor offices. Accessory commercial uses shall be at street level near village cores. TABLE 3-1 describes the acreage and density of each land use. FIGURE 3-2 shows the location of each use on the Altair site and FIGURE 3-3 shows zoning per parcel. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-1 LAND USE 3 3-2 ., Natural Ope-h Space a) a) / k -K L Her Z7111-1 � I r err- rm Civic LL Lv -MITT]�� r Main La J I � rrn m 7 55 -Acre Civic Site Parcel Line Natural or Revegetated Open Space Off -Site Natural Open Space Property Line Figure 3-1 Natural Open Space November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200' SPECIFIC PLAN Afir i 0 School F ,.--FTFFIn Civic Center T - L ILw 1r1 (L1711a 0]li Ir m w Civic Site m • F pare 3-Z Land Use SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 qy 3 LAND USE Open Space Civic/Community Residential Property Line O 3-3 3-4 LAND USE Planning District Tract Map 4 Lot No. 2 Land Use 2 Zone Area Density Range (for Net Lot Area) Intensity Range Open Space Buildable Lots Min. Max. 1 Min. Max. 1 Upper Hillside Conservation Area 36959-1 8 Open Space SP -NO 29.37 ac Conservation Area 36959-2 25 Open Space SP -NO 8.06 ac Conservation Area 36959-3 20 Open Space SP -NO 8.30 ac Open Space 36959-1 7 Open Space SP -NO 4.83 ac Open Space 36959-2 18 Open Space SP -NO 4.60 ac Open Space 36959-3 12 Open Space SP -NO 5.40 ac Open Space 36959 7 Open Space SP -NO 4.26 ac Conservation Area 36959 8 Open Space SP -NO 4.23 ac ages VILLAGE A 36959-1 1 Residential SP -R 6.18 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 56- 110 D.U. 36959-1 2 Residential SP -R 4.17 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 38- 75 D.U. 36959-1 3 Residential SP -R 2.36 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 21- 42 D.U. 36959-1 4 Residential SP -R 2.89 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 26- 52 D.U. 1140 - 280 Village A Subtotal (D. U.) VILLAGE B 36959-1 5 Residential SP -R 7.24 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 64- 128 D.U. 36959-1 6 Residential SP -R 5.16 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 46- 92 D.U. 1110 - 220 Village 8 Subtotal (D. U.) VILLAGE C: Recreation Center 36959-2 14 Mixed Use SP -M 1.75 ac Clubhouse 36959-2 13 Mixed Use SP -M 0.30 ac Park 36959-2 19 Open Space SP -AO 5.04 ac North Core 36959-2 2 Residential SP -R 2.37 ac 18 - 29 D.U./ac 43- 69 D.U. 36959-2 3 Residential SP -R 3.74 ac 18 - 29 D.U./ac 68- 109 D.U. 36959-2 4 Residential SP -R 1.63 ac 18 - 29 D.U./ac 29- 47 D.U. 1140 - 225 North Core Subtotal (D. U. South Core 36959-2 5 Residential SP -MR 0.40 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 8- 13 D.U. 36959-2 6 Residential SP -R 2.53 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 54- 84 D.U. 36959-2 7 Residential SP -R 1.64 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 34- 54 D.U. 36959-2 8 Residential SP -R 1.84 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 39- 61 D.U. 36959-2 9 Residential SP -R 1.53 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 32- 50 D.U. 36959-2 10 Residential SP -R 1.30 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 27- 43 D.U. 36959-2 11 Residential SP -R 1.80 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 38- 59 D.U. 36959-2 12 Residential SP -R 2.28 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 48- 75 D.U. 1280 - 440 South Core Subtotal (D. U. VILLAGE D 36959-3 1 Residential SP -R 2.55 ac 8 - 18 D.U./ac 20- 45 D.U. 36959-3 2 Residential SP -R 2.32 ac 8 - 18 D.U./ac 18- 41 D.U. 36959-3 3 Residential SP -R 1.96 ac 8 - 18 D.U./ac 15- 35 D.U. 36959-3 4 Residential SP -R 2.15 ac 8 - 18 D.U./ac 17- 38 D.U. Park 36959-3 14 Open Space SP -AO 0.80 ac 1 70 - 160 Village D Subtotal (D.U.) VILLAGE E 36959-3 5 Residential SP -R 1.51 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 8- 22 D.U. 36959-3 6 Residential SP -R 1.23 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 6- 18 D.U. 36959-3 7 Residential SP -R 1.17 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 6- 17 D.U. 36959-3 8 Residential SP -R 2.51 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 13- 37 D.U. 36959-3 9 Residential SP -R 1.42 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 7- 21 D.U. 1 40 - 115 Village ESubtotal (D.U.) VILLAGE F 36959-3 10 Residential SP -R 4.51 ac 7 - 20 D.U./ac 30- 90 D.U. 36959-3 11 Residential SP -R 4.52 ac 7 - 20 D.U./ac 30- 90 D.U. 60 - 180 Village F Subtotal (D. U.) VILLAGE G 36959 1 Residential SP -R 2.50 ac 4 - 18 D.U./ac 11- 46 D.U. 36959 2 Residential SP -R 4.55 ac 4 - 18 D.U./ac 19- 84 D.U. 30 - 1 an +r "n,,,, _`' c,,btotal (D. U.) SUBTOTAL 74.89 ac 84.01 ac 10 - 21 D.U./ac averaee 870 - 1,750 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS Table 3-1 Zones and Development Intensity November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN: School 3 36959-2 1 Educational SP -E 7.07 ac 16.13 ac 50,000 gsf 600- 730 students Civic Site Nature Center Nature Center Nature Center Nature Center Conservation Area Conservation Area 36959 36959 36959 36959 36959 36959 3 4 5 6 9 10 Civic Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space SP -C SP -NO SP -NO SP -NO SP -NO SP -NO 0.31 ac 0.12 ac 0.42 ac 34.63 ac 2.61 ac 5,000 gsf Interstitial Open Space Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 15 Open Space SP -AO 4.54 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 16 Open Space SP -NO 0.78 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 17 Open Space SP -NO 0.52 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 20 Open Space SP -AO 0.59 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 21 Open Space SP -NO 0.83 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 22 Open Space SP -NO 1.63 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 23 Open Space SP -AO 1.39 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 24 Open Space SP -AO 1.80 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 13 Open Space SP -AO 4.88 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 15 Open Space SP -NO 0.74 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 16 Open Space SP -NO 0.52 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 17 Open Space SP -AO 0.25 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 18 Open Space SP -NO 0.38 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 19 Open Space SP -AO 2.64 ac Circulation 28.22 ac TOTALS 162.69 ac 107.21 ac 10 - 21 D.U./ac 870 - 1,750 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 269.90 ac AVERAGE Definitions: Gross Area: the total area within the lot lines of a lot or parcel of land before public streets, easements or other areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use Net Area: the gross project or lot area, less that portion of the site to be used for arterial and collector roads, public parks, and/or the floodway portion of a floodplain. For the purposes of this Specific Plan, arterial and collector roads shall include only those roads provided by the Master Builder and/or public roads owned by the City of Temecula. terstitial Open Space: non -developable area installed by the Master Developer including fixed slope banks and retaining walls, floodways and drainage basins, utility easements, the Class 1 bikeway, the Western Bypass and Street 1. D.U.: dwelling unit Notes: 1, Maximum density and intensity within a village may be increased by the transfer of unused development intensity (D.U.) from one village to another, but the total number of dwelling units in the Altair Specific Plan shall not exceed 2, Commercial and live/work uses are allowed in residential and mixed use designations, but the total amount of commercial space in the Altair Specific Plan shall not exceed 22,000 square feet. See zoning regulations and Table 10-1 for permitted uses. 3. If the School District does not use the site, residential uses are permitted on this lot as described in Section 3.12. 4. Lot numbers indicated here correspond to the lot numbers in Tentative Tract Map 36959 and 36959-1, 2 and 3. SP - SPECIFIC PLAN NO - NATURAL OPEN SPACE AO - ACTIVE OPEN SPACE R - RESIDENTIAL ZONE M - MIXED USE MR- MIXED USE / RESIDENTIAL E - EDUCATIONAL ZONE C - CIVIC ZONE Table 3-1 Continued , Zones and Development Intensity SPECIFIC PLAT, November 2017 LAND USE 3 Ridge Park Drive Western Bypass Corridor Figure 3-3 Zoning Map November 2017 ZONING MAP LEGEND SP -A0 Active Open Space SP -NO Natural Open Space SP -R Residential Zone SP -M Mixed -Use SP -MR Mixed -Use/ Residential SP -E Educational SP -C Civic SPECIFIC PLAN Afir 3.2 Relationship of Land Uses to Zoning Adoption of the Altair Specific Plan is a rezone of the plan area. The City of Temecula Zoning Map will be amended to reflect the new Specific Plan zone. Development regulations for this zone are defined in this specific plan in Section 10 Development Standards and in Section 11.1, Regulations that Implement the Specific Plan. 3.3 Open Space A significant portion of the Altair plan area is open space, both natural and active. It is the interstitial and boundary open spaces, as well as topographic forms, that give shape to the villages. And it is active open space, in the form of plazas, parks, greens and community gardens, that distinguish and define the villages and civic places. The open space and recreation concept and standards for Altair are discussed in further detail in Section 8 of this specific plan. The Village outlines following in this section describe village nodes and other open space within each village. Requirements and guidelines for common and private open space within private developments are included in the Building Types subsection of Section 10, Development Standards 3.4 Altair Villages Altair is a community of villages arranged to promote an active and socially connected lifestyle. There are seven residential Villages at Altair, labeled A through G, in addition to the sites for the school and civic uses. Descriptions, locations and standards for each village, the school site and the Civic Site are provided in the following pages. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-7 LAND USE 3 Figure 3-4 Village A - Plan Area November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200 PECIFIC PLAN klaraim 3.5 Village A Villages A and B comprise the northernmost development area and function as a pair to frame the north entrance to Altair via the Western Bypass. The two villages are divided by the Western Bypass Corridor, but are visually engaged over the bypass. The villages occupy previously graded pads resembling plateaus that are approximately at the same elevation and above the depressed bypass road. Therefore, they have a strong visual connection over and across the bypass. They are also similar in character, defined by a higher density and scale of massing. Each village is arranged around a formal green. Village B is discussed in further detail in Section 3.6. Because it is west of the Bypass, Village A has a closer relationship with the natural open space of the MSHCP corridor. The road accessing the village is located between the open space and development to minimize wildlife encroachment into yards or other conflicts. Due to site contours and edge conditions, the outline of Village A creates a narrower "panhandle" shape at the north end. This north section of the village is better suited to lower scale development, such as rowhomes, multiplexes or clustered detached housing. The remaining bulk of the village should be higher scale multifamily development framing the central green. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-9 LAND USE 3 BOUNDARIES: Open space for MSHCP corridor to the west and south, Western Bypass to the east, Ridge Park Drive and adjacent properties to the north. SIZE: Approximately 15.6 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. Secondary Accessy._ Connecting road -final route to / / \ � ,, be determined / // 1/ Park Residential Primary Access Altair Vista 2 — School Figure 3-5 Access - Village A CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN ACCESS: Main entry is at the southeast corner from the Western Bypass. Secondary access is at the north end directly from Ridge Park Drive. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. The road connecting these two entries serves as an edge between development and open space for the MSHCP corridor. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel the vehicular path. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1 Afir Park Residential Pedestrian Crosswalk Altair Vista ' To Class 1 Trail Figure 3-6 Piaairian Circulation - Village A CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 FL I 3-11 LAND USE 3 3-12 ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village A. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Lower density uses, such as Detached Housing should be focused toward the north end of this village, with higher scale framing the urban park. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Live / Work Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Podium Community Buildings BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on the park and other open space, boundary road and secondary streets. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Sections10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Internal Streets: From Western Bypass ROW: From Ridge Park Drive ROW: 3 ft. min. 20 ft. min. 20 ft. min. 10 ft. max. No maximum No maximum ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-5 stories. See Table 10-2. DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. A one-way loop road or couplet, similar to Figures 4-25 and 4-26 should be provide around the Village A park. 2. A parkway and sidewalk shall be provided on the east side only of the boundary road between the development and the natural open space (MSHCP). Walkways are discouraged adjacent to the MSHCP. 3. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 4. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 5. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on the east side only of the boundary road between the development and the open space. 2. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of the one-way loop road around the park. 3. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is encouraged on one or both sides of internal secondary streets. 4. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 5. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages. 6. Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards. 7. Parking lots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space, or from the Boundary Road.Easement. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards 11 Implementation Plan Afir GRADING STANDARDS: Village A occupies land that has been substantially graded to form a generally flat pad at the foot of the western slope that is significantly higher than the Western Bypass or Ridge Park Drive to the east. Grade changes within the pad area will be resolved in the park and open spaces between building types. The pad narrows at the north end, but the buildable area can be expanded with a sloped site and smaller, stepped buildings. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-13 LAND USE 3 Village A Park Concept The Village "A" Park, FIGURE 3-7, is a long linear park space allowing a large lawn area for general purpose passive sports and play. At one end is a playground area for children, heavily shaded with trees, while the other end is a natural landscaped area with a winding path and shaded seating spots. A planted parkway or low wall provides a buffer from vehicular circulation. The northwest end opens to views of the natural hillside and ridgeline beyond. The southeast end offers a visual connection above and across the Western Bypass to Village B. 1.017 ACRES LEGEND: 1. NATURAL LANDSCAPE AREA 2. PLAYGROUND 3. LAWN 4. SHADED SEATING AREA 5. PLANTED PARKWAY * BICYCLE RACK (FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED) Figure 3-7 Park Plan at ViIlag IMMI CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space is the Village A Park, an approximately 1 -acre park to be installed with the development of the village. The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10. Example of Open Space Development in Village A: Example assumes 40 detached and 170 multifamily walk-up residences are constructed, for a total of 210 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 40 detached units x 80 sf/du = 3,200 sf of common open space 170 multifamily walk-up units x 60 sf/du = 10,200 sf of common open space 13,400 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by both the detached and multifamily residents or separate spaces. A portion of the common open space requirement may be fulfilled in the primary public open space. Table 8-2 requires that 0.65 acres of the 0.95 -acre park must be open to the public. The remaining 0.3 acres (13,068 sf) may be used to satisfy a portion of the required common open space. For example, a pool and deck area of 13,000 sf could be located within the 0.95 -acre Village A Park and could be enclosed as required by code, with access limited to residents of Village A. A separate roof deck or tot lot within the multifamily development could satisfy the remaining 400 sf of required common open space. Private Open Space: May be accomplished through balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 40 detached units x 100% = 40 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 170 multifamily walk-up units x 100% = 170 of the units require 80 sf min. of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village A. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-15 LAND USE 3 Figure 3-8 Village B - Plan Area November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200 SPECIFIC PLAN A hr 3.6 Village B Village B occupies a previously graded pad and is suitable for large scale multifamily housing mirroring the building forms of Village A. The location of Village B at the north end of the property makes it a gateway site, especially as it occupies a promontory that, together with Village A, frames either side of the Western Bypass Corridor at its northerly base. Development along the edge of the plateau is favorable for views overlooking Temecula to the east. The trapezoidal outline of the plateau presents the opportunity for a triangular green or some other unique shape to distinguish this village from others. Opening the east end of the green also provides view opportunities for housing surrounding the green. Village B is next to the elementary school site making this location ideal for families with young children. Higher density is appropriate to the activity generated by a school. BOUNDARIES: Altair Vista to the west, Western Bypass Corridor to the north, adjacent properties to the east and south. SIZE: Approximately 12.4 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: Entry is at the southwest corner from Altair Vista. Secondary access for emergency only is located further north near the intersection of Altair Vista with the Western Bypass. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel the vehicular path. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-17 LAND USE 3 ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village B. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Detached Housing Micro Units Multiplex Multifamily Walk -Up Rowhouses Multifamily Podium Live / Work Community Buildings BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on the park and on Altair Vista. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Altair Vista Property Line: From Western Bypass ROW: At other lot lines: 3 ft. min. 20 ft. min. 0 ft. min. 10 ft. max. No maximum ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-5 stories. See Table 10-2. Secondary Fire `9P access only - i School i Residential ‘ 1 Altair Vista Figure 3-9 Vehicular Access - Village CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 Primary Entrance SPECIFIC PLAN DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. A one-way loop road or couplet, similar to Figures 4-25 and 4-26 should be provided around the Village B park. 2. No driveways may be located on Altair Vista, except the village access road and any required emergency access. 3. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 4. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by at 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 5. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between the pairs. PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of the one-way loop road around the park. 2. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is encouraged on one or both sides of internal secondary streets. 3. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 4. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages. 5. Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards. 6. Parking lots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space or from Altair Vista. Afir Class 1 Trail Residential Altair Vlsta Figure 3-10 Pedestrian Circulation - Village B CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 Village "B" Park Concept: The flatiron shape of the Village "B" Park, FIGURE 3-11, allows for natural open space in contemporary, geometric form. A large recreational lawn utilizes most of the space, yet there are also pockets of natural landscaped area in the corners and a children's playground. Tucked near the playground is a shaded picnic and seating area. A landscaped parkway provides a buffer from vehicular circulation. LEGEND: 1. NATURAL LANDSCAPE AREA 2. LAWN 3. SHADED SEATING / PICNIC AREA 4. PLANTED PARKWAY 5. PLAYGROUND *BICYCLE RACK (FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED) Figure 3-11 Park Plan at Village B CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards 11 Implementation Plan GRADING STANDARDS: Village B occupies land that has been substantially graded to form a generally flat plateau that is significantly higher than the Western Bypass or adjacent properties to the southeast and northeast. Grade changes within the pad area will be resolved in the park and open spaces between building types. The buildable area can be expanded with stepped buildings, by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space is the Village B Park, an approximately 0.6 acre park to be installed with the development of the village. The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10. Example of Open Space Development in Village B: Example assumes 170 multifamily walk-up residences are constructed. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 170 multifamily walk-up units x 60 sf/du = 10,200 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by all buildings or separate spaces. A portion of the common open space requirement may be fulfilled in the primary public open space. Table 8-2 requires that 0.40 acres of the 0.65 -acre park must be open to the public. The remaining 0.25 acres (10,890 sf) may be used to satisfy a portion of the required common open space. For example, a typical 8,000 sf tennis court could be located within the 0.65 -acre Village B Park and could be enclosed, with access limited to residents of Village B. A separate courtyard or roof deck within the multifamily development could satisfy the remaining 2,200 sf of required common open space. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 170 multifamily walk-up units x 100% = 170 of the units require 80 sf min. of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village B. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. 2 /IISPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-21 LAND USE 3 3-22 Figure 3-12 Village C - Plan Ar - November 2017 0 300' 600' I n 1 1200 PECIFIC nlihrah 3.7 Village C Village C is the core of Altair. It is the most densely developed Village and offers the most variety of uses and building types. It encompasses the central park, includes the community center and is adjacent to the school site. The planning is very urban with apartment buildings, row houses and tight clusters of homes punctuated by plazas. The focal point of Village C and the entire community is a promontory plaza and roundabout anchoring one end of an axis aligning with Main Street in Old Town and anchored on the opposite end by the Temecula Civic Center. From this vantage point, the relationship between Altair and Old Town Temecula is very clear. The plaza is defined by two structures comprising the community center: a recreation center with pool to the northwest and a clubhouse to the northeast. Multi -story attached or stacked residences form the south edge of the plaza, possibly with street -level commercial uses. The club house opens onto the park with terrace seating. Streets and pedestrian paths radiate from the plaza. The park and community center are described in greater detail in FIGURE 3-13 and FIGURE 3-14 and in Section 8: Open Space and Recreation of this Specific Plan. Village C overlooks Old Town and provides a pedestrian link to Main Street through the park. The village is itself divided by terrain and roads into neighborhoods linked by a semi -circular street. The street bridges over the park where it crosses the east -west path descending down to Main Street. This bridge, when seen from Old Town along the Main Street axis, is another visual gateway to the community, framing the park and set against the backdrop of the natural hillside above. It is anticipated that Village C will receive the most visitors from outside the community to use the park and school. A higher level of commercial retail space is therefore appropriate in this planning area. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 LAND USE 3 Primary Access Roundabout 1 See Fig. 9-16 Altair Vista Recreation Center Roundabout 2 See Fig. 9-17 Iconic Tower Altair Vista ›- CO CCz w w Bridge Over Park A Street Roundabout 3 See Fig. 9-20 Figure 3-13 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Roundabout 1 See Fig. 9-16 Altair Vista Mid -Block Crossing see Figure 4-5 Recreation Center Roundabout 2 See Fig. 9-17 WESTERN BYPASS School Residential Centra Park Clubhouse Grand Staircase 1 I I III Seating Iconic Tower Class 1 Trail Altair Vista Plaza Residential Residential Residential Walkways on Bridge Grand Staircase Main Street Mid -Block Crossin see Figure 4-9 Path Under Bridge Pedestrian !s \ I Promenade i Outlook Roundabout3 See Fig. 9-20 Figure 3-14 Afir SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 3-25 LAND USE 3 3-26 BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the west, adjacent properties to the north and east, open space ravine to the south. SIZE: Approximately 21.1 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: Altair Vista from north and south, running through the village. Coromell Trail from north and east. Major internal circulation along A Street. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity is key to the success of Village C and the Park: • Pedestrian and bicycle routes are provided along Altair Vista and A Street. • An accessible link is provided to the Class 1 bike path paralleling Western Bypass • Additional pedestrian access to/from Old Town via Main Street, the grand staircase and east/west path through park • Pedestrian promenade to southeast, connecting to trail system. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village C. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Lower density uses should be focused toward the north end of this village, with higher scale framing the urban park. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Live / Work Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Podium Mixed Use Community Buildings Iconic Tower BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on Altair Vista and secondary streets and on the park and other open space. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Altair Vista Property Line: From Coromell Trail ROW: From A Street Property Line: 3 ft. min 3 ft. min 0 ft. min 5 ft. max. No maximum 5 ft. max. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-5 stories. See Table 10-2. DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 2. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 3. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-27 LAND USE 3 Central Park at Village C Concept In the heart of the development is a Village "C" Park to serve as a central open space to the Altair community and Old Town Temecula, FIGURE 3-15. It is anchored by the community center at the top of the hill to the west and encircled by the homes and apartment buildings of Village C. The park is strategically situated on axis with Main Street and the City of Temecula Civic Center. The southern edge of the park is designed as a linear path on that same axis that cascades down the slope, passing under the A Street bridge and connecting to the town via a grand staircase to Main Street. Conversely, from Main Street in Old Town the view up the axis features an arched bridge framing the park, with the community center promontory above, an iconic tower and the natural escarpment beyond. The park allows residents along its perimeter to open onto the park with direct access and views. Walkways stretching out from the park allow easy pedestrian access from many points in the community and the City of Temecula. While the site offers a 50' topographical change, the park gracefully incorporates accessible walkways and stairs into the design instead of clumsy ADA ramp "switchbacks". These gradual walkways allow access to the park's recreational, natural, and commercial spaces. Various types of shade structures and planted groves of trees provide shade as users sit, picnic, and move throughout the park. The different areas of the park offer a gradient of uses. The lower end of the park to the east is less formal and features open space and native landscape planting which leads into a nature trail as topography increases. This nature trail encompasses an open lawn space which acts as a play area and amphitheater to the centrally located stage/ picnic shelter. The natural amphitheater may host movie nights, concerts and festivals as well as passive recreation and picnicking. In the upper end of the park to the west are shaded picnic areas, children's play space, and restrooms all located near the parking lot. Additional overflow parking will occur on Altair Vista, A Street and at the school site across the street when school is not in session. The community center is composed of two facilities: a recreation center west of Altair Vista and a clubhouse east of Altair Vista and contiguous to the park. The recreation center edges grand steps at the peak of the Main Street axis, a prime gathering space and scenic viewpoint. The recreation center incorporates outdoor pools and a spa, fitness and exercise rooms for residents. The clubhouse is a dual -fronted building with entry from the street side and openings to a large terrace on the park side. The Master HOA will operate the recreation center and clubhouse facilities and may work with the City's Community Services Department and/or the general public for the potential hosting of classes, activities, wedding and event rentals at the clubhouse. At the highest point in the park, a terrace available for cafes or events has views over the park and out over the City of Temecula. The design of surrounding architecture is critical to the success of the Village C Park. Facades should face the park with entries, windows, balconies and porches to facilitate interaction between the public open space and perimeter residents. Pedestrian walkways edging the park and providing direct access between development and the park are encouraged. These "eyes" on the park will improve park safety and benefit the surrounding buildings with enhanced views. See Sections 9.4.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.4, 9.4.5 and 9.4.8 for examples of frontage types appropriate to face the park. As shown in Figure 10-1 and 10-3, architectural elements such as porches and trellises that soften park facades may encroach into required setbacks. Any walls or fences should be kept low to allow views across by seated persons and to avoid a defensive appearance. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 1. CLUBHOUSE 2. PARKING LOT 3. PARK RESTROOMS 4. SHADE SHELTERS 5. OPEN LAWN 6. PLAYGROUND 7. LARGE SHELTER/ STAGE 8. DOG RUN 9. OVERLOOKS 10 FORMAL "URBAN AREA" 11. INFORMAL "NATURAL" AREA (NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS, BOULDER TRAVERSING AREAS * BICYCLE RACK {FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETER 3 LAND USE VIEWS INTO PARK FROM ADJACENT RESIDENCES "EYES ON THE PARK" POLICE + EMERGENCY VEHICULAR ACCESS POLICE + EMERGENCY ACCESS POINTS (INDICATES POINT THAT CAN BE REACHED BY EMERGENCY VEHICLE FROM SURROUNDING STREETS) PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO OLD TOWN Figure 3-15 Park Plan at Village Afir SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 3-29 LAND USE PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of Altair Vista 2. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is encouraged on one or both sides of internal secondary streets. 3. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 4. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages. 5. Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards. 6. Residential parking lots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space, from Altair Vista, or from A Street. 7. Parking lots shall be provided for the park and for the community center. Both lots shall be accessed from Altair Vista. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards 11 Implementation Plan GRADING STANDARDS: Village C steps down from west to east, with different pad levels separated by Altair Vista, A Street and the large park. Buildings should also be stepped to negotiate grade changes and present engaged facades to these streets, with entries in reasonable proximity to street level. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing porches and entry stoops. Blank basement walls and high retaining walls must be avoided along streets and pedestrian paths. Nor should pedestrians see only exposed roofs and eaves, unless landscaped roof terraces are incorporated. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. Grading design in Village C should maximize views while maintaining a cohesive neighborhood. Certain promontories shall be maintained, such as the traffic oval and the southeast terminus of the pedestrian promenade. 3-30 Figure 3-16 Park Section at Village "I CONCEPTUAL SECTION ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space is the 5.0 -acre Village C Park, to be installed as part of the master development. The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 9. Example of Open Space Development in Village C: Example assumes 290 rowhouses and 260 multifamily podium residences are constructed, for a total of 550 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 290 rowhouse units x 60 sf/du 260 multifamily podium units x 50 sf/du = 17,400 sf of common open space = 13,000 sf of common open space = 30,400 sf of common open space Given the large size of Village C and the central park, the common open space should be spread as separate spaces throughout the village, with some kind of exterior amenity in close proximity to all residences, particularly tot lots. These spaces may be shared between different housing types and even distinct projects. Multifamily projects typically have exterior common space within the building footprint, such as podium -level courtyards or pools, or roof terraces. Table 8-2 requires that all 5.0 acres of the Village C Park must be open to the public. Therefore, no portion of the common open space requirement for Village C may be fulfilled by the primary public open space. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 290 rowhouse units x 100% = 290 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 260 multifamily podium units x 100% = 130 of the units require 60 sf min. of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village C. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-31 LAND USE 3 3-32 Figure 3-17 Village D - Plan Area November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200 PECIFIC nlihrah 3.8 Village D Village D is located on axis with the First Street entrance to Altair. It occupies a stepped plateau bracketed by two open space ravines to the north and south and overlooking the First Street entry. The adjacent Western Bypass is at its highest point in this segment and is elevated above the village. Village D is situated to either side of a central green that is the social and physical focus of the neighborhood. East -west pedestrian paths link the neighborhood with the park and with trails linking to other villages. These paths shall be separate from vehicular routes for the most part and are in addition to walkways along side the vehicular system. This results in a pedestrian "green" network overlapping - but distinct from - the paved vehicular network. BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the west, open space ravines to the north and south, adjacent properties to the east. SIZE: Approximately 9.0 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/or stepped foundation systems. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-33 LAND USE 3 'Altair Vista Altair Vista Figure 3-18 Vehicular Access - Village CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. ACCESS: Altair Vista from adjacent villages from the north and south. Altair Vista intersects the green at the north and south ends and splits into a one-way lane circumnavigating the open space. Traffic is forced to slow upon entering the village and the one-way configuration makes pedestrian crossing safer. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel the vehicular path. Additional pedestrian access from trails crossing and through ravines; link to bike path paralleling Western Bypass. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN A tir Altair Vista 3 LAND USE i Class 1 Trail Altair Vista WESTERN BYPASS Figure 3-19 Pedestrian Circulation - Village i CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village D. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Higher density uses should be focused toward the center of this village, with lower scale and density along the ravine edges. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Live / Work Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Podium Mixed -Use Community Building Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-35 LAND USE 3 BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on the park, Altair Vista and surrounding open space. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Altair Vista Property Line: All other Lot Lines: 0 ft. min 0 ft. min 5 ft. max. 10 ft. max. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-4 stories. See Table 10-2. DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. No individual private drives shall be located on the Altair Vista loop around the park. 2. Secondary street and/or common driveway intersections with Altair Vista shall be limited to four locations. 3. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 4. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 5. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of the one-way Altair Vista loop around the park. This is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 2. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private garages. 3. Additional parking shall be located in motor courts or along secondary streets. See Sections 4 and 9 for motor court standards. 4. Parking lots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space, or from Altair Vista. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards 11 Implementation Plan November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir GRADING STANDARDS: Village D slopes down from west to east, with steep slope banks on all sides. Buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes as much as possible. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space is the Village D Park, a 0.8 -acre village green to be installed as part of the master development with construction of this segment of Altair Vista. The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10. Example of Open Space Development in Village D: Example assumes 90 rowhouses and 30 live/work units are constructed, for a total of 120 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 90 rowhouse units 30 live/work units x 60 sf/du x 60 sf/du = 5,400 sf of common open space = 1,800 sf of common open space = 7,200 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by both the rowhouse and live/work residents or separate spaces. Table 8-2 requires that all 0.80 acres of the Village D Park must be open to the public. Therefore, no portion of the common open space requirement for Village D may be fulfilled by the primary public open space, unless it is in excess of the 0.80 -acre minimum public area. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 90 rowhouse units x 100% = 90 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 30 live/work units x 100% = 30 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-37 LAND USE 3 .91 ACRES LEGEND; 1. SHRUBS OH GRASSES 2. GROVE PICNIC AREA 3. LAWN 4. PLANTED PARKWAY 5. TOT LOT PLAYGROUND 6. SEATWALL 7. SIGN WALL 6. DECORATIVE FENCE, 36" HIGH 9. BENCHES Figure 3-20 Park Plan at Village BICYCLE RACK (FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINEDI CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village D. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. Village "D" Park Concept: Strong geometric arcs divide the space of the 0.80 -acre Village "D" Park, FIGURE 3-20. The largest space is an open recreational lawn. Next to the lawn is a large playground with a dense tree canopy for shade. Tucked between the lawn and playground is a shaded seating area with seatwalls and picnic benches. Bookending the entire park are two natural landscaped areas that frame the park. A planted parkway around the entire park provides a buffer from vehicular circulation. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-39 LAND USE 3 3-40 Figure 3-21 Village November 2017 0 300' 600' n E 1200 PECIFIC PLAN rIIIJI Afir 3.9 Village E Village E is elongated in the north -south direction and slopes steeply down from west to east. Buildings will need to step to avoid excessive cut and fill, therefore lower scale development and lower density are suitable for this planning area. The village green is arranged in the east - west direction to give village E a different character and to take advantage of excellent vistas to mountains south and east of the site. BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the west, open space ravines to the north, B Street North and Village F to the south, adjacent properties to the east. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-41 LAND USE 3 SIZE: Approximately 7.8 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: Altair Vista from Village D from the north; Altair Vista from project entry from the south. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel vehicular path. Additional pedestrian access from trails crossing and through ravines; link to bike path paralleling east property line. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. Altair Vista Altair Vista iM INN _ Resdential } • f" i m Z Lu Lu F— Residential ! Primary ,' Access B Street North Figure 3-22 hicular Access 5 Villag CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 Secondary Access SPECIFIC PLAN A kir ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village E. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Lower density uses should be focused toward the north end of this village, with higher scale framing the urban park. Afir Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Live / Work Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Community Buildings Altair Vista "e4mmrtola ReS+dential Class 1 Trail Altair Vista uJ W Residential B Street North Residential Figure 3-23 Pedestrian Circulation - Village CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-43 LAND USE 3 3-44 BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on Altair Vista and on the village park and other open space. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Altair Vista Property Line: All other Lot Lines: 0 ft. min 0 ft. min 5 ft. max. 10 ft. max. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-4 stories. See Table 10.2. DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be no driveways to private garages on Altair Vista. Only driveways to alleys, motor courts or secondary streets are allowed. 2. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 3. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 4. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of Altair Vista. 2. On -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 3. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages. 4. Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards. 5. Residential parking lots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space, or from Altair Vista. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards GRADING STANDARDS: Village E slopes down from west to east, with steep slope banks on the north, west and east sides. Buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes as much as possible. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-45 Village "E" Park Concept The Village "E" Park, FIGURE 3-24, is split into two separate spaces by Altair Vista. The western space is a large recreational lawn with perimeter planting of shrubs and shade trees. The eastern space has a recreational lawn, a playground, and a seating area overlooking the hillside. Both sides of the park have a shaded picnic area along the sidewalk nearest the road for an urban plaza feel. .73 ACRES LEGEND 1. NATURAL LANDSCAPE AREA 2. LAWN 3. SHADED PICNIC AREA 4, SEAI1NG AREA OVERLOOKING HILLSIDE 5. PLAYGROUND 6. SPECIAL PAVING AT CROSS WALK WITH BOLLARDS 7. NATURE PLAY TRAIL 8. CONNECTION TO HIKING TRAIL BICYCLE RACK (FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED) Figure 3-24 Park Plan at Village E CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN November 2017 MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space is the Village E Park, an approximately 0.5 acre park to be installed with the development of the village. The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Access should be provided from the park to the Class 1 bike path to the west and the hiking trail to the east. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10. Example of Open Space Development in Village E: Example assumes 50 rowhouses and 30 multiplex units are constructed, for a total of 80 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 50 rowhouse units 30 multiplex units x 60 sf/du x 60 sf/du = 3,000 sf of common open space = 1,800 sf of common open space = 4,800 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by both the rowhouse and multiplex residents or separate spaces. A portion of the common open space requirement may be fulfilled in the primary public open space. Table 8-2 requires that 0.25 acres of the 0.35 -acre park must be open to the public. The remaining 0.1 acre (4,356 sf) may be used to satisfy a portion of the required common open space. For example, a community produce garden of 3,000 sf could be located within the 0.35 -acre Village E Park and could be enclosed, with access limited to residents of Village E. A separate courtyard or roof deck within the multifamily development could satisfy the remaining 1,800 sf of required common open space. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 50 rowhouse units x 100% = 50 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 30 multiplex units x 100% = 30 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village E. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-47 LAND USE 3 3-48 "f --- (2) i p School 0/2 C l ri r -T � T T n az 1 1 -TT Tn u_inn — — + Tr rTITT, r� �� 1��!!! Civic L ` } y Center o jliiel iiia Main treet m w ,Ir 1 Cr W / H • W v Figure 3-25 November 2017 0 300. 600 1200 SPECIFIC PLAN 3.10 Village F Village F is very linear and has a steep slope along the eastern edge. The west edge is relatively flat and level with the Bypass. Privacy and sound screening are important along this edge. A single street serves the neighborhood, ending at a promontory at the south end of the village. A gated access point is provided from the Western Bypass for emergency use by the Fire Department only. Multistory flats are appropriate on the west side of the street, closer to the Bypass. Attached single-family homes are better suited to the east side of the street, as the terrain slopes quickly and the lots are small. There are two park spaces in Village F. One park is centrally located adjacent to the clubhouse and pool for this village. The other park is at the southern tip and will be a destination for the community. Its elevation and location afford excellent views to the southeast. This park overlooks the south entry to the specific plan area as well as the south end of the Western Bypass and is one of the major entry monuments of Altair. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 LAND USE 3 3-50 BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the west and south; Altair Vista to the north; B Street North to the east; Village E to the north. SIZE: Approximately 9.0 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. Altair Vista Primary ' Access Secondary Fire Access only i Residential B Street North Park Access Figure 3-26 Vehicular Access - Vi CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN A tir Afir ACCESS: Altair Vista and B Street North from the north; emergency only access from Western Bypass. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel vehicular path. Additional pedestrian and bicycle links to bike path paralleling Western Bypass and east property line. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. i Class 1 Trail Altair Vista Residential B Street North Residential Figure 3-27 Pedestrian Circulation - Village CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 LAND USE 3 3-52 ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village F. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Lower density uses should be focused toward the north end of this village, with higher scale framing the urban park. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Podium Community Buildings BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on Altair Vista and on the village park and other open space. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Western Bypass ROW: 10 ft. min From B Street North Property Line: 3 ft. min All other Lot Lines: 0 ft. min No maximum No maximum 10 ft. max. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-4 stories. See Table 10-2. DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be no driveways to private garages on Altair Vista. Only driveways to alleys, motor courts or secondary streets are allowed. 2. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 3. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 4. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of the Altair Vista or its extension into the village. 2. On -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 3. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages. 4. Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards. 5. Residential parking lots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space, from Altair Vista or its extension into the village. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards 11 Implementation Plan GRADING STANDARDS: Village F slopes down steeply on the south and east. Buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes as much as possible. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-53 LAND USE 3 Village "F" Park Concept The Village "F" Park, FIGURE 3-28, is also split into two separate spaces by a street. To the west is a large lawn for active recreation and may be used for sports. Shade trees along the lawn's perimeter provide shade for passive recreation. To the east is a smaller lawn adjacent to a playground and shaded picnic area. Natural landscaped areas border the space to create geometry to match the style of similar park spaces in the Altair community. ;d ACRES LEGEND: 1, NATURAL LANDSCAPE AREA 2. LAWN 3. SHADED PICNIC AREA 4, PLAYGROUND 5. SPECIAL PAVING AT CROSSWALK WITH BOLLARDS * BICYCLE RACK (FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED) Figure 3-28 Park Plan at Village F CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space are the Village F Parks, totalling approximately 1.0 acres to be installed with the development of the village. These include the central Village F Park described in FIGURE 3-28 and a Promontory Park at the south end of the village. All buildings shall be generally north of the Promontory Park to maximize views from the park. The requirements for these parks are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10. Example of Open Space Development in Village F: Assume 40 rowhouses and 80 multifamily walk-up units are constructed, for a total of 120 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 40 rowhouse units 80 multifamily walk-up units x 60 sf/du x 60 sf/du = 2,400 sf of common open space = 4,800 sf of common open space = 7,200 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by both the rowhouse and multifamily residents or separate spaces. A portion of the common open space requirement may be fulfilled in the primary public open space. Table 8-2 requires that 0.40 acre of the 0.60 -acre park must be open to the public. The remaining 0.2 acre (8,712 sf) may be used to satisfy a portion of the required common open space. For example, a community produce garden of 3,000 sf could be located within the 0.35 -acre Village F Park and could be enclosed, with access limited to residents of Village F. A separate courtyard or roof deck within the multifamily development could satisfy the remaining 1,800 sf of required common open space. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 40 rowhouse units x 100% = 40 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 80 multifamily walk-up units x 100% =80 of the units require 80 sf min. of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village F. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. MJI SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-55 LAND USE 3 3-56 Figure 3-29 Village G - Pla rea November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200 1 PECIFIC PLAN 3.11 Village G Village G is south of the Western Bypass on land that slopes steeply to the southeast, offering prime views. The area has a strong connection to the south 55 -acre parcel and a proposed Nature Center. The interface with the MSHCP corridor is a critical edge condition. A relatively less urban development of clustered homes is appropriate here to take advantage of the views, negotiate the terrain and complement the adjacent open space. BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the north and northeast; B Street South to the east; Metropolitan Water District pipeline area and C Street to the south; MSHCP corridor to the west. SIZE: Approximately 7.3 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-57 LAND USE 3 3-58 ACCESS: C Street from the south. Secondary fire access from B Street South for emergency use only. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel vehicular path. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village G. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Buildings should be sited in a manner to maximize vistas in every direction. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Multifamily Walk -Up Community Buildings Primary Access C Street Camino + • B Street C Street South Secondary Fire Access (emergency only) Figure 3-30 Vehicular Access - Village G CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. B Street North November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN A tir BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on C Street, B Street South, secondary roads and on open space. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From B Street South ROW: All other Lot Lines: 3 ft. min 0 ft. min No maximum 10 ft. max. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-4 stories. See Table 10-2. Afir 1J B Street North C Street Camino Estribo Ak 11/1 C Street • B Street South Figure 3-31 Pedestrian Circulation - Village G CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 LAND USE 3 3-60 DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be no driveways to private garages on B Street South. 2. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 3. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 4. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking may be provided on one side only of secondary streets. 2. On -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 3. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages. 4. Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards. 5. Residential parking lots shall not be visible from surrounding open space, from the Civic Site, or from B Street South or the Western Bypass. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards GRADING STANDARDS: Village G slopes down from west to east, with slope banks on either side. There is also a steep slope bank on the north side down to the Western Bypass. Buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes as much as possible. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space is the Village G Park, an approximately 0.35 -acre park to be installed with the development of the village. The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10. Example of Open Space Development in Village G: Example assumes 40 detached and 40 multiplex residences are constructed, for a total of 80 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 40 detached units 40 multiplex units x 80 sf/du x 60 sf/du = 3,200 sf of common open space = 2,400 sf of common open space = 5,600 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by both the detached and multiplex residents or separate spaces. Per Table 8-2, there is no public open space open space requirement for Village G. Therefore, the common open space and private open space calculated according to the quantity and type of dwelling units will fulfill the full open space requirement for Village G. This could be a pool and deck area, with access limited to residents of Village G, a central green or a series of linked playgrounds and smaller spaces. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 40 detached unit x 100% = 40 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 40 multiplex units x 100% = 40 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village G. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-61 LAND USE 3 3-62 H err -I n _1J1 7 LJ r — r -F71-171-71 Civic -I L1_144 1 Center Main --n a Figure 3-32 School - Plan Area K 0 300' 600' 1200' November 2017 I n PECIFIC PLAN klaraim 3.12 School Site Land of approximately 7 acres will be dedicated to the Temecula Valley Unified School District for a new elementary school to serve Altair and adjacent neighborhoods. The designated site for this school is at the north end of Altair Vista where it connects to the Western Bypass, south of Village B. This location is ideal for a school, as it allows convenient pick-up and drop-off from Rancho California Road and the Bypass with minimal disruption to the Altair neighborhood. It is anticipated that a percentage of the students will commute to this school from east of 1-15 via Rancho California Road. Any alternate location south of the designated site would route this traffic through Altair, creating gridlock and compromising the walkable nature of the community. Any location further north would lose connection with the neighborhoods of Altair. The designated site also has excellent views and places the school at an elevation where it can be seen as a prominent and recognizable edifice in the community. If the School District elects not to receive the land, the land may be developed with residential uses. Allowable residential density for the school site will be transferred from other villages, so that the total dwelling units for the entire Altair Specific Plan area shall not exceed the limits of Table 3-1. Access points to this parcel shall be similar to Figures 3-31 and 3-32, regardless of use. BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the west; Altair Vista to the east and north; Community Center to the south. FRANCIS PARKER SCHOOL IN SAN DIEGO, CA Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-63 LAND USE 3 3-64 SIZE: Approximately 7 net acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: Altair Vista. Routing of bus and vehicular traffic will be further refined in cooperation with the School District. STUDENT BODY: 600-730 students in grades K-6. N. N. Primary Access `! Secondary Access Altair Vista Coromell Trail Figure 3-33 Park Vehicular Access - School CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDINGTYPE: The style and scale of the building shall complement surrounding neighborhoods, but shall distinguish itself as an important civic institution. If the School District elects not to receive this land, then allowable building types include: Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Live / Work Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Podium Mixed Use Altair Vista Coromell Trail Figure 3-34 Pedestrian Circulation - School Afir SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 3-66 BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on Altair Vista. Additional frontages may be provided along internal circulation routes, quads, or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: From Altair Vista ROW: From Western Bypass ROW: 5 ft. min 10 ft. min No maximum No maximum ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 1-2 stories for school; 4 stories if residential. See Table 10-2. DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be no driveways to private garages on Altair Vista. Only driveways to secondary streets are allowed. 2. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 3. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 4. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. • 1 AQUATICS CENTER 2 SHARED PARKING (63SPACES) 3 PLAY FIELDS 4 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5 ES PARKING (49SPACES) Figure 3-35 Conceptual Site Plan - School CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN AND PROGRAM MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parking shall be provided on site for faculty and visitors, based on the anticipated student body for the size of school that is ultimately built. See section 10.7 2. Overflow parking for special events will be shared with parking for the community swimming pool / recreation center. 3. If residential uses are developed on the site, in the event that the School District elects not to receive the site, parking shall be provided as required in Table 10-3 for the appropriate dwelling types and quantities. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards GRADING STANDARDS: The school site slopes down from west to east, with slope banks on either side. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. COMMON OPEN SPACE: A playfield will be provided at the school site. This field will be a shared facility with the Altair community and open to the general public when school is not in session. The play field will remain even if the School District elects not to receive the site and it is developed as residential use. In this case, the field will be maintained by the Master HOA. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: Not applicable for school use. If the site is developed as residential use, then common and private open space must be provided as required in Section 10 for the appropriate housing type. LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See "School" section under Appendix A Plant List and Section 10.6.8 School. See "Villages" section under Appendix A plant list if residential units are developed. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-67 LAND USE 3 Figure 3-36 Civic Site - Plan Area November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200' I n I SPECIFIC PLAN 3.13 Civic Site The southernmost parcel at Altair will be reserved for a nature center that will benefit the public through recreation, tourism and education related to the culture, natural environment and sustainability of the region. A significant portion of the site will be natural open space. The site is strategically located near existing and proposed trails, near the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek, forming the Santa Margarita River, and within the Pechanga Origin Area. The nature center's hours will be limited to dawn until two hours after dusk. BOUNDARIES: Camino Estribo and open space to the west; C Street and storm water easement (open space) to the north; Murrieta Creek to the east and south. SIZE: Approximately 55 total gross acres and 16 net acres. Pad size of 3.6 acres may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: B Street South from the Western Bypass and 1-15; C Street from Village G. MAXIMUM SIZE: 20,000 s.f. max. in one or more buildings Site development to include surface parking, outdoor terraces, trails and other landscape features as needed to support the institution's program. BUILDING TYPE: Civic Building The scale, materials and style of the buildings should be appropriate for a public facility and should be an asset to the community. The buildings must also be sensitive to the adjacent natural open space and the Temeku Village site to the south. Building design is discussed further in Section 10.20. Final siting, design and location of the Nature Center will be developed pursuant to MSHCP guidelines. Afir MISSION TRAILS REGIONAL PARK, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-69 LAND USE 3 BUILDING FRONTAGE: A clear entry shall be provided at the termination of B Street South. Procession and circulation for both vehicles and pedestrians shall be carefully designed to avoid conflicts and celebrate arrival. Development on this site shall focus on shared open space and places for outdoor gathering. The building and common spaces should take advantage of the impressive vistas from this site. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at south parcel boundary. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the overall boundary. At Camino Estribo and C Street: 10 ft. min No maximum ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: Up to 2 stories. See Table 10-2. I-� C Street Natural Open Space Secondary Fire I Access Only Buildable Pad Nature Center B Stree South ✓ Primary r \ Access /1 �I I 1 1 1 Camino Estribo 4r r • • ,/ Revegetated Open Space with Trails \11 �� --is/' 1 �' \ I / Natural Open Space with Trails / / / / Western Bypass Turn Around Natural Open Space with Trails Figure 3-37 Vehicular Access - Civic Site CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be one primary driveway entry onto B Street South. 2. A secondary driveway will be provided on Camino Estribo for emergency fire access only. 3. Camino Estribo will remain a natural surface road. PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Approximately 120 parking spaces will be provided for the nature center use. Surface parking will comply with City of Temecula standards for parking dimensions, landscaping and screening. 2. Paving shall have a low impact on water quality per the model WQMP. A permeable surface is preferred. C Street Natural Open Space Buildable Pad 1 a i Nature Center I 1 I II, 1 1111 411/k\ • i � * • • • I • • L. 7 Western Bypass .0' /• • B Street South 1 Trail From Offsite To Trail Network (5% - 10% grade) Natural Trail From Offsite To Nature Center (5% - 8% grade) Revegetated O.en S.ace Trail From Nature Center To Trail Network (8% - 10% grade) Trail From Nature Center To Trail Network (5% grade) Open Space '� �'; Natural I Future Trails 'r Open Space i To Be Determined .k / `Existing Trails Figure 3-38APedestrian Circulation - Civic Site CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-71 LAND USE 3 APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards GRADING STANDARDS: The site slopes down from west to the east and south, with slope banks on three sides. Site grading for the building pad and trails shall result in undulating slopes that appear natural and mimic existing surrounding topography. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. TRAIL DEVELOPMENT: 1. Trails will be 8'-10' wide and of a natural, pervious surface. 2. Trail layout will use siting guidance in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSHCP). 3. The City will work with the Pechanga tribe on the routing of trails to avoid significant cultural artifacts. 4. Existing trails will be utilized wherever possible. 5. Portions of existing trails may be eliminated through revegetation to provide a more specific trail alignment, and to protect sensitive habitat or cultural resources. 6. Proposed trails will begin and end at the Nature Center, providing a loop or out -and -back route. COMMON OPEN SPACE: Most of the south parcel will be left as natural open space. An existing stand of native oak trees at the west side of the parcel will be maintained. The south portion of the parcel will also be maintained as an open space buffer between new development and the historic Temecu Village site to the south. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: N/A LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See "Civic / Community" section under Appendix A Plant List and Section 10.6.10. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES: The Environmental Impact Report for Altair describes mitigation measures that, while applicable to the entire site, are particularly relevant to the conservation open space in the south and west portions of the south parcel and the goal of encouraging wildlife movement through this tract. Noted measures include: • Control Zones for exterior lighting; • Shielded exterior light fixtures that avoid light spillage or uplighting; • Limit hours of operation to the period from dawn to 2 hours after dusk; • Installation of a Wildlife Fence as shown in Figure 8-1 and described in Section 8.1. • Construction period best practices to minimize noise, erosion and other disturbances; • The portion of Camino Estribo west of the development area will remain unpaved to minimize vehicular speeds. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-73 1 I 4 CIRCULATION PLAN CIRCULATION Transportation corridors and facilities are major components of the nation's landscape and public realm including the Altair Community and City of Temecula. The alignment, scale, and character of our thoroughfares play an integral role in determining urban form, development patterns, and a sense of place. The American Society of Landscape Architects supports the design, construction, and management of streets and highways that enhance interconnected transportation options, particularly for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people with disabilities. All multi -modal transportation systems should be safe, efficient, convenient, and beautiful. Communities with "complete streets" encourage alternative transportation uses including provision of safe sidewalks and bicycle lanes enhanced with appropriate roadside plantings. Multi -modal streets provide mobility to people of all ages and abilities. Safe routes to schools are critical and encourage physical exercise. Streets should be community assets, compatible with built and natural environments, and reflect the balanced needs of the community and transportation networks. Altair embraces the concept of "complete streets". Narrow travel lanes and roundabouts calm traffic while improving traffic flow. "Sharrows" (shared bike lane symbols) as well as separate Class 1 bikeways provide multiple opportunities for bicycling. A network of large sidewalks, key walkways and separate hiking trails provide safe opportunities for walking, jogging, and rollerblading. Integrated "green infrastructure" and substantial landscape treatments will also help define the streets as sustainable community assets. The plan for Altair intends to return neighborhood streets to their historical function as social spaces and to free non -motorists from the defensive zones necessitated by high-speed automobile traffic. The circulation plan for Altair overlaps vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle systems to provide transportation choices and promote a safe and healthy lifestyle. While this plan recognizes the necessity to accomodate automobiles, the main focus is on human -powered circulation. Pedestrian and cycling routes due not merely parallel car lanes. In many instances, they are completely separate from vehicular streets. Several of the most prominent routes - the Main Street axis, the Promenade - are pedestrian only. Individual development projects within the villages of Altair are an important part of this pedestrian and bicycle system. It is vital to the success of the circulation plan that the final design of these sub -developments include internal pedestrian and cycling routes that connect to the community -wide system of walkways, trails and bikeways. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-1 CIRCULATION 4 20-25 minute walk ute walk 5 min - 1/4 mile 1_11:0J cn A CS, 10- 5 _ minute walk Z' in mile School 0) 0 o_ Main Street Cr, -c•-•• 0 OLD TOWN First Street Anis'. 49" P. 4 Civic Center _o 0 E Civic Site 11k -.-,/1/,1' :di 11111111L • 1_, • 2' <1,0 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a hr 4.1 Pedestrian Walkways, Trails and Bikeways The pedestrian and cycling network is interwoven through all of the villages and active open spaces at Altair and connects to adjacent communities. Village nodes are within a 5 -minute walk of the next village and the majority of the developed area can be traversed north to south in about 30 minutes. See 1F! URE 4-1. It is hoped that residents and visitors alike will walk these neighborhoods as much for pleasure as for convenience. 4.1.1 Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan The Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was developed in response to a 1991 survey of Temecula residents that identified the need for a trail system that would: • Access key destinations within the City and region • Serve as both recreation and transportation routes • Connect neighborhoods to parks, schools employment and commercial areas • Form loops that follow creeks and utility easements wherever feasible Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-3 CIRCULATION 4 The Plan developed the following goals for the trail system: "An interconnected system of pathways and bike routes is needed to supporta variety of recreational uses and non -motorized transportation requirements for Temecula residents. This system should be community -wide and should connect a variety of community and regional destinations (such as schools, parks and other areas of interest) and should utilize open space corridors, flood control channels, utility easements, publicly owned lands and roadways most appropriate for non -motorized uses. Trails and bike routes should be provided to improve the quality of life for residents of Temecula, offer transportation alternatives, accommodate recreational enjoyment and increase the value and connectiveness (sic) of the community." A trail system is provided in the Altair Plan to provide a non -motorized circulation network, separate from the vehicular system, linking villages with each other and with parks and community amenities. This will serve predominantly pedestrians and bicyclists at slow speeds. The trail system will also link to Old Town and will be accessible by non-residents. Trail and bikeway types identified in this plan are consistent with Types M1, B1 and B3 described in the Trails Master Plan. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir 4.1.2 Circulation Plan - Pedestrian/ Bicycle Altair is designed as a Walkable Community. There are numerous factors that contribute to a community's walkability besides a strong pedestrian and bicycle circulation network. Walkable.org a national leader in defining walkable communities has developed a "Healthy Development Checklist". Altair utilizes the following principles from that checklist to enhance walkability: • The project promotes interaction between neighbors through parks, street front standards that encourage public / private transition spaces such as porches, etc. • The project is adjacent to Old Town Temecula and includes several strong pedestrian and roadway linkages. • There is a diversity of housing densities and potential diversity of income levels. • Nonresidential land uses such as parks, civic and school facilities are fully integrated with the residential land uses. • Land use is configured around walkable block sizes. Street patterns and block sizes are discussed further in Section 9.13. • Neighborhoods are permeable. There are no gated communities or other barriers to pedestrian connectivity. • Where closed motor courts or dead-end streets are unavoidable, a walkway or bike path shall be provided to connect through to the overall circulation network. • Homes are properly oriented towards streets and plazas and will have windows watching over parks, streets and trails. • Architecture will be attractive and supportive of life on the streets, parks and the school. • Public buildings, parks and common destinations are properly placed to maximize the number of people that can walk to them. • The majority of people can walk safely and comfortably to the elementary school. • There are no large off-street parking lots along the street network. • The project provides mobility options for those who cannot drive. • The project has a well-connected sidewalk and trail system that leads to local destinations. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-5 CIRCULATION 4 • Street sidewalks are generous at 6' minimum width. • Some sidewalks are at 7' width to allow small children to more safely bike on the sidewalk rather than in the street. • Sidewalks are typically separated from curbs with parkways along the main arterials. • All street corners will have accessibility ramps. • Parkways offer street trees for shade and visual comfort. • Curb extensions prevent motorists from parking too close to corners. • The project connects to a larger trail system for walking and biking. • Decorative, pedestrian height street lights will be provided. • Buildings will address the street (front doors). • Visibility at intersections will be adequate for pedestrian safety. • Speed limit on local streets will be 25mph or below. • Project will contain design elements to calm traffic such as narrow lanes, roundabouts, special pavement in key areas, and raised pedestrian street crossings. • Street sidewalk gradients are typically below 5% slope to accommodate people with disabilities. • Key walkways and sidewalks have high transparency (surveillance ability). • The school, parks and other destinations will have adequate and secure bicycle parking. • The majority of people can walk safely and comfortably in five minutes to a public gathering place such as park, plaza or community center. The Circulation Plan - Pedestrian/ Bicycle, FIGURE 4-2 (FACING PAGE ) , notes the locations of the four different levels of pedestrian circulation. Along the Western Bypass and on the south east edge of the community runs an 8 foot wide Class 1 Bike Way. Throughout the site run various 5 foot wide hiking trails and 8 foot wide key pedestrian walkways. Along the interior streets are 6 -foot minimum wide sidewalks (7' wide typical along Altair Vista) for ease of pedestrian circulation. This network satisfies a diverse set of needs, from the person who wants a direct and convenient walk to a certain destination, to the family enjoying a short walk with a stroller or small children, or a weekend athlete running a large loop. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN .( •y !School i' %C Main TTTFTM 2T221-171-1 Civic j-727 eee Center rr �l jj lel Q 2 0C do,": _" Civic an, Site LEGEND CLASS 1 BIKEWAY (8' WIDTH) KEY WALKWAY (8' MIN. WIDTH) • • • • HIKING TRAIL (5' MIN. WIDTH) SIDEWALKS (6' MIN WIDTH) O MID BLOCK CROSSING O CONNECTION POINT TO W.B.C. CLASS 1 BIKEWAY N 0 300' 600' 1200' Figure 4-2 Circulation Plan Pedestrian + Bicycle LJZJ I 4 _sriui.SI'ECM— IC PLAN November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 4-8 8' Figure 4-3 Class I Bikeway Section 4.1.2.1 Class 1 Bikeways A Class 1 Bikeway, FIGURE 4-3, will span the entire length of the community following the Western Bypass. At the southeast end of the Western Bypass the class 1 bikeway will also turn back north to connect with First Street. The bikeway is an 8' wide asphalt path with two 4' wide lanes, one for either direction of travel. There is a 2 foot clear zone shoulder on the outside of each lane. The uphill side will also incorporate a 3' vegetated swale (or cobble swale over concrete). Guidelines for a class 1 bike way require a 2% to 5% sustained gradient (and maximum of 12.5% gradient for 10' with landings - railings not required). Typical cross slope shall be 2%. Gaps on surface shall not to exceed %". Clearances shall be 10' vertical and 2' horizontal. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 4 CIRCULATION r 4• LANDSCAPE (LOW WATER USE.) 8' LANDSCAPE (LOW WATER USE ) Figure 4-4 Key Walkway Section 4.1.2.2 Key Walkways The key pedestrian walkways, FIGURE 4-4, can be found in the core of the community connecting the different villages and open spaces. These walkways provide a pedestrian network allowing users to move about the community while staying away from the main vehicular circulation. All key pedestrian walkways are 8 foot wide minimum. LANE MARKINGS --a RAPID FLASHING BEACONS R O 3' BAND OF TRUNCATED DOME 4 PARKING Jr._, `'- RAISED CROSSWALK DECORATIVE PAVEMENT Figure 4-5 Plan at Mid -Block Crossing Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-9 CIRCULATION 4 4'-6" 7' SETBACK VARIES 12' SEE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES i Figure 4-6 Typical Village Sidewalk Section 4.1.2.3 Sidewalks and Mews Sidewalks, FIGURE 4— 6, will be located on each side of Altair Vista connecting the different villages and parks, and on A Street. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 6' wide (7' wide along portions of Altair Vista, to allow small children to ride on the sidewalk). (See Vehicular Circulation section for street -specific sidewalk configurations.) There are no requirements for separate sidewalks at alleys, motor courts and streets that are internal to lots at Altair, unless the streets frame parks or are designated to have sidewalks in other sections of this Plan. These are shared streets, or mews, where pedestrians and cyclists have priority over automobiles and where speeds are limited to a walking pace. Mews feature enhanced paving across the entire surface and no curbs. See Section 4.2.3 and the description for Alley Street Type for a further explanation of how motorized and non -motorized traffic co- exist on internal streets. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 12' Figure 4-7 Hiking Trail Section 4.1.2.4 Hiking Trails The main hiking trail, FIGURE 4-7, runs along the eastern slope of the community connecting many points of interest. Starting at the school site to the north and running along the 1st Street extension road into the main park, it splits to continue down to 1st Street and switches back to connect to Main Street. While the main portion of the trail continues along the eastern slope, other shorter segments of trails provide pedestrian connections to the different villages. The trail is 5' wide, stabilized, decomposed granite with a 2' wide bench on either side. The uphill side will have a 3' wide vegetated swale (or cobble swale over concrete.) Outdoor recreation access routes (ORAR) utilizes the following guidelines for trails and are adopted for Altair: 5% maximum for any distance (no rest interval required.) 5.1%-8.33% up to 200' maximum (rest interval required every 200'). 8.34%-10% up to 30' maximum (rest interval required every 30'.) 10%-12% for 10' maximum (rest interval required every 10'). Rest intervals shall be 60" minimum length and same width as trail. Salvaged boulders from grading operations should be used along open space trails for visual interest and to create overlooks and rest areas. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-11 CIRCULATION 4 4.1.3 Bike Routes The circulation network recognizes that bicycling includes a wide range of cycling skills and speeds. A cyclist could be a commuter going to and from work, a small child just learning or someone out for a Saturday ride. The Temecula region is also home to an active road racing community always looking for new training routes. The Temecula Valley Century charity ride has historically gone by the Altair site. The annual Tour de Murrieta incorporates the ridgeline portion of Rancho California Road. In 2013, the Tour of California, an international professional cycling race, visited the area with the start and finish of Stage 1 in Escondido and Stage 2 beginning in Murrieta. These various cycling levels require different bikeway types. Sidewalks along Altair Vista are widened to 7 feet to allow small children to ride on the sidewalk instead of the street. Two Class 1 Bikeways, one paralleling the Bypass and another connecting to First Street, can be used by leisurely riders and children and are wide enough for cyclists to pass pedestrians. In addition, all roads in the Altair community are to have either shared or dedicated bike lanes, except for the Western Bypass. Shared lanes are indicated with "sharrows" painted on the road to inform bicyclists and to alert motorists that the lane is to be shared. Ample bike racks throughout the community, especially at parks, recreation centers and the school further encourage cycling. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN ii'211If LEGEND CLASS I BIKEWAY PROPOSED CLASS I BIKEWAY CLASS II BIKEWAY PROPOSED CLASS II BIKEWAY Figure 4-8 Bicycle Facilities: Existing and Proposed SPECIFIC PLAT, November 2017 4-13 a. MAI w1 llr ititink t/:a f��i�r1iu��1�11111111111�,'�� 4.1.4 Pedestrian Bridges Pedestrian bridges will be utilized when necessary to connect trail segments over drainage draws. While the site may feature bridges of various scales, all pedestrian bridges will match the modern rustic motif of the Altair community. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN, ■ 4.1.5 Connection to Old Town A significant element of the pedestrian circulation plan is the linkage to Old Town Temecula via Main Street. This connection serves as circulation, community gateway and public open space, and is formed by four major links along the axis with Main Street leading to the central park and plaza in Village C. There is a substantial grade change between the park and the west end of Main Street. Much of this grade is reconciled by the first link: a sloped and meandering, accessible path leading out of the park and under the monumental bridge to Coromell Trail. The next component crosses Coromell Trail with a raised crosswalk, median and flashing warning lights to ensure pedestrian safety and priority over vehicles, as shown in FIGURE 4-9. East of Coromell Trail, a grand staircase welcomes visitors from Old Town. The stairs are complemented by an accessible path that stretches to either side of the staircase. This path will be enjoyed by all and is intended to be integral to the composition, not a tacked on necessity. The path slope will be gradual enough to avoid the requirement for railings that are visually confining. Both the stairs and path are broken up into manageable portions interspersed with shaded areas to sit and enjoy the view. Secondary stairs also connect the switchbacks periodically, so that a walker has the option to shorten their path. The design satisfies a variety of moods - a slow stroll along the full length of the path, with areas to stop and enjoy the scenery, a shorter amble along the path via intermediate steps, a direct route on the grand staircase, or merely sitting on one of the break-out landings of the stair to meet a friend or watch people pass by. The arrangement of curved steps, angular paths and segmented stone retaining walls creates a beautiful monumental entry to Altair and proclaims the importance of pedestrians to the community. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-15 CIRCULATION 4 RAISED LANE MARKINGS — CROSSWALK RAPID FLASHING +DECORATIVE BEACONS PAVEMENT BIKE LANE GRAND STAIRS Figure 4-9 Crossing at Coromell Trail The visual axis with Main Street is reinforced by the offset stair segments that lead the traveler off and then back onto the axis at critical junctures, such as view platforms and seating areas. These gathering spaces are embraced by the broad arcs of the stair flights. Ornamental landscaping in color blocks between retaining walls further enhances the scheme, evoking stepped gardens that one passes between. Final design of these elements should ensure safety, discourage vandalism and damage from skateboards and employ durable, classic materials. The grand staircase is designed to be a focal public space to meet friends or relax - an event, rather than just a means of travel. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN The fourth link is the off-site courtyard at the west end of Main Street. A concept for improvements to this now dead-end street is shown in FIGURE 4-10, but the final plans will come about through public dialogue and should be coordinated with the stair and path design to produce a cohesive space. Main Street Meandering Path 15 0 Accessible Path 0 Seating Areas Figure 4-10 Conceptual Plan at Grand Stair CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. ilmSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-17 CIRCULATION 4 / Q. 1 id '/ \1-6 pP ��o, o • 0,5 School i 1 I"Tirr -71rn w HH - ° Civic 9-111 -T-t Center First Street On Site Circulation Off Site Circulation Figure 4-11 Vehicular Entries November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200' SPECIFIC PLAN 4.2 Circulation Plan - Vehicular The vehicular circulation system facilitates resident mobility; access to the school and to parks by non-residents; and through traffic on the Western Bypass. The circulation pattern is fairly simple and is guided by grading constraints and connections to the existing off-site network. FIGURE 4-11 depicts the vehicular entries of Altair. Main connections are at Vincent Moraga Drive on the north, First Street on the east, and Temecula Parkway (SR -79) to the south. The Western Bypass makes the north and south connections and is the largest street section, but it does not provide internal circulation for the Altair community. The Western Bypass links Temecula Parkway to Rancho California Road. It is primarily a public benefit to allow through - traffic to bypass Old Town and relieve congestion. Intersections with the Western Bypass are therefore, limited. It will be a scenic bypass due to its elevation above the City, with easterly views over the proposed development to mountains and valleys beyond. Views to the west will be into the natural hillside of the MSCHP wildlife corridor and dedicated open space. A split -lane configuration with landscaped median enhances the parkway character of the Western Bypass. Coromell Trail connects to the off-site street grid at First Street on the east side of the site. Due to slope limitations, Coromell Trail circumnavigates Village C and intersects with Altair Vista at a roundabout near the school. The Western Bypass, the round -about between First Street and Coromell Trail, and the portion of Altair Vista between the Bypass and Coromell Trail are public streets. All other streets in the Altair site are private. Altair Vista is a north -south spine through Altair that links the Villages. It is the main circulation element serving the residents of Altair, but is not intended as a through -way. A number of traffic calming measures are implemented to slow traffic on Altair Vista, including narrow lanes, street parking on one side (which should alternate sides) and frequent stops. Potential traffic congestion due to the slowing of Altair Vista will be aleviated by the parallel Western Bypass with its faster speeds. The cross section of Altair Vista varies depending on its location and the character of each Village: sometimes more urban, sometimes a couplet framing a park. It is generally framed by a tree -lined parkway and wide sidewalks. With the exception of Streets A, B and C, all remaining automotive access will be provided as part of individual development projects. These will be predominantly alleys and private drives running perpendicular to Altair Vista. These should be very intimate, in contrast with the formality of Altair Vista, with enhanced paving in lieu of raised sidewalks and no minimum setbacks. The character of these passageways is reflective of a mews, where pedestrians, bicycles and cars share the roadway. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-19 CIRCULATION 4 4.2.1 Roundabouts and Couplets Roundabouts are used at Altair to slow and coordinate traffic without the idling, stacked automobiles that occur at signalized intersections. In some cases, such as the entrance from First Street and at the Community Center, roundabouts are installed at important locations in the project where drivers should be more aware of their surroundings. The centers of roundabouts are prime opportunities for special landscaping and public art, as discussed further in Section 9.9. Couplets are pairs of one-way streets that are separated by more than just a median. They facilitate safe crosswalks because the pedestrian only has to look one way and has a narrower street to cross. Couplets are used at Altair to frame the park at Village D. and are strongly encouraged around greens at Villages A and B. See FIGURE 4-25 and FIGURE 4-26 for an example of the Altair Vista couplet at Village D. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 4 CIRCULATION 4.2.2 Internal Streets Alleys, motor courts and streets that are internal to lots at Altair are shared streets where pedestrians and cyclists have priority over automobiles and where speeds are limited to a walking pace. These are referred to as "mews" or "home zones" in Britain and as "woonerven" in the Netherlands. They have been shown to be safer than streets having separate sidewalks because drivers are forced to be more aware of pedestrians. They also become social spaces that are more intimate than parks but more interactive than a private yard, serving as a transition between public and private space. Mews feature enhanced paving across the entire surface, no curbs, landscaping and smaller pockets of parking that do not form a roadway edge or barrier. Drainage can occur through a central gutter or, preferably, through pervious pavement or to a landscaped area. See also the description for the Alley street type. Afir 0111 4' • SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 4-22 4.2.3 The Vehicular Circulation Plan FIGURE 4-12 notes the locations of the eleven different types of street sections and three roundabouts. Site specific conditions such as additional turn pocket lanes at intersections shall be determined by the traffic study and shall be designed per the Tentative Map. Specific roads (listed from widest to narrowest) shall be constructed as: The Western Bypass Corridor 1- Standard Section — 100' R.O.W. The Western Bypass Corridor 2 - Split Section — 100' R.O.W. C Street and B Street South - Local Street (Modified) — 60' R.O.W. Coromell Trail (Public) — Split Lanes, Separate Trail, with no Parking — 58' P.U.A.E. Altair Vista & A Street - Landscaped Parkways with Parking one side — 56' P.U.A.E. Altar Vista & A Street - Urban Parkways with Parking one side — 56' P.U.A.E. Altar Vista - One-way Street with Parking one side — 45' P.U.A.E. Altar Vista - Public — 70' to 83' R.O.W. Altair Vista Culvert / A Street Bridge — 48' R.O.W. B Street North — 46' to 50' P.U.A.E. Alley Private streets are shown with Public Utility and Access Easements (P.U.A.E.'s) to allow for utility infrastructure. The utilities will primarily be located under sidewalks, with utility boxes or vaults located in the parkway. See Figure 9.13. Above -grade utility boxes and devices shall be screened with landscaping (with required clearances) and irrigation control valves shall be located in parkways or residential setbacks (if HOA maintained). See Section 9.5 for utility placement and screening guidelines. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir COROMELL TRAIL OLD TOWN ot 110 ALTAIR VISTA 1 1 O }1(7, MAIN STREET WESTERN BYPASS C STREET FIRST STREET B STREET NORTH B STREET SDUTH } 4 CIRCULATION _EGEND: STREET SECTION - WESTERN BYR�SS CORRIDOR 1 [PUBLJ STREET SECTION - WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR 2 (PUI3 q STREET SECTION - C STREET & B STREET S. (PUBLIC) I✓• STREET SECTION - OOROMEUL TRAIL SPLIT {PRIVATE} a ■ 1 STREET SECTION - COROMELL TRAIL (PRIVATE) STREET SECTION - ALTAIR V fti IA &A S I I-itt I PLANTED PARKWAYS (PRIVATE) STREET SECTION - ALTAR VISTA &A STREET, URBAN PARKWAYS (PRIVATE) STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA ONE WAY WITH PARKING ONE SIDE (PRIVATE) STREET SECTION - ALTPdR VISTA {PUBLIC) STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA CULVERT / A STREET BRIDGE IIIIIII! STRUT SECTION - B STREET N. WITH CLASS I BIKE TRAIL VAT ) STREET SECTION - B STREET N. WITH SHARED BIKE LANE (PRIVATE) i TRANSITIONAL AREA PER TENTATIVE MAP ROUNDABOUT - fik ROUNDABOUT - 2 ROUNDABOUT -3 ROUNDABOUT - 4 Figure 4-12 SPECIFIC PLAN Vehicular Circulation Plan November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 Western Bypass Corridor (Public) PKWA n 12' 12' 14' 2% 12' 12' LANE LANDSCAPED MEDIAN LANE LANE 8 38' 100' R.O.W. 6" PKWAY CLASS I BIKEWAY 2' 2'' Figure 4-13 Street Section - Western Bypass Corridor 1 ( Public, TTM lots D, N and portion of J ) The Western Bypass Corridor 1, FIGURE 4-13 (Section), running along the western perimeter of the developed portion of Altair. • 12 -foot travel lanes. • 7 -foot shoulder running in either direction. • 14 -foot landscaped median separates the different directional lanes of travel and is planted with native trees, shrubs, and ground cover. • 8 -foot wide class I bikeway runs alongside the Western Bypass separated by a parkway with similar planting to the median. Trees for both the parkways and the median shall be clustered and spaced 15 feet to 100 feet apart with an average count of 40 foot on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 50% 15 gallon size, 45% 24" box, and 5% 36" box. 11' LANDSCAPED MEDIAN LANE 42" LANE PKWA� 100' IVARIES 3' 8 3' CLASS I BIKEWAY R.O.W. Figure 4-14 Street Section - Western Bypass Corridor 2 ( Public, TTM lot L ) 4-24 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN The Western Bypass Corridor The design intent is to create a very natural/SoCal native landscape character for this street type. Trees shall be clustered to provide a dynamic experience of openness and enclosure as well as to enhance scenic views. These areas shall use a combination of primarily SoCal native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers in natural organic patterns with limited non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 85% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 15%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 90% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 10%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways or median. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. TREE SPACING PER GUIDELINES Figure 4-15 Street Axon - Western Bypass Corridor 2 ( Public ) The Western Bypass Corridor 2, FIGURE 4-14 (Section) and FIGURE 4-15 (Axonometric), running along the western perimeter of the developed portion of Altair. Two 12 -foot travel lanes and a 7 -foot shoulder running in either direction. 22 -foot landscaped median separates the different directional lanes of travel and is planted with native trees, shrubs, and ground cover. 8 -foot wide class I bikeway runs alongside the Western Bypass lower in elevation and separated by a parkway with similar planting to the median. Trees for both the parkways and the median shall be clustered and spaced 15 feet to 100 feet apart with an average count of 40 foot on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 50% 15 gallon size, 45% 24" box, and 5% 36" box SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-3 CIRCULATION 4 C Street & B Street South C STREET —10- B -1 - B STREET 12' 3, 5' $' 6, WALK' PARKING ME K.U.W. of Figure 4-16 Street Section - C Street (TTM lots D+E) & B Street South ( lots B,C+F) ( Public ) C Street and B Street South - 60' ROW , FIGURE 4-16 (Section) and FIGURE 4-17 (Axonometric). Features: • Two 12 -foot travel lanes with 6 -foot wide bike lanes each side. • Parking along one side. • 5 -foot contiguous sidewalks along both sides. • 3 -foot landscaped parkways. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. • Dedicated bike lanes shall be provided. • Street trees shall be spaced at 24 feet on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. 4-26 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 4 CIRCULATION NATIVE SLOPE ,-� SCORED CONCRL I E NATIVE SLOPE STREET LIGHT 24' O.C. DEDICATED BIKE LANE Figure 4-17 Street Axon - C Street & B Street South ( Public) C Street and B Street South These areas shall use a combination of primarily SoCal natives with limited non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 85% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 15%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 90% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 10%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-27 CIRCULATION 4 Coromell Trail 2' 12' + _: 12' b' LANE24' LANE PKWY I 40' PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT Figure 4-18 Street Section - Coromell Trail ( Private, TTM lot G ) s' TRAIL 2% 12' VARIES 1 4' 6' 14' 12' ,VARIES 2' 4' 2' BENCH MIN. BIKE LANE 6' MAXI i MIN.I LANE 58' LANE PUBLIC UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT R, t. Figure 4-19 Street Section - Coromell Trail - Split Lanes ( Private, TTM lot G ) Split Lanes (portion of street), Separate Trail with no Parking - 40' to 58' Easement, FIGURE 4-18 and FIGURE 4-19 (Sections), FIGURE 4-20 (Axonometric) Features: • Two 12 -foot travel lanes. • Split lane portion features 14 -foot travel lane and 6 -foot bike lane each side, separated by a landscaped median. • While there are no sidewalks along this street type, there will be a 5 foot wide hiking trail alongside higher in elevation. Rolled curbs are included for ease of emergency vehicle access. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. Native street trees and various shrubs, grasses, and ground covers will be planted in the median and along the sides of the road on the slopes. • Trees for both the parkways and the median shall be clustered and spaced 15 feet to 100 feet apart with an average count of 40 foot on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 50% 15 gallon size, 45% 24" box, and 5% 36" box. Trees shall be a minimum of 50% 15 gallon size, 45% 24" box, and 5% 36" box. • Dedicated bike lanes shall be provided when road width allows. 4-28 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANE D.G. TRAIL 4 CIRCULATION STREEI LIGHT TREE SPACING PER GUIDELINES NATIVE SLOPE Figure 4-20 Street Axon - Coromell Trail - Split Lanes ( Private ) Coromell Trail - Split Lanes, Separate Trail, no Parking The design intent is to create a very natural/ SoCal native landscape character for this street type. Trees shall be clustered to provide a dynamic experience of openness and enclosure as well as to enhance scenic views. These areas shall use a combination of primarily SoCal native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers in natural organic patterns with limited non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 85% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 15%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 90% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 10%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-29 CIRCULATION 4 Altair Vista SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 2% 8' 5' 7' LANE PARKING PKWAY 16 32' 55' PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Figure 4-21 Street Section - Altair Vista - Planted Parkways ( Private, TTM lot K ) Altair Vista - Landscaped Parkways with Parking one side , FIGURE 4-21 (Section) and FIGURE 4-22 (Axonometric) Features: • Two 12 -foot travel lanes with an 8 -foot parking lane on one side. Each side has a 5 -foot landscaped parkway and 7 -foot sidewalk. • On the parking side, there are breaks in the landscaped parkway with concrete pads allowing pedestrians to exit their parked vehicle. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. Shared bike lanes shall be indicated by "sharrows" painted in the travel lanes. Street trees shall be spaced 24 feet on center. • Street trees at every 24 feet provide shade. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. 4-30 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN FACE OF BUILDING 4 CIRCULATION PLANTED PARKWAY SCORED CONCRETE '.:. 24' O.C, STRFFT LIGHT SHARED BIKE LANE Figure 4-22 Street Axon - Altair Vista - Planted Parkways Altair Vista - Landscaped Parkways with Parking one side It is intended that the urbanized Village streets use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Although the plant species will be the same or similar to the natural areas, this street type shall be designed in more defined patterns (such as blocks of matching plant material, interesting angles, or geometric patterns) rather than natural organic patterns. These areas shall use a combination ofSoCal native and non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-31 CIRCULATION 4 SETBACK VARIES T SEE DEVELOPMENT PIC A STANDARDS. URBAN R. 56' PUBUC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT 2% 5' 7' G PKWAY URBAN SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Figure 4-23 Street Section - Altair Vista ( TTM lot F) & A Street ( lot 1) - Urban Parkways ( Private ) Altair Vista & A Street Altair Vista and A Street - Urban Parkways with Parking one side, FIGURE 4-23 (Section) and FIGURE 4-24 (Axonometric) Features: • Two 12 -foot travel lanes with an 8 foot parking lane on one side. Each side has a 5 -foot decorative hardscaped parkway and 7 -foot sidewalk. This streetscape is found in the main Village nodes and high pedestrian use areas. • The hardscape parkway provides a larger walkable area for pedestrians and a zone for benches, potted plants, and decorative paving such as brick, granite cobbles, or concrete unit pavers. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. Shared bike lanes shall be indicated by "sharrows" painted in the travel lanes. • Street trees at every 24 feet provide shade and may be in planting beds or with tree grates. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. 4-32 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN FACE OF BUILDING 4 CIRCULATION SPECIAL PAVING -SCORED CONCRETE TE LIGHT ''''.—TREE PLANTER WITH PLANTING OR TREE GRATE SHARED BIKE LANE Figure 4-24 Street Axon - Altair Vista & A Street - Urban Parkways Altair Vista and A Street - Urban Parkways with Parking one side It is intended that the urbanized Village streets use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Although the plant species will be the same or similar to the natural areas, this street type shall be designed in more defined patterns (such as blocks of matching plant material, interesting angles, or geometric patterns) rather than natural organic patterns. These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-33 CIRCULATION 4 Altair Vista - One Way SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 7' 5' 8' 20' WALK PKWY PARKING URBAN 14' LANE 14' 28' 45' 5' PKWY PARK PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT Figure 4-25 Street Section - Altair Vista One Way ( Private, TTM lot K) Altair Vista - One -Way Street with Parking one side, FIGURE 4-25 (Section) and FIGURE 4-26 (Axonometric) Features: • 20 -foot travel lane with an 8 -foot parking lane on the developed side. The developed side also has a 5 -foot hardscaped parkway and 7 -foot sidewalk. This streetscape type is found around the Village "A", "B" and "D" parks with a 5 -foot landscaped parkway around the park side. • The hardscape parkway provides a larger walkable area for pedestrians and a zone for benches, potted plants, and decorative paving such as brick, granite cobbles, or concrete unit pavers. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. Shared bike lanes shall be indicated by "sharrows" painted in the travel lanes. • Street trees at every 24 feet provide shade and may be in planting beds or with tree grates. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. 4-34 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN FACE OF BUILDING 4 CIRCULATION SCORED CONORL I E TREE PLANTER WITH PLANTING OR GRATE BEENNCH PLANTS zt- 24' O.C. Figure 4-26 Street Axon - Altair Vista One Way Street with Parking One Side Altair Vista - One-way Street with Parking one side It is intended that the urbanized Village streets use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Although the plant species will be the same or similar to the natural areas, this street type shall be designed in more defined patterns (such as blocks of matching plant material, interesting angles, or geometric patterns) rather than natural organic patterns. These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-35 CIRCULATION 4 Altair Vista (Public) R.O.W. 0 0 d a Figure 4-27 Street Section - Altair Vista ( Public, TTM lots C and E ) Altair Vista (Public) - Split Lanes with no Parking, FIGURE 4-27 (Section) and FIGURE 4-28 (Axonometric) Features: • Split lane design with 14-27 foot (varies) travel lane and 6 -foot wide bike lane each side, separated by a landscaped median. • This streetscape type is found northeast of the proposed school site, between Coromell Trail and the Western Bypass and will be the main route to the school. • The southwest (school) side features a contiguous 6 -foot sidewalk with a landscaped parkway against the right-of-way line. • The opposite side features a 5 -foot landscaped parkway between the curb and a 6 -foot sidewalk. • Street trees at every 24 feet provide shade. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. • Dedicated bike lanes shall be provided. 4-36 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN11�I 4 CIRCULATION TREE SPACING PER GUIDELINES Figure 4-28 Street Axon - Altair Vista ( Public) Altair Vista (Public) It is intended that the urbanized Village streets use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Although the plant species will be the same or similar to the natural areas, this street type shall be designed in more defined patterns (such as blocks of matching plant material, interesting angles, or geometric patterns) rather than natural organic patterns. These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways or median. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-37 CIRCULATION 4 Altair Vista Culverts & A Street Bridge R. 12' WALK LANE24 LANE 48' PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT R. Figure 4-29 Street Section - Altair Vista Culverts & A Street Bridge ( Private ) Altair Vista & A Street (Bridge/ Culvert Locations), FIGURE 4-29 (Section) and FIGURE 4-30 (Axonometric) Features: • Two 12 -foot travel lanes and 7 -foot sidewalks with 5 feet of bridge treatment. Since this type of streetscape is found at the bridges (or faux bridges) there is no parking and no landscaped parkway. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. Shared bike lanes shall be indicated by "sharrows" painted in the travel lanes. • Shared bike lanes shall be indicated by "sharrows" painted in the travel lanes. 4-38 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 4 CIRCULATION Figure 4-30 Street Axon - Altair Vista Culvert and A Street Bridge Contiguous Sidewalks with no Parking These areas do not have landscaping since they are bridges or faux bridges (culverts.) Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-39 CIRCULATION 4 B Street North 2% R. 10' 12' C 12' 5' PKWAY LANE24 LANE 'KWA 7, Y 46' SIDEWALK PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT Figure 4-31 Street Section - B Street North ( Private, portion of TTM lot L ) 10' PKWAY 5' 8' 4, LANE PKWAVBcAY 50' PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING GRADE PER TRACT 36568 Figure 4-32 Street Section - B Street North with Class 1 Bikeway ( Private, TTM lots L and M ) B Street North (Private) Landscaped Parkways with no Parking, FIGURE 4-31 (Section), FIGURE 4-32 (Section),and FIGURE 4-33 (Axonometric), features: • Two 12 -foot travel lanes and no parking. The side adjacent the retaining wall features a 10 -foot heavily planted parkway to screen the wall. The other side has a 5 -foot landscaped parkway and either an 8 -foot class !bikeway or key walkway, depending on the portion of the street. • This streetscape is found at the south entry to the community off the Western Bypass road. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. • Shared bike lanes shall be indicated by "sharrows" painted in the travel lanes. • Street trees shall be spaced 15 feet to 100 feet apart with an average count of 40 feet on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 50% 15 gallon size, 45% 24" box, and 5% 36" box. 4-40 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 4 CIRCULATION SCORED CONCRETE `-- STREET LIGHT -'` NATIVE SLOPE ,TREE SPACING PER GUIDELINES SHARED BIKE LANE Figure 4-33 Street Axon - B Street North ( Private ) B Street North (Private) - Landscaped Parkways with no Parking The design intent is to create a very natural/ SoCal native landscape character for this street type. Trees shall be clustered to provide a dynamic experience of openness and enclosure as well as to enhance scenic views. These areas shall use a combination of primarily SoCal native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers in natural organic patterns with limited non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 85% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 15%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 90% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 10%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) There is a considerable grade change to the west of this street section. See Section 9.7 for standards for slopes and retaining walls, including allowances for stepped walls or taller segmental walls where necessary at steep slopes. — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-41 CIRCULATION 4 AIIey Street Type SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 24' I SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Figure 4-34 Street Section - AIIey ( Private ) Alley Street Type FIGURE 4-34 (Section) This street type is found in interior developments only and is not part of the primary circulation plan. Features: • One 24 -foot drive aisle • No minimum set back; dimension from alley to face of building varies • No sidewalks are required. Drive aisle is also the pedestrian route. • Provide landscaping on one or both sides. Landscaping depth and location should vary traffic and creates a more intimate path. • Avoid dead-end alleys. Where a dead-end is necessary, provide adequate turn -around path through to connect with other paths. • Where appropriate, alleys should be widened to allow parking. 4-42 so that drive aisle meanders. This slows for a fire truck and continue pedestrian November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 4-35 Typical Alley at Cottages at Harveston in Temecula Alley Street Type - 24' Width -SEE VILLAGE SECTION AND VILLAGE PLANT LISTS. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-43 1 I GRADING PLAN 5.1 Grading Plan Description GRADING PLAN N�f"Ail' The Grading Plan for the Altair Specific Plan is tailored to the existing topography of the project site. It is intended that the proposed grading plan be sensitive to and reflect natural landforms where possible. Site planning is carefully integrated with these landforms, so that the individual villages are distinguished and separated by topographical features as shown in Figure 5-1 Grading Plan. An earthwork quantity take -off conducted by the project engineer anticipates that the project site grading will approximately balance and will require minimal soil export. During the development of the project, the Master Developer may need to stockpile dirt on the Civic Site for an interim period. This would require a stockpile permit from the City. The Conceptual Grading Plan (Exhibit A for TTM No. 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959-3 and 36959) also accommodates a street system that meets the City of Temecula standards for acceptable grades. The associated Water Quality Management Plan, described in Section 6.1, establishes a basis for appropriate treatment of drainage requirements. The grading concept implements techniques to ensure that the overall shape, height, and grade of any cut or fill slope is designed to simulate the natural terrain and blend as much as possible with the adjacent natural open space. The plan proposes that graded slopes be revegetated and that drainage devices and erosion control facilities be constructed in accordance with project design objectives as well as City standards. Interim erosion control measures shall be provided during construction phases to address water quality regulations. Grading west of the Western Bypass Corridor shall not exceed a maximum slope ratio of 1.5:1. This will reduce amount of grading in the hillside areas. 5.2 Grading Plan Standards 1. All grading activities shall be in substantial conformance with the overall Grading Plan and shall implement any grading related mitigation measures outlined in the Preliminary Geotechnical Studies as contained in the Technical Appendices of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 2. Prior to any grading permits a soils report and geotechnical study shall be prepared to further analyze onsite soil conditions and slope stability. An erosion control plan and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared and approved. These documents shall include appropriate measures to control erosion and dust. 3. For erosion control purposes, slopes exceeding ten (10') feet in vertical height shall be hydro -mulched, prior to final acceptance and prior to the beginning of the rainy season (October - March). Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 5-1 GRADING PLAN 5 4. All on-site grading shall be performed to the City of Temecula standards. 5. Graded slopes shall be oriented to minimize visual impacts (i.e., inclusion of complimentary slope plants) to surrounding areas, specifically areas adjacent to proposed structures. 6. Grading work shall be balanced on-site wherever possible. 7. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed free and planted with interim landscaping, such as hydro -seed, within ninety (90) days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. 8. Unless otherwise approved by the City of Temecula, all cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no steeper than two (2) horizontal feet to one (1) vertical foot. The Grading Plan shall reflect a contouring and landscaping program for the purpose of controlling slope erosion. 9. Slopes in hillside areas shall not exceed a maximum ratio of 1.5:1. This ratio will reduce the amount of grading west of the Western Bypass Corridor, thus reducing potential impacts. All other slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 unless approved by the Public Works Department and considered safe in a slope stability report prepared by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. The slope stability report shall also contain recommendations for landscaping and erosion control. 10. Prior to commencing any grading activities, including clearing and grubbing, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City of Temecula. 11. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to ascertain the significance of any historic or prehistoric remains. 12. Soil stabilizers shall be used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. 13. All grading activities shall comply with the mitigation measures as outlined in the Altair Final Environmental Impact Report. 14. Recycled water shall be utilized for all grading activities. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN N O Figure 5-1 Project Grading Diagram SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 5 GRADING PLAN 5-3 GRADING PLAN 5 TR 36959-1 LOT 2 PAD GRADED BERM 8' TERACE DRAIN TRACT BOUNDARY 2 —I1 VARIES 2 9/W 1 2% 2% WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR TR 36959-1 LOT "B" Q/-12" WATER 8" RECYCLED WATER a 2% TR 36959-2 LOT 25 TR 36959-3 LOT 20 R TR 36959-2 LOT 18 -� JOPEN SPACE ITR 36959-3 LOT 12 (CONSERVATION) OPEN SPACE - i DAYLIGHT 6' INTERCEPTOR IDRAIN 1.5 �1 1.5 I EXISTING GRADE 6' TERRACE DRAIN (MAX. 30' VERTICAL OFFSET) 12' TERRACE DRAIN TR 36959-3 LOT 10 PAD GRADED SWALE RETAINING WALL (HEIGHT PER SEPARATE EXHIBIT) .5 RAH 1 R/W 18" 5D ` EXISTING 2' GRADE 100' VARIES R.O.W. SECTION A -A NTS 36" SD J 31' WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR TR 36959-2 LOT "A" TR 36959-3 LOT "A" -I1 / 5./ 12' 1,5 39' 2% 31' 45 100' R.O.W. SECTION K -K NTS TR 36959-3 R LOT "C" R �1 II "B" STREET NORTH 'r X PRIVATE ACCESS & MAY EASEMENT 1 y 2% ACL 2% 10 6" WATER 24' 46' 5r PKWY 6' SWALE 0 EX. 18° SFM EX. 20° SFM TR 36959-1 LOT 5 PAD GRADED BERM TR 36959-2 LOT 24 TR 36959-3 LOT 19 9/8 VARIES It GUARD RAIL PER TR 36959-2 LOT 1 CALTRANS STD'S ; TR 36959-2 LOT 12 TR 38959-3 LOT 10 16' PUBUC j, ACCESS 2% 2 I EASEMENT 5' �23- 2 VARIES ,1 / 6' /3'/ PAD BIKEWAY 6" RECYCLED WATER TR 36959-3 LOT 13 OPEN SPACE 40' ACCESS & UTILITY I( EASEMENT I. SECTION S -S NTS 1' :If 10' 1, I EXIST. 30' EMM) SEWER EASEMENT TRACT BOUNDARY TRACT 36568 EX. GROUND 12' DG TRAIL Figure 5-2 Project Grading Sections November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN BRIDGE SUPPORT SECTION A -A BRIDGE SUPPORT 5 GRADING PLAN EXHIBIT E - TRACT 36959 ALTAIR RETAINING WALL LEGEND Figure 5-3 Retaining Wall Diagram Afir SPECIFIC PLAT, November 2017 OCTOBER 2016 1 I INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES The Altair Specific Plan project site is currently undeveloped land with only a few of the required public utilities located onsite. Proposed development within Altair will provide the necessary connections, extensions, and upgrades as required to serve Altair. As part of the Altair Specific Plan, associated public utility plans have been developed to identify these anticipated facilities. This section reviews the availability of public facilities to serve the Altair Specific Plan as well as the project demands based upon the type and intensity of land uses proposed. The information included in the following infrastructure and utility facilities plan sections is preliminary. The final location and size of all public facilities will be based upon final improvement plans prepared under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer and based upon the review and approval of the agency with jurisdiction. 6.1 DRAINAGE 6.1.1 Project Description The project site is situated at the base of the Santa Rosa foothills on the westerly side of Temecula Valley. Under pre -project conditions, runoff from these foothills and the project site flows easterly across the project site and directly or indirectly into Murrieta Creek. The project will maintain storm runoff into Murrieta creek. The project proposes storm drainage system to collect and transport the 100 -year on- and off-site storm flows through the site as required by the City of Temecula. Murrieta Creek is a regional drainage facility and under the jurisdiction of Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD). The proposed drainage systems will include separate storm drain facilities (streets, curb and gutter, drainage ditches, drainage swales, inlets, catch basins, and pipe) to convey on-site and off-site (open space) runoff through the project to Murrieta Creek. This dual system will avoid commingling of runoff from the developed (on-site runoff) and non-developed (off-site runoff) areas of the project. The off-site runoff drainage system will collect and carry storm flows from the natural open space hillsides immediately west of the project, through the project site along the proposed Western Bypass, and into Murrieta Creek at two locations. The first location is near the northerly end of the project and the second location is near the southerly end of the project. The storm drain facilities used to convey the off-site runoff consists of catch basins, ditches, and storm drain pipes. 6-1 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 The on-site runoff drainage system will collect and treat surface runoff from the proposed development, before exiting the site. The treatment control best management practices (BMP) include desiltation basins and bioretention basins. Desiltation basins will collect and store sediment from several of the mass -graded pads. Biorention basins will treat storm water from the majority of the remaining graded areas as well as the proposed streets. In addition, the project includes some proposed perimeter slopes along its easterly boundary. The slopes will be landscaped and the runoff will flow directly off-site to existing drainage facilities. The runoff from these slopes is self -treating and does need to be directed to a BMP. The project runoff will discharge into Murrieta Creek at several locations along the easterly boundary. Some locations are at existing storm drain outfalls. In this situation, the proposed drainage system will connect to an existing system prior to reaching the creek. Other locations are new outfall locations into the creek. Each storm drain will be sized to convey its tributary 100 -year flow. 6.1.2 WQMP/NPDES The onsite drainage plan utilizes the project's streets, open channels, ditches and underground storm drains to convey storm water flows. To adequately control storm water quality, both point and non -point sources of urban pollutants must be identified and controlled. As required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the runoff from the proposed developed surfaces will be treated for water quality purposes. This treatment train will incorporate a variety of desiltation basins and bioretention facilities to reduce any potential water quality impacts on Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River Watershed. See Figures 6-1 and 6-2. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan has been prepared that identifies the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water treatment facilities, source control and site design. The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project specific constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of storm water runoff. The project will also be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. This permit will be required prior to receipt of a grading permit from the City of Temecula and requires the submission of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which will also identify proposed BMPs. The proposed onsite drainage and water quality system facilities located on privately held land will be privately owned and maintained by the proposed Home Owners Association (HOA), while portions of the system within a public R.O.W. will be maintained by the City of Temecula. All storm water and associated water quality facilities will be designed to comply with the City of Temecula and, where applicable, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir Figure 6-1 Typical Drainage Draw Plan Typical Drainage Draw Section SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6-3 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 EXHIBIT F - TRACT 36959 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN PLAN LEGEND: MAY 2017 EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE CHANNEL Figure 6-3 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir 6.1.3 Drainage Plan Standards 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Temecula and, where applicable, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements. 1. Major backbone drainage/flood control facilities shall be accepted and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Local drainage devices, including inlets/catch basins and storm drains to be constructed within street rights-of- way will be maintained by the City of Temecula. Only those drainage easements serving inlets/outlets to facilities to be maintained by the City will be accepted by the City. Onsite easements will not be accepted for maintenance by the City. 2. All drainage facilities shall be designed to provide 100 -year protection. The 10 -year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 -year storm flow should be contained within the street R.O.W. When either of these criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities will be installed. 3. Erosion control and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) incorporating Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be prepared and implemented for the project grading and construction phases in accordance with the City of Temecula and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES). All projects proposing construction activities including: clearing, grading, or excavation which results in the disturbance of at least five acres of total land area, or activities which are part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater, shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit and pay the appropriate fees. All development within the Specific Plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula to implement the NPDES program. 4. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared under the Clean Water Act and the City of Temecula's Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Temecula Municipal Code Title 8.28). 5. The EIR mitigation measures, standard Conditions of Approval, and Project Design Guidelines shall be followed. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 6-5 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 6' CONC. CHANNEL 2p 6' CONC. 25CHAKNEL a i .. INPananta mainieW — i- 25 36 NORTH PHASE TR 36959-7 EX. 48" CENTRAL PHASE TR 36959-2 Figure 6-4 Enlarged Storm Drainage Plans by Phase November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 6 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 24" 6' CONC. HANNEL 8 s- �s • EX. 6' CONC.24" 6' CONC. CHANNEL EX 36" CHANNEL EX. 24"- IrEX. 42" EX. 6' CONC. CHANNEL 36" 6 EX. 36" EX. 36" B 8" 48" X. 2-24" L STREET CIVIC PHASE TR 36959 \ Afir 9 SOUTH PHASE TR 36959-3 10 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 LEGEND: EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE CHANNI 6-7 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 6-8 6.2 WATER 6.2.1 Water Description Domestic Water & Fire Service The proposed domestic water system is diagrammed in Figures 6-5 and 6-6. The Altair Specific Plan is located within the service area of the Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The project is located within the District's Rancho division and more specifically the 1305 Pressure Zone. The District's main source of domestic water is from the Metropolitan Water District's two existing San Diego Aqueduct pipelines Numbers 4 and 5. These pipelines traverse the southern end of the project site between the proposed Civic Site and Village G. The project's domestic water service can be broken down in three systems as follows: Backbone, Onsite (to be constructed by the subsequent merchant builders) and Offsite. Backbone The backbone public systems will be broken down into four Tracts as follows: Tract 36959-1 is located at the most northerly portion of the project and will connect to the existing 12 -inch main in Ridge Park Drive at the intersection of the proposed Western Bypass public ROW and Ridge Park Drive public ROW. A 12 -inch main will be brought on site within the Western Bypass public ROW to the intersection with Altair Vista public ROW and continuing in Altair Vista to the southerly Tract 36959-1 boundary. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide domestic and fire service to Villages A and B. Tract 36959-2 is located in the north central portion of the project and will connect to the existing 24 -inch main in Pujol Street at First Street. A 12 -inch main will be brought on site in First Street ROW to the Coromell Trail public access and utility easement which shall loop through Coromell Trail public access and utility easement, A Street public access and utility easement and Altair Vista public access and utility easement and eventually terminate at the northerly Tract 36959-2 boundary. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide domestic and fire service to Villages C North and South as well as the School Site and Park Site. Tract 36959-3 is located in the south central portion of the project and will connect to the existing 24 -inch transmission main in the Pujol Street ROW at the most southerly portion of Tract 36959- 3. A 12 -inch main will extend northwesterly in the proposed Western Bypass ROW to the park area (Open Space Lot 17 in said Tract) between Villages E and F. At this location the 12 -inch main will traverse the project northerly within the Altair Vista public access and utility easement to the northerly potion of said Tract 36959-3 and terminate. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide domestic and fire service to Villages 'E', 'F' and 'D'. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES EXHIBIT D - TRACT 36959 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL WATER PLAN MAY 2017 EXISTING DOMESTIC WATER LINE EXISTING RECYCLED WATERLINE PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER LINE PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER LINE PROPOSED EIRE HYDRANT • N VAR V . 0 F2? U Figure 6-5 Domestic Water Plan IPrlISPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 Tract 36959 is located at the most southerly end of the Altair Specific Plan and will connect to the existing 30 -inch transmission main within the proposed public ROW of 'C' Street and 'B' Street South in separate locations. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide domestic and fire service to Village 'G' and the Civic Site. Offsite Offsite water main improvements would be limited to the following: For Tract 36959-1 an offsite connection is required within the existing Ridge Park Drive public ROW where the proposed Western Bypass public ROW intersects with Ridge Park Drive. This will be a 12 -inch connection to the existing 12 -inch domestic water line at that location. This offsite connection will provide domestic and fire service to Villages 'A' and 'B'. For Tract 36959-2 an offsite connection is required at the intersection of existing Pujol Street public ROW and First Street Public ROW. This will be a 12 -inch connection to the existing 12 - inch domestic water line at that location. A 12 -inch line will then extend up within the existing First Street public ROW to the proposed Coromell Trail public ROW. This offsite connection will provide domestic and fire service to Villages 'C' North and South as well as the School site and Park Site. For Tract 36959-3 an offsite connection is required at the intersection of existing Pujol Street public ROW and the proposed Western Bypass public ROW. This will be a 12 -inch connection to the existing 12 -inch domestic water line at that location. This offsite connection will provide domestic and fire service to Villages 'E', 'F' and 'D'. For Tract 36959 two offsite connections will be required and will connect to the existing 30 -inch transmission main within the proposed 'C' Street and 'B' Street public ROW in separate locations. This offsite connection will provide domestic and fire service to Village 'G' and the Civic Site. Onsite Onsite water systems serving the various villages would be constructed by subsequent merchant builders and may become private systems. Final sizes, and systems will be determined at final engineering. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES NORTH PHASE TR 36959-1 00. 20 20 A STR ALTAI w s 6" W 3 13 EX 36" W PUJOL STREET FX 97" MW S 0 EX 24' W PUJOL STREET EX. 24" W OLD TOWN FRONT STREET 0 SOUTH PHASE TR 36959-3 Figure 6-6 Enlarged Domestic Water Plans by Phase 1_21111FALISPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 PUJOL STREET -1 m EX (3) 8" W CENTRAL PHASE CIVIC PHASE TR 36959 EX 97" MWd S.D. AQUEDUCT EX. 89" MWD S.D. AQUEDUCT / /- a 42° W EX. 30" W EXISTING DOMESTIC WATER LINE / / ` V N -A / M\N� S',�\�9 7 12 W �� RW \\ !� / \\\' \\\ 2 8" RW E\\ s / LEGEND: 36 EX. E S�R� 1 - EXISTING DOMESTIC WATER LINE EXISTING RECYCLED WATER LINE PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER LINE PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER LINE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT 0 8" RW EX. 30" W / EX. 36° W EX 42°W EXHIBIT D-2 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL WATER PLAN MAY 2017 Figure 6- 6 ( continued) Enlarged Domestic Water Plans by Phase November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN tir Afir 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES Reclaimed Water The proposed reclaimed water system is diagrammed in Figures 6-5 and 6-6. Reclaimed water is provided by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The district maintains existing 24 -inch reclaimed water lines within the District's 1381 Pressure Zone. These existing lines are located in a looped system from the in Vincent Moraga/Felix Valdez intersection and extending southerly to the existing 24 -inch reclaimed main in Pujol Street at the intersection with First Street. At the southerly end of the project, the City's approved Western Bypass bridge plans propose to bring two 12 -inch reclaimed water mains westerly across Murrieta Creek from the existing 20 -inch reclaimed water main in Old Town Front Street. This westerly extension within the proposed bridge from Old Town Front Street to the intersection of the Western Bypass and B Street North will provide a secondary connection point to the RCWD's reclaimed water system and meet the project's irrigation demands. The projects reclaimed water service will have a looped system that will be connected to the existing system described above and can be broken down into two systems as follows: Backbone and Offsite. Backbone The backbone public systems will be broken down into the four Tracts as follows: Tract 36959-1 is located at the most northerly portion of the project and will connect to the existing 24 -inch reclaimed water main at the intersection of the Vincent Moraga and Felix Valdez public ROW. An 8 -inch reclaimed water main will be brought on site within the existing Vincent Moraga public ROW and continue within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the southerly Tract 36959-1 boundary. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide reclaimed water service to Villages 'A' and 'B'. Tract 36959-2 is located in the north central portion of the project and will connect to the proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main located at the southerly end of Tract 36959-1 within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW with a proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main. The proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main will continue within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the southerly end on Tract 36959-2. An additional proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main will connect to the proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main within the Western Bypass public ROW adjacent to the Recreation Center and traverse easterly through the Recreation Center and Park Site to the easterly boundary of Tract 36959-2 and continue offsite to connect with the existing 24 -inch reclaimed water main located in Pujol Street at the intersection of First Street. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide reclaimed water to Villages 'C' North and South as well as the School Site and Park Site. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 6-13 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 Tract 36959-3 is located in the south central portion of the project and will connect to the proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main located at the southerly end of Tract 36959-2 within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW with a proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main. The proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main will continue within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the southerly end on Tract 36959-3. An additional proposed 8 -inch main will connect to the proposed 8 -inch main within the Western Bypass public ROW adjacent to Village 'E and 'F' and run easterly through to a terminus at Altair Vista a Private Street. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide reclaimed water to Villages 'E', 'F' and 'D'. Tract 36959 is located at the most southerly end of the Altair Specific Plan and will connect to the proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main located at the southerly end of Tract 36959-3 within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW with a proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main. The proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main will continue within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW and extend offsite to connect with one of the two proposed 12 -inch reclaimed water mains shown on the approved Western Bypass bridge plans. A proposed 10 -inch reclaimed water main will be provided via a connection with the second proposed 12 -inch reclaimed water main shown on the approved Western Bypass bridge plans and extend westerly within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the intersection with proposed 'B' Street public ROW and then extend southerly within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the Civic Site. A proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main will then connect to the proposed 10 -inch reclaimed water main at the intersection of proposed 'B' Street and proposed 'C' Street both public ROW. The proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main with then extend westerly through the proposed 'C' Street public ROW and transition to a 6 -inch reclaimed water main within the proposed 'C' Street public ROW and terminate adjacent to Village 'G'. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide reclaimed water to Villages 'G' and the Civic Site and also close the reclaimed water loop system within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW. Offsite Offsite reclaimed water main improvements would be limited to the following: For Tract 36959-1 an offsite connection is required to connect to the existing 24 -inch reclaimed water main at the intersection of the Vincent Moraga and Felix Valdez public ROW. An offsite 8 -inch reclaimed water main will be brought on site within the existing Vincent Moraga public ROW and continue within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the northerly Tract 36959-1 boundary. This offsite connection will provide domestic and fire service to Villages 'A' and 'B'. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES For Tract 36959-2 an offsite connection is required to connect to the existing 24 -inch reclaimed water main located in Pujol Street at the intersection of First Street. An offsite 8 -inch reclaimed water main will be brought on site within the existing First Street public ROW to the easterly boundary of the Altair Vista Specific Plan. This offsite connection will provide reclaimed water to Villages 'C' North and South as well as the School Site and Park Site. For Tract 36959-3 no offsite connections are required. For Tract 36959 two offsite connections will be required, connecting the two proposed 12 - inch reclaimed water mains shown on the approved Western Bypass bridge plans. These two connections will bring two proposed offsite 12 -inch reclaimed water mains on site within the existing Western Bypass public ROW to the easterly boundary of the Altair Vista Specific Plan. These offsite connections will provide reclaimed water to Villages 'G' and the Civic Site. Final sizes and systems will be determined at final engineering. 6.2.2 Water Development Standards 1. All water lines shall be designed per the Rancho California Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water District requirements for the reclaimed water system. 2. The project shall comply with Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604 (f) (Appliance Efficiency standards), which establishes efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, as well as Health and Safety Code Section 17621.3 which requires low -flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings. 3. The EIR mitigation measures, standard Conditions of Approval, and Project Design Guidelines shall be followed. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 6-15 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 EXHIBIT C - TRACT 36959 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN LEGEND: MAY 2017 (MIN 8 ) EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER LINE EXISTING FORCE MAIN PROP. GRAVITY SEWER LINE PROP. 24" SEWER FORCE MAIN BY EMWD November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a kir Afir 6.3 SEWER 6.3.1 Sewer Description The proposed sewer system is diagrammed in Figures 6-7 and 6-8. 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES The project is within the boundaries of the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) sanitary sewer service area. All project generated wastewater flows will be transported via a proposed network of onsite and offsite gravity pipes which will be tributary to the District's existing offsite Pujol Street lift station. A Plan of Service (POS) for the entire Altair Specific Plan has been approved by EMWD on July 14, 2016. The Altair Specific Plan has been identified in the EMWD overall master -plan, including the July 2015 approved Pala Lift Station Condition & Capacity Assessment and Implementation Plan which has identified that capacity at build -out will be available to serve the Altair Specific Plan via the Pujol Lift Station. The project's sewer service will be a gravity system that will be connected to the existing system described above and can be broken down into three systems as follows: Backbone, Offsite and Onsite (private to be constructed by the subsequent merchant builders). Backbone The backbone public systems will be broken down into four Tracts as follows: Tract 36959-1 is located at the most northerly portion of the project and sewer will be provided by constructing a new 8 -inch gravity sewer main from the proposed intersection of Altair Vista public ROW and the Western Bypass public ROW, the proposed 8 -inch sewer main will proceed southerly within the proposed Altair Vista public ROW and then leave the proposed Altair Vista public ROW northeasterly along the southerly limits of Tract 36959-1. It will then head southeasterly within the existing EMWD easement along the easterly boundary of the Altair Specific Plan where it will intersect with existing First Street. At this point the sewer will be will be up-sized to 12 -inch and continue easterly within the First Street Public ROW to the Pujol Lift Station, the 12 -inch gravity sewer will be considered offsite improvements associated with the backbone system for Tract 36959-1. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide sewer service to Villages A and B. Tract 36959-2 is located in the north central portion of the project and sewer will be provided by constructing two 8 -inch gravity sewer mains. The first being located in Altair Vista private street and beginning just northerly of the roundabout in Altair Vista, the 8 -inch sewer will run northerly in Altair Vista and connect to the proposed Tract 36959-1 8 -inch gravity sewer main. The second being located in Altair Vista private street just southerly of the roundabout in Altair Vista and continuing southerly in Altair Vista to the intersection of A Street private street, the 8 -inch sewer will then continue through A Street to the intersection of Coromell Trail private street and then continue southerly within Coromell Trail and connect to the proposed 12-ich gravity sewer constructed in First Street as part of Tract 36959-1. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide sewer service to Villages C North and South as well as the School Site and Park Site. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 6-17 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 25 1�6 8 15 H 17 S), 6 RFT 8/---/ 3 23 TRAIL __COROMEttT_ PROP. 12 fI I L EX 20" FORCE MAIN EX 18" FORCE MAIN 16 PUJOL STREET 1 PUJOL STREET Ex. 8' EX 12" EX. 12" FORCE MAIN EX. PUJOL LIFT STATION (UPGRADES BY EMWD) Ex 20" FORCE MAIN EX 18" FORCE MAIN EX 20" FORCE MAIN EY. 18" FORCE MAIN PROP. 24" FORCE MAIN (BY EMWD) PROP. 24" FORCE MAIN (BY EMWD) 8" C HIM 1 m EX NORTH PHASE TR 36959-1 20 20 STREET 11 i s4-›- 13 —r - EX. 20" FORCE MAIN EX. 78" FORCE MAIN OLD TOWN FRONT STREET PRO EX. 20" FORCE MAIN EX. 78" FORCE MAIN PROP. 8 8 PUJOL STREET EX. PUJOL LIFT STATION (UPGRADES BY EMWD) I- .0 SOUTH PHASE TR 36959-3 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN A h r 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES CIVIC PHASE TR 36959 s 9�f 2p 2 25 25 4 5 55, 20" FORCE AMIN 5X 18" FORCE MAIN PUJOL STREET EX 8" EK 12" EX 12" FORCE MAIN 1 EX. PUJOL LIFT STATION (UPGRADES BY EMWD) CENTRAL PHASE TR 36959-2 20 RN VISTA O C 30 6 PROP. 8" PROP. 8" B STREET N.A.P. PROP. 10" 3 ▪ EX. 20" FORCE MAIN EX. 18" FORCE MAIN T EX. 20" 500CE MAIN EK 18" FORCE MAIN i EX 20" FORCE 8018 EX 18" FORCE MAIN LEGEND EX 8" PUJOL STREET -e� PROP. 8 EX. PUJOL LIFT STATION (UPGRADES BY EMWD) EX. FRONT NT. LIFT STATION EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER LINE — EXISTING FORCE MAIN PROP. GRAVITY SEWER LINE PROP. 24" SEWER FORCE MAIN BY EMWD Afir OLD TOWN FRONT STREET EXHIBIT C-2 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 MARCH 2017 6-19 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 Tract 36959-3 is located in the south central portion of the project and sewer will be provided by constructing 8 -inch gravity sewer mains in Altair Vista private street beginning at the northerly boundary of Tract 36959-3 and running southerly within Altair Vista to the intersection of B Street private street and then running easterly to the existing EWWD easement ant then run within the easement northerly and connect to the proposed 12-ich gravity sewer constructed in First Street as part of Tract 36959-1. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide sewer service to Villages E, F and D. Tract 36959 is located at the most southerly end of the Altair Specific Plan and sewer will be provided by constructing a new 10 -inch sewer main from the prosed civic site within 'B' street public ROW and running northerly to existing Pujol Street public ROW the 10 -inch main will then run northerly within Pujol Street to the proposed 12-ich gravity sewer constructed within First Street as part of Tract 36959-1. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide domestic and fire service to Village G and the Civic Site. Offsite Offsite sewer main improvements would be limited to the following: For Tract 36959-1 an offsite 12 -inch gravity sewer main will be constructed within First Street public ROW and run easterly within First Street to the Pujol Lift Station. For Tract 36959-2 no offsite connections are required. For Tract 36959-3 no offsite connections are required. For Tract 36959 an offsite new 10 -inch sewer main from the prosed civic site within 'B' street public ROW and running northerly to existing Pujol Street public ROW the 10 -inch main will then run northerly within Pujol Street to the proposed 12-ich gravity sewer constructed within First Street as part of Tract 36959-1. Onsite All onsite sewer systems serving the various villages would be constructed by subsequent merchant builders and may become private systems. Final sizes, and systems will be determined at final engineering. 6.3.2 Sewer Development Standards 1. Sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the Riverside County Health Department. 2. Assurance for provision of adequate sewer service is required prior to approval of a subdivision map, and/or Development Plan for commercial uses in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act. 3. All sewer lines shall be designed per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. 4. The EIR mitigation measures, standard Conditions of Approval, and Project Design Guidelines shall be followed. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6.4 DRY UTILITIES 6.4.1 Dry Utility Description Specific Plan Development Guidelines shall dictate the location and screening of onsite electric power facilities such as transformers and underground vaults. The project is currently within the Frontier service area for telephone and fiber optic internet. All onsite telephone service lines shall be within underground conduits. The Specific Plan Development Guidelines shall dictate the location and screening of onsite telephone facilities such as underground vaults and above ground connection pedestals. Spectrum currently provides cable television, internet and residential phone services to the project area. All onsite cable service lines shall be within underground conduits. The Specific Plan Development Guidelines shall dictate the location and screening of onsite cable facilities such as underground vaults and above ground connection pedestals. 6.4.2 Dry Utility Development Standards 1. All natural gas facilities shall be installed underground and by or in accordance with Southern California Edison regulations and specifications. 2. All electric power facilities shall be installed underground and by or in accordance with Southern California Edison regulations and specifications. 3. All telephone facilities shall be installed underground and by or in accordance with Frontier's regulations and specifications. 4. All cable television facilities shall be installed underground and by or in accordance with Spectrum's regulations and specifications. 5. The EIR mitigation measures, standard Conditions of Approval, and Project Design Guidelines shall be followed. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 6-21 1 I PUBLIC SERVICES 7.1 Schools PUBLIC SERVICES Al f"Ai r Schools located within the Temecula Valley Unified School District provide elementary, middle school and high school education to students generated by residential development in Altair. Vail Elementary School located at 29835 Mira Loma Road (1.12 miles away), Margarita Middle School located at 30600 Margarita Road (2.26 miles away) and Temecula Valley High School located at 31555 Rancho Vista Road (2.03 miles away) currently include the Altair project area within their service boundaries. All three schools operated below capacity in the 2013-2014 school year. A new elementary school is proposed on site to service the area of Temecula immediately west of Interstate 15, including Old Town Temecula. Many of the students for the proposed elementary school will be residents of Altair. A prominent and easily accessed land parcel of approximately 7 acres will be dedicated to the Temecula Valley Unified School District for construction of a school, depending on the District's assessment of their needs. A school facilities fee provides funding for school construction and is authorized by State of California. Developers of residential projects will be responsible for the payment of fees associated with public school service based on the square foot area of residential construction and as established by the school district in accordance with State law. Additionally, a portion of the property taxes generated by the project will be allocated to the school district. 7.2 Libraries There are two libraries in Temecula that are part of the Riverside County Library System, which has 35 branch libraries and two bookmobiles. Temecula Public Library, located at 30600 Pauba Road (1.63 miles from Altair), has a Technical Homework Center, a Law Resource Center and two community rooms. The second facility, Grace Mellman Community Library, is located at 41000 County Center Drive. The County of Riverside has under contract Library Systems and Services, a private national contractor, to operate the library system. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 7-1 PUBLIC SERVICES 7 7-2 I Fire Station 73 Temecula Elementary School Veterans Park Margarita Community Park ill HOSPITAL SCHOOL P STOREFRONT POLICE STATION LIBRARY F FIRE STATION ■ PARK/RECREATION CENTER ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Ronald Reagan Sports Park emecula Valley High School Old Town Storefront Police Station Fire Station 84 II -s A Rotary Park Temecula Valley Hos.ital PARKWAY Pala Community Park Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School Figure 7-1 Public Services November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 7 PUBLIC SERVICES 7.3 Fire Protection Fire protection is provided by the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), through a contract with the City of Temecula. Temecula is primarily served by Battalion 15 of RCFD's Temecula Division, which consists of seven stations housing seven engines and one aerial ladder truck to serve multistory buidings. Battalion 15 targets four person staffing, including one paramedic. This policy helps promote faster response times and helps ensure safety of the firefighters and citizens of the Temecula community. Fire service to Altair will likely be provided by Fire Station 12, located at 28330 Mercedes Street, approximately 1/3 mile from the project site. This station provides both fire protection and paramedic services. Fire Station 73, located at 27415 Enterprise Circle West (1.5 miles away and equipped with the ladder truck) and Fire Station 84 at 30650 Pauba Road (1.8 miles away) serve as secondary responders. Altair is located near a wildfire hazard area. The Western Bypass Corridor forms a fire barrier protecting the majority of the proposed development. Fuel Modification setbacks for the remaining areas are defined in the Tentative Tract Map concurrent to this Specific Plan. 7.4 Police The Temecula Police Department provides about one police officer per 1,000 residents through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for staff and equipment. The RCSD Southwest Station is located at 30755-A Auld Road in Murrieta, CA and is the closest full station at approximately 6.4 miles from the Specific Plan area. In addition, Temecula has two storefront police locations, one in Old Town Temecula at 28690 Mercedes Street, near 3rd Street (1/3 mile from the project site) and one in the Promenade Mall at 40820 Winchester Road, suite 2020. A traffic team, investigations bureau and special teams to deal with drugs and gang -related issues are integrated into the police department. 7.5 Parks The City of Temecula has more than 39 City parks. City Parks located in the immediate vicinity of Altair include Rotary Park, a 1.09 acre park with BBQ and picnic tables located on the corner of Pujol Street and 1st Street, Town Square Park at the fountain at the east end of Main Street, the Duck Pond at 28250 Rancho California Rd and Sam Hicks Memorial Park, a 1.8 acre park, located within % mile of the project site, contains a children's play area, picnic tables and restrooms. Parks, open space and recreational facilities will be provided in the Altair development. These amenities are described in Section 8. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 7-3 PUBLIC SERVICES 7 7-4 7.6 Hospitals There are four regional hospitals within an 8 -mile distance of Altair: Temecula Valley Hospital, Rancho Springs Medical Center and Loma Linda University Medical Center in Murrieta, and the Inland Valley Regional Medical Center in Wildomar. Temecula Valley Hospital is the closest and largest, located approximately 2.3 miles away at 31700 Temecula Parkway. This is a 140 -bed facility with five surgical suites, a full ER and expansion potential on it's 37 -acre campus. The hospital has 300 associated physicians. 7.7 Public Transit Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) was established in 1975 to operate bus service in Riverside County. RTA is the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency for western Riverside County and is responsible for coordinating transit services throughout the approximate 2,500 square mile service area, providing driver training, assistance with grant applications and development of Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs). RTA provides both local and regional services throughout the region with 36 fixed -routes, eight CommuterLink routes, and Dial -A -Ride services using 266 vehicles. In the cities of Corona, Beaumont and Banning, RTA coordinates regional services with municipal transit systems. In Riverside, RTA coordinates with the city's Riverside Special Services, which provides ADA complementary service to RTA's fixed -route services. Old Town Temecula is served by bus transit with three Local Routes 79, 23 and 24 with alternate routing and three Commuter Routes 202, 206 and 208. Route 202 runs from Murrieta to the north and reaches in Oceanside to the south. Route 206 runs between Promenade Mall and Corona Transit Station. Route 208 runs from Promenade Mall and reaches Downtown Riverside. In addition, the Temecula Trolley (route 55) is a loop route that circulates just east of Interstate Powered by Giem rial,urto November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN V BAR TRANSFER STOP • County Center Drive ti EQUII}LR MURRIETA 61 79 231/ 1217 79 Promenade Mall T 79 ®\ TEMr.vL Temecula City Hall • Promenade Mall @ P.F. Chang's 206 9 208 PfA 217 MAJOR STOP Temecula (`�'ti Palley OLD TOWN•*„ �� Hospital �P.; LUL MAJOR STOPS'' of �5� !L FOR BOTH ROUTES 7 PUBLIC SERVICES AYE emecula Walmart 0,01 24 Community Center EDHAWK 9Fo Pechanga Resort 4c Great Oak HS Rt 217 continues to Escondido Transit Center Figure 7-2 RTA Route Map 15 next to The Promenade at Temecula and Harveston School Road at the north end. Local Route 24 also connects to Margarita and Gardner Middle Schools and to Temecula Valley High School. RTA provides discounted monthly passes to students in grades 1-12 to facilitate public transit for commutes to school. Altair will participate with the RTA and the City of Temecula to further a "Smart Shuttle" or "bike share" program to link Altair with Old Town Temecula and the RTA Bus system. A proposed route with connections to RTA bus routes 24 and 79 is shown in Figure 7-3. The Master Developer will contribute financial support for a period of two years as defined in the Development Agreement. The shuttle will be operated by the RTA. llyjiSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 7-5 PUBLIC SERVICES 7 f Y' -- 1 / / Drop Off School L _ l Civic Center I j i Drop Off • 0) Cio • Figure 7-3 Smart Shuttle Route Proposal 0 300 600 1200 SCALE: 1" = 1200'-0" OLD TOWN LOOP — PROPOSED SHUTTLE ROUTE Connection to RTA Bus Stop — Connection to RTA Bus Stop November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANS / 7.8 Waste Management 7 PUBLIC SERVICES The Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) operates six landfills that serve Riverside County residents. All new development projects are required to provide Refuse/Recycling Collection and Loading Areas. Development near or adjacent to a Department facility may be subject to additional requirements/restrictions. These projects are addressed on a case-by-case basis. Design Guidelines for Refuse and Recyclables Collection and Loading Areas The City of Temecula publishes Waste and Recycling Design Guidelines for multifamily and commercial projects through it's franchise waste hauler (currently CR&R Inc.). The guidelines are intended to assist project proponents in identifying space and other design considerations for Refuse/Recyclables collection and loading areas, consistent with state and local regulations. See also Section 9.5 for design of refuse and recyclable area enclosures. Trash and Recycling The City of Temecula contracts with a franchise waste hauler (currently CR&R Inc.) for trash and recycling services. CR&R provides trash collection with a state of the art recycling and green waste program. Automated collection is an efficient and safe process for collecting residential waste and recyclables. Through the use of a mechanical arm operated by the driver, trash is collected quickly and neatly. Each home (except multifamily housing) is furnished with three special containers which residents roll out to the curb on collection day: for trash, recycling and green waste, respectively. Section 10.9 describes space requirements for storing these containers. Green Waste Disposal Green waste can be disposed of using the green 3 -yard bin and collected by CR&R or through the City of Temecula's City Wide Clean Up events held periodically. Commercial and multifamily residential properties are required to implement an organic material recycling program in compliance with AB 1826. Detached and attached single-family developments at Altair are also required to provide facilities for green waste. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Recycling Prior to receiving a permit, developers or their contractors must contract with the City of Temecula's franchise waste hauler for recycling of construction and demolition waste. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 7-7 1 I OPEN SPACE & RECREATION Al f"Ai r 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN The City of Temecula General Plan targets 5 acres of useable park land per 1,000 population in its Open Space and Conservation Element in order to ensure sufficient park land and recreation facilities. While the General Plan excludes natural open space and trails from its park standard, they are a substantial and integral part of the open space and recreation network at Altair. The large amount of natural and interstitial open space and usable cycling and running trails complements the available active open space. This inter -connected system is consistent with and contributes to the Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, discussed previously in Section 4. To meet the General Plan target, Altair would need between 9.6 and 19.3 acres of useable park land, based on an expected person per household factor of 2.2 and planned development intensity in the range of 870-1,750 dwelling units. The target factor of 5 acres per 1,000 persons is high for the region. The City of San Diego, for instance, requires only 2.8 acres per 1,000 population in its General Plan, while the City of Riverside requires 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Escondido recognizes the value of passive parks and habitat land by targeting passive and active open space in equal measure, with a combined total of 11.8 acres per 1,000 people. The combined passive and active open space area in the Altair Specific Plan totals approximately 140 acres. This equates to 36 acres per 1,000 residents at the maximum density of 1,750 dwelling units. A successful community has many different kinds of open space that offer a range of activities and varying levels of privacy and control. Open space is divided into four main categories in the Altair Specific Plan: natural open space, interstitial open space, active open space and private open space. A summary of open spaces are shown in Tables 8-1 and 8-2 and general locations are indicated in Figure 8-1. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 8 Use Acres % of Total Conservation Open Space Open Space Clubhouse and Recreation Center Parks, Trails & Bikeways Master Developer Guest Builders Elementary School 10.18 3.55 2.00 87.20 31.50 2.05 32.3% 11.7% 0.8% Total 15.73 15.73 5.8% Developed Area* (Residential, School + Civic Sites) Roadways 105.21 39.0% 28.22 10.5% Total 269.91 100.0% * Approximately 20% of the Village Lot Areas are 2:1 open space slopes to the east and/or west of each Village. The final buildable pad area is anticipated to be 60 - 65 acres (22%-24% of the total acreage). Table 8-1 j Open Space Summary Location Use Responsibility TOTAL AREA (Acres) Portion of Park Area that is Open to the Public Master Developer / School District Guest Builder Active Open Space Master HOA Maintained Sub -HOA Maintained Village A Active Park Guest Builder 0.95 1 0.65 Village B Active Park Guest Builder 0.65 1 0.40 Village C Active Park Plaza Promenade Community Center Master Developer Master Developer Master Developer Master Developer 5.04 0.37 0.59 2.05 0.75 2 5.04 0.37 0.59 2.05 Village D Active Park Master Developer 0.80 0.15 2 0.80 Village E Active Park Guest Builder 0.35 1 0.25 Between E+ F Active Park Master Developer 0.25 0.25 Village F Active Park Guest Builder 0.60 1 0.40 Village G Active Park Guest Builder 0.10 2 School Play Field School District 2.00 2.00 3 Trail South of 1st Street Class I Bikeway Master Developer 1.40 1.40 Trail North of 1st Street Jogging Path Master Developer 0.78 0.78 Western Bypass Class I Bikeway Master Developer 0.92 0.92 Active Subtotal : 14.19 3.55 15.89 Natural Open Space Upper Hillside Civic Site MSHCP + Slopes MSHCP + Slopes Master Developer Master Developer 69.05 37.24 Interstitial Open Space Passive Ravines + Slopes Master Developer 21.49 21.49 Total: 141.97 37.38 1. Includes Guest Builder constructed "String of Pearls" parks that are open to the public (1.7 acres). 2. Estimated Common Open Space parks (varies based on product type) which may be public or private. 3. Subject to joint use agreement with School District. Table 8 -Park and Open Space Areas November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir PRESERVED / RESTORED OPEN SPACE VILLAGE 'B' PARK 1 * CLUBHOUSE UPPER STAIRCASE SEATING PLAZA PROMENADE SCHOOL RECREATION HOA RECREATION CENTER VILLAGE 'C' CORE PARK d MAIN ST. PLAZA OLD TOWN GRAND STAIR VILLAGE `D' PARK VILLAGE 'E' PARK Figure 8-1 CIVIC SITE Parks, Open Space and Amenities Plan SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 OPEN SPACE 8 & RECREATION 8-3 OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 8 8.1 Natural Open Space Natural open space is basically left in its current state. While access is not prohibited, natural open space is only intended to be active or programmed for recreation where intentionally delineated. Natural open space in the Altair Specific Plan is primarily located in the MSHCP corridor west of the Western Bypass and at the southern portions of the site. It includes natural habitat, chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and oak woodland. The majority of this area is part of Proposed Linkage 10 in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and will provide both live-in habitat and a passageway for critical species including bobcat and mountain lion. A smaller portion is located within the prposed Constrained Linkage 13 of the MSHCP. The natural open space within the Specific Plan area is connected to the much larger MSHCP plan that extends westward beyond the ridgeline, maximizing the value of each area as part of a greater conservation zone. The south 55 -acre parcel is mostly natural open space with a proposed nature center and trails serving the public. The south portion of this parcel is just across the river from the Temeku Village Site. Natural open space in this area provides an appropriate backdrop and helps to maintain the cultural significance of the neighboring historical site. The conservation area preserves a large stand of native oak. Effective separation of natural habitat from development is critical to preserve the habitat and protect both native species and residents, including their pets, from predators. The Western Bypass Corridor divides most of the natural open space from new development. A wildlife fence will also be provided as shown in Figure 8-1 to keep animals out of the Bypass and to separate the natural open space from Villages A and G. Wildlife Fencing Standard: 1. 8.0' high vinyl coated chain link "Wildlife Fence" with access gates included throughout. 2. Located at the toe of slope along the entire Western Bypass Road as well as areas adjacent to Villages A and G (see Figure 8-1). November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE 8 & RECREATION Protection from fire hazards is also critical for development near natural open space. The Western Bypass Corridor will act as a fire break to most of the proposed development at Altair. A Fuel Modification Plan will be a condition of approval of the Tentative Tract Map, which includes fire setback areas where developed parcels are directly adjacent to potential wildfire areas. 8.2 Interstitial Open Space Interstitial open spaces are the landscaped areas between the village clusters and at the edge of the developed area. Interstitial spaces serve several functions. They define the perimeter of each village. They add variety to the circulation experience, especially for pedestrians and cyclists. Interstitial spaces are typically characterized by steep slope banks or ravines, as they transition between development at different elevations. They are also opportunities for bioswales. Therefore, they are integral to the grading and drainage plan patterns discussed in previous sections of this specific plan. They are also destinations in themselves, offering a quieter alternative to the more active parks. All disturbed areas in Altair are slated to be restored with Native vegetation to match the surrounding hillsides. Hiking Trails through the interstitial open space areas will allow residents and visitors to have a close encounter with the natural world. 8.2.1 Ravines The ravines generally run west to east and slope longitudinally down toward the east. They loosely align with existing draws in the undisturbed open space to the west of the Western Bypass. The naturalized drainage draws, shown in section 6 will utilize native riparian vegetation to serve as water quality treatment corridors. These draws will also feature boulders and rock repurposed from grading operations to create naturalized grade breaks and check dams in the draws. Roads and trails cross the ravines over bridges, culverts and footbridges. These spans are creative design opportunities that contribute to the personality of Altair. 8-5 a / IP SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 8 8.2.2 Bypass Trail The bypass trail area separates the Western Bypass from the residential development and is a linear open space running along the east edge of the road. The trail roughly parallels the bypass, is contiguous to the road at the north and south ends, but drops away from and below the road for most of its length. The trail can be accessed from several points in the community, as identified in Figure 4-2. It is a paved trail serving pedestrians and cyclists and is designed as a Class 1 Bikeway. There are slope banks to either side of the trail and some low retaining walls. Native landscaping will buffer noise and sight lines from the road to screen adjacent residences. Views from the trail are dramatic and certain vistas are highlighted with breaks in the trees, areas to step off the trail, etc. The bikeway portion of the bypass trail area is included as active open space in Table 8-1. The trail network is also an opportunity to display artwork in a public setting, such as the example on the right. Art installations alongside a trail add whimsy and delight and can support themes such as nature or movement. Altair's contribution to Art in Public Places is discussed in Section 9.9. 8.2.3 Eastern Slope A sculpture on the Lackawanna River Heritage Trail Altair is a linear site occupying the hillside west of Old Town Temecula. The eastern edge of the site slopes down to meet the existing grade at the property line. A stabilized decomposed granite trail runs along the slope, utilizing a bench required by adopted grading standards. As with the Bypass Trail, the elevation change of the eastern slope offers overlooks of the City and vistas of the surrounding terrain. A utility and emergency fire access easement parallels the property line at the base of the slope south of First Street. The easement is proposed to be widened from the existing 30 feet to 40 feet. This easement has long been used by the community as a dog walking trail - a use that is anticipated to continue. This area will also be improved as a paved bikeway per the Circulation section. The eastern slope is intersected by ravines at their bases. Grades are softened at these junctions to slow run-off from the ravine, which also relieves the visual continuity of the slope bank. A major intervention occurs at the perpendicular path connecting the central park to Main Street. This path and how it cuts through the slope bank is described more thoroughly below. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE 8 & RECREATION 8.3 Active Open Space Active open space is developed for human recreation and gathering. These spaces are the focus of the individual neighborhoods of the Altair Specific Plan and give each village its unique character. Active spaces are closely tied to adjacent architecture, functioning as outdoor rooms. They often occupy important loci or scenic vantage points within the overall plan. Active open space falls into two general types at Altair: public open space and common open space. 8.3.1 Public Open Space Public Open Spaces are parks, playfields, and other spaces for public use that are typically established by the master developer and maintained by the Altair community as a whole. Public Open Spaces include the central park, the Community Center area, upper stair and plaza and the promenade, all at Village C; the village parks; and the Nature Center trails at the Civic Site. Guest builders can also install and maintain public open spaces as long as they are open to the general public, such as at the village parks. Active public open spaces include circulation elements such as Class I bikeways and established paths that can be used for walking or jogging. The pedestrian link from Village C to Main Street is a series of connected urban spaces at the Grand Stair and Main Street plaza that encourages interaction between residents of Altair and Old Town. A Recreation Center and Clubhouse are provided to serve all residents of Altair. Both of these facilities are located in the Community Center at Village C and they define and punctuate the Plaza at the top of the Main Street axis. See the Village C description in Section 3 for more information on this area of the Plan and its adjacencies. The Recreation Center features an outdoor pool and spa framed by the recreation building and a pergola. Inside the recreation building are locker rooms, restrooms, spaces for fitness equipment and yoga or other exercise classes, a children's game room and offices and other support spaces. The Recreation Center edges grand steps at the peak of the Main Street axis, a prime gathering space and scenic viewpoint. 1/JI SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 8-7 OPEN SPACE & RECREATION The Clubhouse anchors the southwest corner of the central park at Village C. The Clubhouse is a 2 -story structure featuring a large terrace that spills out into the park at it's high point. Casual seating is provided on the terrace, offering excellent views of the park, Old Town and the surrounding hills of Temecula. Residents and guests may relax on these terraces while enjoying music or other performances in the park. Inside the Clubhouse are kitchen and dining facilities, meeting rooms and game rooms. A restaurant or wedding / banquet facility may also be considered to optimize this unique location. Under the Development Agreement, the building will provide office space for the Community Services Department, which will work with the Master HOA for the potential hosting of classes, activites and wedding or event rentals at the facility. 8.3.2 Common Open Space Common Open Spaces are defined and installed as part of individual development projects within the Altair Specific Plan area, typically by a guest developer. Common open spaces may be shared facilities serving an entire village or can be communal pools, courtyards or roof terraces for residents of a particular project as a private amenity. Requirements for the minimum aggregate area and dimension of common open spaces per project are designated by building type in Section 10, Development Standards and Table 10-4. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian circulation system wherever practical. Some of the common open space amenities for residents may contribute toward the total active park area required to be provided by guest builders in each village. However, a minimum area of park space in each village must be open to the public. The minimum areas of total park and public park are indicated in Table 8-2. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE 8 & RECREATION The open space and recreational imagery, Figure 8-2, sets the theme of the Altair parks and open space and influences the community as a whole. Natural play areas, open play fields, and nature trails encourage children and adults alike to live active, healthy lifestyles. Urban parks mixed in pockets of open space allow all members of the community to have access to a park space no matter where they live in Altair. A wide array of recreational uses from urban parks to naturalized open space provokes the residents of Altair and Temecula to explore nature and their community. Active open spaces can also satisfy lifestyle needs beyond recreation. Functional program areas such as dog parks, playgrounds and communal vegetable gardens offer convenience and blend social interaction with daily tasks. Most of us can remember playing outside all day until it was dinner time, exploring a creek or corner of a vacant lot, and getting "lost" in nature as a kid. During the last generation, there has been a major shift from outdoors to indoors. Kids seldom play outside anymore unless under the direct supervision of a parent and often times as a scheduled visit to a "tot lot". In Last Child in the Woods, Richard Louv explores the missing connection to the natural world and describes how we can save our children (and ourselves) from "Nature Deficit Disorder". Feeling the warmth of a boulder, sensing the softness of pine needles underfoot, hearing the rustle of leaves, or experiencing the fragrance of a plant species can connect us to a green space. Research says "Natural Play" contributes to the overall physical, cognitive, and emotional development of children, helps them score higher on tests for concentration and self-discipline, helps them experience more diverse play, helps them exhibit less aggressive behavior, strive toward advanced motor fitness, and become healthier. The recreational value of Altair is enhanced by going "beyond the tot lot" by providing open lawn areas and traditional park elements as well as natural places to discover, explore, climb, dig and roll. Native plantings requiring little to no maintenance will be used to blend into the natural setting and reduce maintenance costs. Figure 8-2 Open Space and Recreational Images Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 8-9 OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 8 8.4 Private Open Space Private Open Spaces are yards, patios, balconies, entry stoops, courts or roof terraces attached to individual dwelling units for the private use of the residential household. Requirements for the minimum area and dimension of private open space per dwelling unit are designated by building type in Section 10, Development Standards. Private open space can be located on any side of a dwelling unit, as fits its purpose. 8.5 Park Programming The Master Developer and Merchant Builder Parks of Altair are intended for a range offlexible and passive uses that will provide common social spaces for each Village and the Altair Community as a whole. These spaces are not intended to be "over -programmed" or "over-amenitized". Instead, they should allow a flexible range of recreational uses such as picnicking, kite flying, pick up soccer games, playing catch, frisbee, concerts, movie nights, children's play, and other uses that are not limited by single -user type facilities that are typically league dominated. Suggested programming can be found in the Conceptual Park Design Concepts in the description of each Village in Sections 3.5 through 3.10. Encouraged programming includes: open lawn areas, natural/native landscape/garden/exploration areas, children's play areas, shaded seating and picnic areas. Discouraged uses include, but are not limited to, ball diamonds, soccer fields, and tennis courts. These types of uses are intended for the school site and will provide the balance between flexible recreation areas and the formally programmed recreation areas. Public parks should generally have a minimum dimension of 85 feet in either direction to allow adequate activity space. Natural open space use is limited to hiking, walking, and bicycling as described in Section 4 Circulation and Section 8.1 Natural Open Space. Common open space programming will reflect the type of activities preferred by residents of each community, expressing the diversity of Altair. Neighborhoods with young families may have more playgrounds, while developments favored by singles might have a dog park or more areas to gather. Community gardens are strongly encouraged in all neighborhoods to support healthy eating and as an educational activity for children. All residences should be within easy walking distance of a tot lot or playground, whether in a park or in common open space. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE 8 & RECREATION 8.6 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Crime prevention through environmental design (CPED) as developed by the National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI) supports the concept that "the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life." Following are the nine primary strategies that support this concept. These strategies should be integrated into the design of Altair to the greatest extent feasible. 1. Provide clear border definition of controlled space. Examples of border definition may include fences, shrubbery or signs in exterior areas. Within a building, the arrangement of furniture and color definition can serve as a means of identifying controlled space. 2. Provide clearly marked transitional zones. Persons need to be able to identify when they are moving from public to semi-public to private space. 3. Gathering or congregating areas to be located or designated in locations where there is good surveillance and access control. 4. Place safe activities in unsafe locations. Safe activities attract normal users to a location and subsequently render the location less attractive to abnormal users due to observation and possible intervention. 5. Place unsafe activities in safe locations. Placing unsafe activities in areas of natural surveillance or controlled access will help overcome risk and make the users of the areas feel safer. 6. Design the use of space to provide natural barriers. Separate activities that may conflict with each other (outdoor basketball court and children's play area, for example) by distance, natural terrain or other functions to avoid such conflict. 7. Improve scheduling of space. The timing in the use of space can reduce the risk for normal users and cause abnormal users to be of greater risk of surveillance and intervention. 8. Design space to increase the perception of natural surveillance. Abnormal users need to be aware of the risk of detection and possible intervention. Windows and clear lines -of -sight serve to provide such a perception of surveillance. 9. Overcome distance and isolation. This strategy may be accomplished through improved communications (portable two-way radios, for example) and design efficiencies, such as the location of restrooms in a public building. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 8-11 1 I DESIGN GUIDELINES DESIGN GUIDELINES 9.1 Design Objectives Altair is intended to be an urban environment, with the kind of energy that is inherent in well - executed compact design. Streets and open spaces are well defined by a clear, consistent building edge. Streets are as narrow as is practical to slow traffic and reinforce the pedestrian environment. Building massing is appropriate to a human scale and pedestrian pace. These design guidelines are used in conjunction with the development standards in the following chapter to ensure a community of the highest aesthetic quality. The two sections strive to: • Provide guidance to developers and their design and engineering teams to create projects consistent with the standards of the Altair Specific Plan. • Establish a basis of design against which City staff can review future development projects in the planning area. • Ensure that the components necessary for a connected and pedestrian -friendly community are carried through all of the phases and districts comprising the specific plan. • Allow flexibility and ingenuity in design to create distinctive neighborhoods. These guidelines use positive and negative examples to ensure quality design. There can be circumstances where a preferred method is not achievable or a discouraged material is used skillfully. Therefore, exceptions to these guidelines may be granted through the Design Review process described in Section 11, Implementation. 9.2 Building Placement Placement of buildings sets the scene for development projects, especially on a sloping site, where the visual effect of buildings on a hillside is more apparent. Buildings facing the street should be designed to interface with the street in a special way, so that there is an interplay of building and street. Entries facing the road, along with porches and balconies, reinforce the connection of the road and the community. See Section 9.4 for further discussion of building frontage and Figure 9-2 showing streets that require building entries to face them. Also, refer to Section 10.4 for setbacks and explanation of build -to lines that regulate the location of facades relative to streets and otherlot lines. Buildings shall be arranged in a manner that creates meaningful and pleasant open spaces between them, such as courtyards, paseos and plazas. Buildings and groupings should relate to each other. In particular, perimeter buildings of development projects shall address adjacent developments so that there is no "dead space" between. Views, solar orientation and protection from prevailing winds are important considerations in building placement and orientation. Opportunities for views over buildings and view corridors should be carefully considered to maximize the connection to the surrounding environment and increase the quality of the neighborhood development. 1/1/I SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 9-1 (DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 — 9.3 Building Form These guidelines do not dictate any particular style, but rather discuss building form and elements that are conducive to the design objectives. Variations in style are encouraged for visual interest, vibrancy and diversity. 9.3.1 Building facades should be broken down in scale with off -setting planes. This can be achieved with wall offsets, recesses or with projecting elements such as bay windows, chimneys, stoops and porches. All building facades are important and require the same level of detail. Architecture at Altair will be "four-sided", meaning a high level of design and attention to detail shall be maintained for all elevations. MEW 9.3.2 Proportions of building elements should be carefully considered in relation to eachother and to the building as a whole. A graceful progression of scale and proportion from the building outline to the door frame down to the door handle should inform all designs. Proportion is an opportunity to emphasize verticality or horizontality. The proportion of traditional or structural elements, in particular, shall be correct to their perceived function. For example, columns that are too tall and narrow or oddly space will detract from a building composition. 9.3.3 Indoor / Outdoor spaces, such as covered open space, trellises, screen walls and decorative fencing are inviting to pedestrians and help to distinguish public from private space. Indoor / outdoor spaces should progress from open to more enclosed and private. Landscaping should integrate built forms with complementary planting and hardscape. A courtyard functions as an outdoor room and entry foyer. November 2017 A progression of indoor/ outdoor spaces. SPECIFIC PLAN 9.3.4 Roofs should be varied with multiple planes, stepped roof lines and a variety of forms, including sloping and flat roofs. Roof terraces are highly encouraged. 9.3.5 Stepped buildings are encouraged to reduce the scale of large masses. Elegant transition between levels, either through roof forms or patio terraces, is critical. 9.3.6 Roof Terraces are an excellent way to vary roof forms and provide private outdoor space that looks onto public space. In Temecula's mild climate, a roof terrace can be a second living room. Roof terraces are encouraged at Altair, particularly common open space roof terraces for gathering and neighborhood events. Terraces shall be designed to support landscaping and container gardening, including drainage and irrigation, and/or self -watering pots. Example of a successful stepped building in DC. November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-3 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.3.7 Building entries are fundamental to the iconography of residential architecture. The placement, materials and design of entry doors should make a statement about the quality and character of a home. Doors of attached dwelling units such as triplexes should enter at different locations to express the individuality of each unit and support the 3-dimensional building composition. Entry doors at the side facade of end units are preferred at long row home groupings. Recessed or covered entries are recommended, as they provide both protection from weather and a transition zone from public to private . Doorways should be considered as one element of an entry procession, in combination with gates, walkways, stoops or porches. The arrangement of these elements creates of series of spaces that address the public realm (i.e. the street) and gradually introduce the visitor to the private realm. These layers of ascending privacy add security both to the home and the neighborhood as a whole. See further discussion on Building Frontage in this Section. Also see Section 9.3.3 regarding indoor / outdoor spaces. 9.3.8. Windows shall project from or be recessed into exterior walls. Sills, lintels and casing trim around windows are encouraged. Flush mounting of windows is prohibited, unless the window openings are appropriately trimmed on the exterior. Windows facing adjacent buildings should be placed to ensure privacy between neighbors. Energy efficiency should be promoted through the installation of sunscreens above windows where appropriate. The placement and proportion of windows on all sides of a building should be carefully considered. Fabric awnings at residential windows are not permitted due to maintenance issues. Recessed or framed windows like these are preferred. Flush windows without trim are prohibited. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir 9.3.9 Street level facades of public, institutional and commercial buildings should have a high level of transparency and visual activity for the interest of pedestrians. Vacant or lightly used spaces such as utility or storage rooms or private offices should be avoided at street frontages of public and commercial structures. Display windows should be large and extend down to or near to the adjacent walking surface. The street level of residences may be more private, with higher or smaller windows, but should offer interesting elements such as window boxes, planters, operable shutters, decorative gates and artwork. 9.3.10 Balconies should vary in form from projecting to semi -recessed to fully recessed, particularly on large multifamily buildings. Railing materials and transparency should also vary and complement building designs. Railings are opportunities for ornament at a human scale. On multifamily buildings, the effect of repeating and grouping balconies should be considered. To be deemed useable, a balcony should have a 6 foot by 6 foot minimum area for furnishing. A projecting balcony with decorative railing. SPECIFIC PLAN Partially recessed balconies grouped to create a design element. The detailing ofthe rails provide a distinct character and match the building style. Balcony railings can be extended and joined to form a semi -transparent facade plane. November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-5 WINDOWS & BALCONIESi' FACE COURT 1 Above: preferred examples of modern and traditional garage doors that support the building style. 9.3.11 Garage doors should face away from streets wherever possible. Shared motor courts, shared driveways and alleys are preferred. Garage doors should vary in size, style and materials such as wood, steel or glass. Doors shall be of high quality and appropriate to the style of architecture exemplified in the building. Individual, single car garage doors are encouraged at double -car garages to reduce scale. LANDSCAPING AT VARIOUS HEIGHTS MATERIALS OF SIMILAR QUALITY AS STREET FRONT HIGHLY DETAILED 3 - DIMENSIONAL FACADES ENHANCED PAVING ART LOW WALL DEFINES PRIVATE SPACE ELIMINATE PAINTED LINES WALKWAY Figure 9-1 Motor Court Elements November 2017 ,PECIFIC PI 9.3.12 Motor courts and alleys are shared by pedestrians and vehicles, as signified by enhanced paving and landscaping. Landscape planting should vary in height to soften the space and screen private areas. Motor courts should feel enclosed by surrounding buildings and have a strong separation from the street. Motor courts, in particular, shall have elevations developed to the same quality as street facades. Facades facing alleys and motor courts shall have off -setting planes, balconies, trellises and other elements to create visual interest and reduce scale. See 9.3.11 for description of garage doors. Garages must meet the minimum size requirements defined in Section 10 in order to keep refuse containers stored in garages and out of motor courts. These garage doors are well-proportioned with the balconies above. Above: Parking between the building and street as shown here is prohibited. Open parking structures shall not be visible to or accessed from the street. Below: recessed garage doors and projecting bay windows enliven this alley in Baltimore. November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES (DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 t Y / Street Alignment to be 1 - 'Determined y �'•��cs � J�c,� • iSchool Street Alignment to be Determined .71 Civic rT 1 Center r t m Hire i '- HiwiT -I i Li/ / h/a y IC Street ' LEGEND: Street Requiring •"•'• Entry Frontage Trail or Open Space • • Requiring Entry or Garden Frontage November 2017 0 300. 600• 1200' LJ—L—I I SCALE: 1" = 1200•-0" DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9.4 Building Frontage Well designed building frontages are essential to creating a community with active streets and visual character that makes walking enjoyable and interesting. The placement of symbolic elements such as stoops, porches and overhangs identify "home". Other elements, such as arcades, are more appropriate to commercial or civic structures. These elements also establish the transition from public to private space so that pedestrians comfortably know where they are supposed to be. A properly executed facade will anchor the structure into it's site and architectural context. How a building meets the ground is important aesthetically and helps to define its use. A successful facade shall offer transparency and human scale to enhance the pedestrian environment. All structures facing streets, bikeways or open space shall incorporate one or more of the following frontage strategies. FIGURE 9-2 shows key streets and open space where frontage is required. Frontage shall be provided facing trails and pedestrian paths as indicated in FIGURE 9-2, such as the Class 1 Bikeways along the west and east perimeter of development. In some cases frontage may be required on multiple facades, as for a corner lot. While an entry door is not necessary on both facades, other frontage features should be provided to create a 3-dimensional design. A wrap-around porch or side porch separate from the entry element are appropriate solutions at corner lots. Where a building fronts both a street and key open space, such as a park or ravine, both an entry front and a "garden" front, shall be provided on the appropriate opposing sides. For example, the homes along the east edge of Village F will have a street entry front facing the internal circulation road and a second front facing B Street North. Even though there is a significant grade difference, it is important that the view from public routes such as the bikeway and B Street North are not perceived to be to the "back" side of buildings. The frontage types below are described in more detail in the following sections. Building designs are not limited to these types, as long as the aesthetic goals described in the previous paragraph are met. Combining frontage elements is strongly encouraged. 9.4.1 Stoop 9.4.2 Porch 9.4.3 Recessed Entry 9.4.4 Walled Yard 9.4.5 Raised Yard 9.4.6 Entry Court 9.4.7 Shopfront 9.4.8 Arcade Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 9-9 (DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.4.1 Stoop Stoops are exterior stairs and landings that provided access to elevated front doors of buildings. Stoops signify entry by providing an obvious path of access, but the vertical displacement also implies separation between the public and private realm. A person on a stoop has passed onto private property, but is still visible to and engaged with the public. The design of a stoop can thus convey a message about the structure being accessed: a straight stair with just a few steps is very accessible, whereas a high stoop with many steps or a circuitous route makes the entry more removed from the public way. Stoop Design Standards: A. At least half, and preferably all, of the stoop composition should be in the setback zone. B. Entry doors should be further enhanced with a frame, cover or some architectural treatment that is compatible with the stoop design. C. Stoops may be covered or uncovered. D. Railings or low walls should be of the same design and material for both the steps and the landing. E. Railings or low walls should be of compatible materials and design with the building and any garden fences or walls. F. Railings or low walls should be integrated with the building and any garden fences or walls. For instance, stoop walls and building walls that are parallel and of the same material should be flush. G. Large landings that can function as terraces or as places for potted plants and other site furnishings are encouraged. H. Multiple landings are encouraged where many steps are needed. I. Facades facing side streets or common space shall have windows, projections or other architectural features to add visual interest. J. Steps can either be parallel or perpendicular to the street frontage. K. Provide disabled access to buildings and residences in compliance with all applicable codes, including the ADA, CBC nd FHA Guidelines. Figure 9-3 \A „V% SETBACK PER TABLE 10-2 Figure 9-4 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Examples of Straight Stoop frontages. Examples of Sideways Stoop frontages. /r SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-11 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.4.2 Porch A porch is a semi -private outdoor room that has a floor and "ceiling", but no full walls. It offers the resident a protected place to be outdoors and watch passersby while not feeling too exposed. The cover plane of a porch may be a roof, trellis, balcony or building overhang. The floor of a porch is typically elevated above a yard or public way, at the same level or one step below the entry door sill. A front porch is typically located between the entrance and the public way and serves to transition between the public and the private realm. A porch is an element along an entry procession. The design of a porch is significant to the character and style of a building. Porches may project from the building front (Fig. 9-5) or be fully or partially embraced in the building mass (See Fig.9-6). Porch Design Standards: A. Projecting porches can be partially or entirely in the setback zone. B. Porches that are fully integrated into the building mass are typically located behind the build -to line. C. A porch may be partially projecting and partially integrated, to create multiple planes. D. Porch depth shall allow sufficient space for furnishings for sitting or dining. E. Porch covers need not be solid - a trellis is acceptable. But covers shall be static and permanent. A retractable awning or canopy is not sufficient for a porch. F. Porch lids shall be supported on columns, arches or partial walls. An overhang or cantilever alone does not define a porch. G. Entry doors may be more simply detailed when fronted or framed by a porch. H. Porch floors shall be elevated by at least 4 inches above the adjacent grade and shall be of a distinct material from adjacent paving. Figure 9-6 Intanraorc Figure 9-5 Projecting Porch November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Example of Projecting Porch. Example of Integral Porch. Example of a Porch integrated with a balcony above in multifamily housing. I. Porches should be accessed by steps that can be partially or fully recessed into the porch or may project from the porch face. A ramp may be substituted where required for accessibility and where no other compliant routes are available. J. Railings or low walls at the edges of a porch should continue down the steps with the same design and material. K. The elements of a porch shall be of compatible materials and design with the building and any garden fences or walls. L. Front porches may not be fully enclosed with screening or other material. M. Facades facing side streets or common space shall have windows, projections or other architectural features to add visual interest. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-13 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.4.3 Recessed Entry A recessed entry is similar to an integral porch in that the entry door is pulled back into the mass of the building and a semi -private outdoor space is created in the entry sequence. However, the recessed entry is generally more enclosed by the building or site walls. Recessed entries are not necessarily elevated, although they can be. The design purpose is to extend the arrival sequence and create more space between public and private without a large, formal lawn. There is a playful ambiguity to recessed entries. On the one hand, the entry door is more hidden and private. On the other hand, the curiosity created by the hidden or shadowed entry invites the observer to look more closely. Recessed entries are often combined with other frontage elements, such as stoops and porches. Recessed Entry Design Standards: A. Recessed entries are placed behind the build - to line. B. Recessed entries shall be enclosed by at least two building walls. C. Recessed entries shall be covered by a building overhang or a trellis, or a combination of these. D. The overhang or trellis may be cantilevered in a recessed entry. E. Recessed entries that are not raised should be integrated with the yard landscaping. Walkway paving materials should be continuous. F. Facades facing side streets or common space shall have windows, projections or other architectural features to add visual interest. SETBACK PER TABLE 10-2 Figure 9-7 l Recessed Entry Preferred example of a Recessed Entry. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir 9.4.4 Walled Yard Walled yards are private outdoor spaces between the building and property line that are enclosed by a wall or fence at the property line. The wall or fence presents the same level of detail and visual interest to the public realm as the facade of a building does. Walled yards do not necessarily cover the entire frontage of a lot. They are often most successful when the walls are an extension of building walls at or near the property line. While denoting privacy, walled yards should still offer glimpses of the gardens beyond. Walled yards are often combined with other frontage elements, such as raised yards and entry courts. Walled Yard Design Standards: A. Fences shall be placed at the property line. B. Solid walls shall be placed within 2 feet of the property line. The space between the wall and property line shall be densely landscaped with plants that climb over the wall or are otherwise integrated with the design of the wall. C. See guidelines for Fences, Walls and Gates for acceptable materials and other design requirements. Materials and style shall be complementary to the building form. D. Fences and walls enclosing yards shall offer some transparency into the garden, particularly at front yards. This can be accomplished by semi-opaque fencing patterns, framed openings in solid walls, see-through gates, or simply by lowering the height of the barrier. E. Gates, when open 90 degrees, shall encroach no more than 18" across the property line. In - swinging gates are preferred. F. Security measures shall be discrete and non- threatening. G. Fences or walls enclosing yards shall be decorative and shall incorporate street furniture elements such as built-in benches, lighting, artwork or potted plants. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES Figure 9-8 Walled Yard Preferred examples of a Walled Yards. DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.4.4 Raised Yard Raised yards are front gardens or lawns that are elevated above the sidewalk. They are particularly useful at Altair to mitigate sloping grades in a creative way, with purpose. Raised yards can be seen as extended stoops that are used as functional space. The steps are placed at the property line, before the yard and at the beginning of the entry sequence. The building and property are elevated, as on a plinth. This arrangement can cause the building to seem more removed from the public realm than other schemes. However, it is not more private. The raised yard can sometimes seem like a stage. Careful design is needed to create a distinct zone without appearing aloof. Raised Yard Design Standards: A. Raised yards are located between the property line and the build -to line, and extend back to recessed entries or to portions of the building that are set back from the build -to line. B. Raised yards shall be contained by short retaining walls that allow some views into the yard. See retaining walls guidelines to follow. Walls retaining raised yards shall be placed at the property line. C. Raised yards more than 6 inches above the sidewalk shall not transition to the adjacent grade with a slope bank. A gradual slope (5% or less) from the build -to line to the property line does not constitute a raised yard. D. Steps shall start at the property line. E. Multiple landings are encouraged where many steps are needed. F. Steps shall be integrated with the design of the retaining walls and yard landscaping. G. Railings or low walls shall be of compatible materials and design with building and retaining walls. H. Large landings that can function as terraces or as places for potted plants and other site furnishings are encouraged. I. Entry doors should be further enhanced with a frame, cover or some architectural treatment that is compatible with the stoop design. J. Facades facing side streets or common space shall have windows, projections or other architectural features to add visual interest. Figure 9-9 Raised Yard November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Preferred example of a Raised Yard. Afir Example of a raised yard that does not meet Design Standards. Walls are too high and do not leave enough space between for seating or substantial landscaping. The front wall is set back from the sidewalk, leaving a narrow strip of grass. There are no steps. The overall impression is defensive rather than inviting. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-17 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.4.6 Entry Court Entry courts are outdoor spaces created either by setting back a portion of a single building or by arranging multiple buildings to form a court, or a combination of both. Entry courts may be open or walled. When open, they should be combined with other frontage elements, such as stoops, framed entries and porches. Entry courts may be elevated, but must be accessible, such as a slightly raised terrace. Entry Court Design Standards: See Figure 9-13 for examples of some of these entry court elements: A. Entry courts include both the setback area and space behind the build -to line. B. If used, walls or fences enclosing entry courts shall follow the walled yard design standards as well as the guidelines for Fences, Walls and Gates. C. Entry courts used for vehicular access to parking shall be screened or enclosed. D. Entry courts shall feature enhanced paving, seating, artwork and landscaping that supports these activities. E. Entry courts shall provide clear paths to building entries. F. When an entry court is used at a building or group of buildings with multiple entries, it is not necessary that all entries face the court. G. Buildings adjacent to the street frontage or common space should have entrances facing the public way or some architectural frontage treatment to address the street or common space. Examples of Entry Courts at multifamily housing. The top example is preferred because the security gate is set back from the building face and is, therefore, more inviting. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 9-10 Entry Court Preferred example of an Entry Court that also serves as a Bungalow Court with detached housing. iii' SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-19 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.4.7 Shopfront Shopfronts are featured at commercial, mixed- use and live/work buildings and at community institutions. Whereas the previous frontage types define a transition from public to private space, shopfronts are intended to be very public. Shopfronts are predominantly transparent, with walls or columns for structure only. Openings in walls should frame the activity or product within as a display. Shopfronts should stimulate a high level of street activity and visual interest to promote strolling. Shopfront Design Standards: A. Shopfronts are located at the property line, unless set back by an arcade. B. The floor line of the level above the shopfront shall be at least 15 feet above the sidewalk at any point adjacent to the shopfront. C. Shopfronts shall be 75% transparent at the street level, with clear, untinted glass. D. The bottom of the glass shall be no more than 18 inches above the sidewalk, and shall not slope. E. The bottom edge of shopfront glazing shall rest on a sill of tile, wood or stone. Any wall surfaces below glazing shall be decorative, such as mosaic tile. F. The top edge of shopfront glazing shall be at least 11 feet above the adjacent sidewalk elevation, but shall not slope. G. At outside building corners, shopfront glazing shall extend back a minimum of 20 feet perpendicular to the street frontage. H. Unless fronted by an arcade, shopfronts shall have awnings, canopies or a trellis to shade shoppers. I. Clerestory windows are encouraged. J. Entry doors to shopfronts shall be at least 8'-6" high. K. Entries shall be accessible to the disabled, with no step at the door sill. L. The Master Developer will develop a sign program for City approval. Figure 9-11 Shopfront November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANi1�I 9.4.8 Arcade Arcades are combined with shopfronts at commercial, mixed-use and live/work buildings and at community institutions. Arcades provide shade and protection in front of shopfronts and present a uniform facade for varied buildings or entries. They also provide a outdoor space that can be lit in the evenings while avoiding light spillage to the night sky. Arcades are similar in appearance and function to galleries, except that they do not encroach over the sidewalk. Arcade Design Standards: A. The front edge of an arcade is located at the property line. See Figure 10-5. B. The arcade lid shall be solid and can support either a balcony/terrace above or a building overhang. The levels above the arcade shall comply with all setback regulations. C. Arcades in this sense may be supported on columns or arches. D. The spacing and dimension of columns or arches shall align with and be fully integrated with the design and rhythm of the facade or balcony rail above. E. The paving surface shall be of the same material and flush with the adjacent sidewalk. F. The depth of arcades shall be 8 feet minimum and 12 feet maximum from the shopfront face to the front face of the arcade at the property line. DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES OCEANSIDE CITY HALL BY IRVING GILL, OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA - r '1.11 l 1111 �1_ ! I M; 11 111 11 till ' 11111111111; ARCADE AT SANTANA ROW, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA Figure 9-12 Arcade SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 9-21 1' INTO SIDEWALK' UTILITY DEVICES IN 5' TYPICAL PARKWAY WIDTH PADS FOR LARGER DEVICES MAY ENCROACH (DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 — 9.5 Utility Placement and Screening Utility infrastructure such as water, sewer and gas mains and dry utilities will run under streets and sidewalks in public rights of way or in Public Utility and Access Easements (P.U.A.E.'s) in the case of private streets. The street section diagrams in Specific Plan Section 4.2.3 show PUAE and ROW locations for Altair streets. Placement of Rancho California Water District (RCWD) utilities for water and recycled water systems is required to comply with RCWD standards and requirements, including related advanced metering infrastructure antenna. GAS METERS & DEVICES SERVING INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS SHALL BE LOCATED IN SETBACK 5'to6' REMAINING SIDEWALK WIDTH R.O.W. OR PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS E /- UTILITY MAINS UNDER STREE \SEMENT Figure 9-13 Utility Locations ALSO SEE FIGURES 4-13 THROUGH 4-34 Utility devices that serve common areas or multiple properties shall be located in parkways between the sidewalk and street curb. If necessary due to size, these equipment pads may encroach into the sidewalk by a maximum of 1 foot, as shown in FIGURE 9-13. If an above ground utility (such as irrigation controls, water valves, etc.) cannot be located within the parkway, the developer may create a "pop -out" easement within the building setback area to accommodate the utility. This would occur in final engineering and site planning. The purpose of such an easement must be to maximize the sidewalk width, ideally up to 7 feet. At utilities in underground vaults, the vault may extend under the sidewalk, as long as the sidewalk remains flat. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 9.5.1 Preferred Examples: Well placed and screened utility meters. Utility devices such as backflow preventers should be located away from public view and screened with landscaping and/or low walls, or with decorative enclosures approved by the Master Developer. Underground vaults are recommended for transformers, irrigation valves, regulators and meters whenever possible, even when serving detached housing and small lots. If vaults are not possible, then such utilities shall be screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Section 9.6. Such screening must not interfere with the use or maintenance of the device. Residential mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units shall be located on private property and screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Section 9.6. Air conditioner compressors should not be near dwelling entries. At civic, commercial and institutional buildings and large multifamily buildings, cooling towers and compressors must be located on rooftops and screened from view, including view from higher elevations. Roof top screening may be accomplished by parapets, trellises or other methods that are integrated into the building's architecture and of materials consistent with the overall composition. Satellite dishes shall be located away from public view. Trash, recycling and yard waste containers in multifamily housing, commercial and instiutional uses shall be located in enclosures to screen them from view from any direction. Refuse enclosures shall have solid covers to prevent rainwater intrusion and windblown trash, in compliance with City of Temecula requirements. Enclosures shall be opaque for at least the height of the refuse container. See Section 9.6 for fence, wall and gate guidelines. Enclosures shall be sized per the City of Temecula Waste and Recycling Guidelines, subject to the City's franchise agreement for refuse and recycling collection and disposal. See Section 7.8 Waste Management for further information. Garage space must be provided for trash, recycling and green waste bins beyond the minimum parking dimensions prescribed in Section 10.9. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-23 (DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 — 9.5.2 Examples of Discouraged Utility Placement: These utilities are not screened, block views of the building and obstruct movement. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 9.6 Fences, Walls and Gates Fences and walls are limited to 6 feet high in residential areas and 3 feet high in required front setbacks, except where serving as a guardrail. Fences and walls may only be used for screening of private open spaces, motor courts, utility and refuse areas, and for safety at swimming pools, etc. There are no gated communities at Altair. Fences should not be installed to imply exclusivity or separation from the rest of the community, nor should they impede pedestrian circulation. Fences and screen walls shall be of durable, quality materials: wood, stone, plaster, steel, glass. Chain link fencing is discouraged and is not appropriate in areas visible from public view. Any chain link fencing should be black vinyl -coated. See Section 10.8 for further information. Fences that surround yards are encouraged to have some transparency. This may be accomplished with openings or gates that a passerby may peak through, or the structure of the fence itself may be semi -transparent, such as a picket fence. Fences and walls should be integrated with landscaping. Long fences and walls shall be divided into segments with some rhythm or pattern. Decorative elements such as tile, fountains and niches are encouraged. Glass fences are encouraged around community pools and along ravines and slope banks, where privacy is of less concern. It is preferred that the glass be located above a curb or low wall at sloping grades. EXAMPLES OF ARTWORK INTEGRATED WITH FENCE. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-25 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.6.1 Preferred Fence Examples: These fences are of quality materials, are consistent with their adjacent buildings and enhance the public realm. Gates are opportunities for artistic expression. Unique ornamental gates are strongly encouraged, to signify entry as well as provide identity and character to a home. Walls for screening sound may be necessary in selected locations as identified in the environmental report. While sound walls are typically opaque, the materials used should provide texture and visual interest. Glass is also acceptable at sound walls. Sculptural forms are encouraged. Sound walls should also be integrated with landscaping. 9.6.2 Examples of Discouraged Fence Installations: In the right photo, the gate and security interface are positioned in front of the steps, creating a very defensive impression. The canopy is not suited to the fence. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 9.7 Slopes and Retaining Walls Altair is a sloping site and consequently has areas of extreme grade change. While major areas of elevation change, such as the Eastern Slope, are designed in this Specific Plan, there are smaller examples between homes and around patios and terraces throughout the development. These are designed either as slope banks, retaining walls, or a combination of both. Required standards for erosion control and storm water management at slopes are explained in the Grading section of this specific plan. Slopes and stepped walls are landscaped to prevent erosion and soften their appearance, as described in the Landscape Guidelines. Well-designed retaining walls are encouraged to break up large areas of slope bank. Walls are limited in height per the development standards, although walls may be used in stepped combination to accommodate greater level change. Single, large retaining walls should be avoided. Wherever retaining walls are visible to the public from a road, pedestrian walkway, bike path or from off-site, they are limited to 6 feet in height. Walls may be stepped as shown in FIGURE 9-14 where necessary to retain a taller slope. 1. Laid back segmental walls may exceed 6 feet in height and be used throughout the project as long as: a) they adhere to the wall design standards within the Specific Plan (including landscape screening in areas that are highly visible by the public), and b) they are set back from street curbs (if applicable). 2. Vertical retaining walls may not exceed 8' anywhere in the project. In areas where greater than 8' of vertical walls are desired, the wall system shall be stepped. Small-scale modular materials are preferred at retaining walls: stone, cast stone, brick. Plaster veneer, exposed textured or formed concrete and Gabion meshes are only acceptable in small areas. Segmental concrete block is acceptable only where substantially screened by plant material. The finish of segmental concrete block shall be split -face, ground face or textured. Channel block, wood, timbers, earthbags, shotcrete, galvanized sheet exposed piles, stamped or pebble -finish concrete, kribbing (i.e.Kriblock), and modular plastic are strongly discouraged as exposed materials. All walls shall have caps or tie courses at the top. Wall materials shall be graffitti-resistant or have an anti -graffiti coating. Afir EQUAL 4'MIN. Figure 9-14 Retaining Wall Section where Visible to the Public SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-27 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 - ENTRY LEVEL Figure 9-15 Stepped Buildings Slopes should be resolved through building forms to the greatest extent possible to avoid the appearance of large terraced building pads. Larger multifamily buildings on sloping sites should have entry level access for pedestrians on an upper level and vehicular access at a lower level, away from the street. Smaller buildings can also be stepped to either side of a green, alley or motor court by partially submerging lower floor garages, as shown in FIGURE 9-15. 9.7.1 Examples for Retaining Wall Design The following examples display both preferred and discouraged attributes for retaining walls at Altair. All retaining wall designs must be reviewed and approved by the Master Developer. Stone Wall November 2017 PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Integrated with mixed plant palette. • Multiple planes. • Varied textures and sizes DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES • Single monotonous wall plane and top elevation SPECIFIC PLAN A / Ii Segmental Concrete Wall Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Wall cap • Sinuous lines • Ends of walls blend into landscape Varied coursing DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES • No cap • Clumsy wall terminations • No landscape integration PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Wall cap • Sinuous lines • Natural color • Planting is in balance with wall height. DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES Unattractive finish • No cap • Drain holes will stain wall • Poor construction 9-29 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 Formed Concrete Vegetated Wall November 2017 PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Low height • Deep plane offsets create an appealing shadow pattern DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES • Artificial stone pattern is not appropriate to exposed pile structure PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Variety of color and pattern in plant palette PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Wall structure is completely hidden by plants SPECIFIC PLAN Textured Concrete Gabion Mesh Pt t ■ . x,f " F L4 F ?�':.. ik, �...i 4 . tk4 ", V11..� 1 i 1 �yR L:HY 14 Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES Interesting + unique texture • Abstract pattern DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES Pattern attempts to look like natural stone, unsuccessfully PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Interesting mix of colors and materials • Wall plane divided into smaller areas by built-in seating wall cap DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES • Scale is too large • No termination at top or base 9-31 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.8 Materials, Textures and Colors Materials should be durable, refined and appropriate to the building style and form, but are otherwise not limited. Limited maintenance of building finishes should be required. Architectural materials should be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Buildings should generally have two to four distinct materials, depending on building size, with two material or clor changes on a single facade. Too many materials can be as unattractive as too few. The distinction between materials shall be of texture and pattern, for a rich facade. 9.8.1 Relationship Between Materials: Materials should be used to compliment and support architectural form. Material changes should occur at volumetric breaks or offsetting planes. Material changes within the same wall plane or at outside corners is discouraged, except where necessary to a compelling design. There should be a consistency of design around all sides of a building, with materials and colors wrapping corners. Monotonous or overly consistent lines between colors or materials are discouraged. Appropriate edging and transitions shall be provided between materials, such as trim boards, reveals, edge beams and wall caps. All transitions shall be properly flashed to prevent water intrusion or material failure. 9.8.2 Materials at the Base of a building shall have a hard surface. The exclusive use of stucco is not appropriate at the ground floor of commercial, mixed use, live/work, civic or institutional buildings. Base materials should not be of a lighter quality than materials above. 9.8.3 Veneer Materials such as brick, tile and stone shall wrap outside corners and jambs and only terminate into perpendicular planes. The installation and detailing of brick and stone should be consistent with the historical use of these materials as bearing walls: solid corners, true bonding patterns, struck mortar joints, lintels and wall caps. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 9.8.4 Color Palettes should not be limited to earthtones. Facades should be developed with layers of color, accent colors and contrasting trim. Contrasting cool and warm tones are encouraged, such as warm natural wood against concrete or stucco. 9.8.5 Reflective Materials such as reflective glass or sheet metal should only be used in very small areas where necessary for a compelling design. Darkly tinted glass is discouraged, especially in residential buildings. Shop fronts and community buildings should have highly transparent glazing. 9.8.6 Sloped Roof Materials shall be tile, metal (standing seam or shingle), or slate. Asphalt shingles are discouraged. Wood shakes or shingles are prohibited due to combustibility. Non-combustible (cementitious) alternative shakes may be allowed upon review of a mock-up installation. Integrated solar roof tiles are strongly encouraged. 9.8.7 Roof Drains should be internal wherever possible. Where gutters and downspouts are utilized, they shall be harmoniously integrated with the building design and of highly durable materials. Damaged gutters and downspouts shall be replaced immediately. 9.8.8 Decorative Paving such as brick or concrete pavers, stone or integrally colored concrete is encouraged as an accent to call attention to building entries, celebrate viewpoints or special places, and to clearly demark pedestrian paths such as cross -walks. For large paving areas pervious, light-colored paving should be used to reduce both storm water run- off and heat island affect due to solar absorption. Accent bands can be of darker materials . 9.8.9 Accessory Elements such as screen walls, secondary structures or carports should complement or match adjacent primary buildings in material selection, color and texture, as well as form. November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-33 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.9 Public Art Public art is important to the success of any pedestrian environment and is, therefore, strongly encouraged throughout the community. Art enlivens spaces, aids wayfinding and serves to identify significant places. Public art can vary in scale from grand monuments to small discoveries on a quiet path. Playful art is especially appropriate in areas like playgrounds, parks, and swimming pools that are frequented by children. Everyday functional items such as bike racks, water fountains, benches, picnic shelters or trash receptacles can exhibit whimsy, craft and creativity. Common spaces should incorporate art features where possible. Art installations should be durable and protected from damage. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Sculptures on the Lackawanna River Heritage Trail in Pennsylvania The City of Temecula requires new development to contribute to Art in Public Places in accordance with Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code through impact fees. Recognizing that public art is a great community amenity, the Master Developer intends to install artwork throughout Altair and to then seek reimbursement of fees paid towards Art in Public Places, equal to the cost of the art and its installation costs. These installations will be in prominent locations used by the public, as seen in the examples shown in this Specific Plan. Guest developers may also choose to install permanent public artwork within their projects and may also seek reimbursement of their impact fees. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-35 DESIGN GUIDELINEF 9-36 KEY PLAN LEGEND: 1. PLANTING 2. SCULPTURE / SPECIMEN TREE 3. COBBLE 4. PAVERS IN ROUND -A -BOUT 5. DECORATIVE CONCRETE 6. CROSSWALK 6 A A Figure 9-16 Roundabout 1 - Plan CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN hr 9.9.1 Roundabouts Altair features three roundabouts to calm traffic while improving traffic flow. They also serve as artistic landmarks for the community. Each roundabout has a variety of shrubs, grasses and ground cover, boulders and cobbles as well as sculpture. Decorative pavement such as brick, granite cobbles or concrete unit pavers within the street surface further enhance the roundabout and provide a physical texture change to help slow drivers. Afir Figure 9-17 Roundabout 1 - Elevation CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Roundabout "1", FIGURE 9-16 (Plan) and FIGURE 9-17 (Elevation), located in front of the school site includes a specimen Coast Live Oak and sculptural elements surrounded by shrubs, grasses, boulders and cobbles potentially quarried onsite during grading operations. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-37 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9-38 KEY PLAN LEGEND: 1. PLANTING 2. SCULPTURE 3. COBBLE 4, PAVERS IN ROUND -A -BOUT 5. SPECIAL PAVING 6. TREE PITS WITH PLANTING 7, CROSSWALK 0 16 CD Figure 9-18 Roundabout 2 ji Plan CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir Figure 9-19 Roundabout 2 - Elevation CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Roundabout "2", FIGURE 9-18 (Plan) and FIGURE 9-19 (Elevation), located at the Village "C" core adjacent to the Private Recreation Center and Village "C" Core Park includes a pedestrian zone with tree planters and benches connecting the various residential, commercial and recreational spaces. Roundabout "3", FIGURE 9-20 (Elevation) and FIGURE 9-21 (Plan), located at the extension of First Street includes a large sculpture and a variety of planting species in a banding pattern including shrubs, grasses, boulders and cobbles potentially quarried onsite during grading operations. Figure 9-20 Roundabout 3 - Elevation CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9-40 KEY PLAN LEGEND: 1, PLANTING 2. SCULPTURE 3. COBBLE 4. PAVERS IN ROUND -A -BOUT 5. BIKE PATH 6. HIKING TRAIL 7. DECORATIVE CONCRE I E 8. CROSSWALK 0 16 FIRST STREET Figure 9-21 Roundabout 3 - Plan CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 9.10 Monuments and Gateways 9.10.1 Entry Statement Monument Plan Major and Minor Entry Statement Monument locations are illustrated in Figure 9-23. Major vehicular entries are located on the south and north ends of the Western Bypass and on the east at First Street. The intent of the major monuments is to denote arrival into Altair and to begin to convey the design theme of the community. Three alternatives are included to illustrate the look and feel of the major monuments at a conceptual level. 15' 15' NO OBJECTS OVER 36" HIGH IN VISIBILITY TRIANGLE PER SECTION 10.9 Figure 9-22 Major Entry Monument A - Plan CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Major Entry Monument -Alternative A Alternative A, FIGURE 9-22 and FIGURE 9-23, shows a low, linear sign wall in the modern rustic motif. The materials consist of corten steel and natural colored concrete. The lettering is a large san serif font easily read from a distance. Native planting and boulders surround and frame the sign but do no block the letters, and a large Coast Live Oak tree is used as an accent. A plan view illustrating the typical location of the major monument is illustrated in FIGURE 9-24. Afir Figure 9-23 Major Entry Monument A - Elevation M CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 North Entry Roundabout 1 oundabout South Entry r+ Roundabout /3 j — n 1 _ r r ?-- n �rrTr� r-- r - n rrn P Civic i-_1 `r i�iii Cente m u� 15 outr'I Ent co m o O c Entry Monuments Gateway Bridge 2a Entry Monuments -Pr Gateways November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200' SPECIFIC PLANE'//" Major Entry Monument -Alternative B Keeping with the modern rustic motif, the Alternative B, FIGURE 9-25, features a corten steel sign panel mounted on a gabion wall. The gabion wall stone may be potentially quarried onsite during the mass grading operations. The lettering is a large san serif font easily read from a distance. Native planting and boulders surround and frame the sign but do no block the letters, and a large Coast Live Oak tree is used as an accent. Figure 9-25 Major Entry Monument B - Elevation CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Major Entry Monument -Alternative C Alternative C, FIGURE 9-26, is an angled chevron shaped wedge acting as a retaining wall. This corten steel sign wall maintains the modern rustic motif and provides visual interest with planting spilling over the top. The lettering is a large san serif font easily read from a distance. Native planting and boulders surround and frame the sign but do no block the letters, and a large Coast Live Oak tree is used as an accent. Afir Figure 9-26 Major Entry Monument C - Elevation CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES (DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 — 9.10.2 Major Vehicular Entries The north entry to Altair is at the intersection of Altair Vista and the Western Bypass. This is a major 4 -way intersection with entries on both sides of the Bypass. The south entry is just east of the Bypass before it crosses Murrieta Creek. This entry features open space on two levels separated by stepped retaining walls and landscaping. The lower open space also functions as a drainage basin and will be planted accordingly. The upper open space is a small park at the elevation of Village F, offering vistas to the southeast. Monument signage will be integrated with the retaining walls. The east entry is at the current terminus of First Street. It features a roundabout 9.10.3 Gateways In addition to the entry monuments discussed above, the bridge linking the north and south portions of Village C functions as a gateway into Altair, as seen in FIGURE 9-27. The bridge is a significant symbol of the Altair community as seen from Old Town. This bridge spans over the linear walkway leading from the central park to Main Street and frames the axial view from City Hall up the hillside to the community center and beyond. The bridge connects the two sides of "A" Street in Village C and will carry both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Therefore, this bridge will be of substantial construction and size. An arched span would also be appropriate here. 9.10.4 Village and Neighborhood Entries Village identifiers are commonly located in the focal parks or greens of each village. Monument signs that imply a separate product type or community segregation are to be avoided. Signage should be unique to each village and have a neighborhood quality. Figure 9-27 Gateway Bridge CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 9.11 Wind Screening Due to location and topography, prevailing winds at Altair blow from west to east and are stronger in the afternoon. Cool air from the ocean warms as it moves eastward and is then forced up over the ridgeline just west of Altair. The air then picks up velocity as it drops down the east face of the ridge and across the Altair site. The design of all outdoor spaces, especially roof decks, should consider orientation, landscaping and walls to screen against wind and to maintain the comfort of occupants. Courtyards are very appropriate to shelter open space from wind. Water features in particular must be designed and located to avoid overspray in windy conditions. Afir LESS THAN 0.5% LIGHT INTENSITY ABOVE 90° HORIZONTAL PLANE 90° 80° MAXIMUM 10% LIGHT INTENSITY IN FIRST 10° BELOW HORIZONTAL 9.12 Outdoor Lighting Altair is located approximately 20 miles from the Palomar Observatory. Therefore, exterior lighting must comply with the Zone B restrictions of the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance (Riverside County Ordinance No. 655). All fixtures shall have International Dark -Sky Association (IDA) seal of approval. LED lighting shall have a color temperature of 2700K or below to minimize blue light. Exterior lighting should provide for the security of pedestrians. However, too much lighting can be uncomfortable and distracting to neighbors. Development at Altair has been carefully sited to be unobtrusive when seen from other parts of the City. Outdoor lighting should be consistent with that goal. Large areas of lighting or high lumen levels that cause the community to "glow" shall be avoided. Parking lot lighting shall be carefully designed to minimize bright areas that can be seen from Old Town and environs. Light poles should be shorter, so that trees screen upward glare. Light fixtures shall incorporate cut-offs and appropriate lenses to eliminate glare and light spillover to adjacent properties. An even level of light along circulation routes is safer than contrasting areas of brightness and shadow. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-45 (DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 — Light fixture types can help identify different levels of circulation: pedestrian -scale pole lights at public plazas, sidewalks and major walkways, low-level lighting at more private paths and trails, taller poles at vehicle -only roads. Accent lighting shall also celebrate important community design features and monuments. Only structures that are important to community identity, such as the tower or gateway bridge, shall be lit. Lighting of residential or commercial buildings is strongly discouraged. Street lights along Altair Vista should be of a consistent style, material and color. However, some variation in the pole base, or in accessories such as banners, is allowed to distinguish a village or special location. Integration of other systems - such as microcelss, wi-fi, speakers or emergency beacons - into street light poles is encouraged to mimimize redundant support structures. 9.13 Streets The streets of Altair are one of its' most important characteristics. In order for Altair to be a successful development, its' streets must have definition. They should have boundaries, usually building walls of some sort, that communicate where the edges of the street are, that set the street apart, that keep the eyes on and in the street, that make it a place. Width of the street and height of buildings, that create the boundaries of the street, set the stage. The horizontal to vertical proportion of a street determines the scale and character. The elements that are placed in the street, such as trees, landscaping, lighting and street furniture, help to humanize the street. Color and material of horizontal and vertical planes of buildings contribute to the beauty of streets as well but on their own merits will not make a street successful. Spacing of buildings along the street also contribute to the definition of streets. The closer buildings are placed gives the street clearer definition. All of these elements, to a greater or lesser degree, contribute to the beauty of the neighborhood. Chapter4 deals with the design of the principle streets included in the Grading Plan and Tentative Map. The street sections and axonometrics illustrate the quality and design intent of the streets in Altair. The secondary streets that will make up the network of streets within each village should have the same level of quality. Streets should be kept as narrow as practicable, with street parking, trees, landscaping and urban furniture to help beautify and provide a pedestrian - scaled environment. Linking the project's private drives with the surrounding streets is vital for the neighborhood and the rest of the community to avoid the characteristics of a "gated community" that isolates a project and erects barriers. Multiple entry points to the site increases connectivity to the community while providing more convenient circulation for residents and neighbors. Street Standards A street grid scaled for people is fundamental. Streets suitable for pedestrians should avoid excessive block lengths. The objective is to avoid a condition where pedestrians are forced to walk lengthy routes to get to their destination. Long blocks limit travel direction and increase travel time, distance and inconvenience for pedestrians. Pass-through points at mid -block and/ or at the corners of the development should be utilized to enhance walkability and encourage foot traffic to surrounding villages, local businesses, schools and community amenities. In order to accomplish this objective, there shall be a maximum 300 -foot distance between cross -streets or pedestrian paths to adjacent streets. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN PREFERRED: URBAN GRID STREET PATTERN DISCOURAGED: SUBURBAN STREET NETWORK WITH CUL—DE—SACS Figure 9-28 Street Organization Pedestrian only streets (paseos or mews) are highly encouraged to improve walkabilty. Paseos can be as narrow as 6 feet wide with adjoining yard setbacks of up to 10 feet. Where residential yard setbacks are not provided, the width of the mews shall be a minimum of 15 feet. To ensure the durability and longevity of road surfaces, upgraded concrete pads shall be utilized in turn -around areas used by heavy utility vehicles such as trash collection trucks within the project. All streets must be capable of bearing an 80,000 pound gross vehicle weight for fire trucks and equipment, per the Temecula Municipal Code and California Fire Code. 9.14 Signage Community -wide Signage Guidelines will be submitted and reviewed as more precise design evolves at Altair. Signage shall follow the general standards established in Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 17.28 Article 1, except that commercial signs are not prohibited next to residential areas and signage is allowed on awnings and canopies that project into the public right of way per Figure 10-4. The Guidelines should allow for stylistic variation between villages. There should not be a single signage theme or material used uniformly throughout Altair. Design, materials and color should support and celebrate the character and identity of the particular village, and not individual developments. While sub -development name signs are allowed for way -finding, they should be discrete and must not compete with other village signage for visibility. Signage for multifamily housing, commercial and institutional buildings should be mounted on the buildings, except at the Civic Site and school, which may have each have one major and one minor free-standing monument sign. Sign standards are discussed further in Section 10.5. Where these standards are more restrictive than those in the Municipal Code, the standards in this Specific Plan shall apply. Project Pre -application Submittal requirements for signage are outlined in Section 11.1.3.(2). Street identification signs should be consistent throughout Altair. They should be simple and legible from a safe driving distance and at night. Street signs or sign supports are not allowed to span over streets. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-47 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.15 Accessibility Altair strives to provide a supportive neighborhood for an inclusive population, especially those with physical disabilities. Development at Altair will fully comply with all applicable accessibility guidelines and regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Fair Housing Act (FHA) and California Building Code (CBC). Builders are strongly encouraged to go beyond these baseline requirements to meet the specific housing needs of the disabled. An example would be dwelling units and common spaces equipped with visual aids and open floor plans to assist the Deaf and increase resident safety. Builders are also encouraged to offer customized dwelling amenities to meet the particular special needs of buyers. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10.1 Application These Development Standards should be used integrally with the regulations set forth in Section 3 Land Use, the village descriptions in Section 3 and with Section 9 Design Guidelines. 10.2 Zoning Unless otherwise indicated, the standards described below and in other sections of this Specific Plan replace Chapter 17.06 "Residential Districts" of the City of Temecula Development Code in its entirety. Development regulations for the Altair Specific Plan are prescribed in the following Tables 10-1 and 10-2. Uses listed in Table 10-1 are as defined in the City of Temecula Development Code with the following additions: Live/Work means a dwelling unit with both residential and commercial uses, wherein the commercial space is at the ground floor and the commercial or business activity is conducted by the resident of the contiguous dwelling unit. Commercial activities are limited to the nonresidential and commercial uses allowed in Table 10-1. Community Gardens are shared land areas that are collectively farmed or gardened. They may be sub -divided into individual plots, each maintained by a single gardener or family, although that is not mandated. At Altair, community gardens are intended for the cultivation of non- commercial produce and ornamental plants to be consumed by local residents. The raising or use of animals is not permitted. 10.2.1 Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in all zones: Adult Entertainment Business Drive -Through Businesses Marijuana Dispensary Tattoo Studio Pawn Shop Donation Center (temporary donation collection events are allowed ) Gas Station 10.3 Height Limits and Vertical Projections Building height limits listed in TABLE 10-2 are to highest roof deck. Roof parapets, railings, spires, flues, chimneys, elevators, mechanical equipment and screens, antennas, or similar architectural, utility or mechanical features may extend an additional 15 feet beyond the listed height limit. Building height shall be measured from the lowest of either pre-existing grade or proposed finished grade, as defined in City of Temecula Development Code Chapter 17.34 "Definition ofTerms". Buildings greater than 55 feet in height from the lowest floor of fire department access shall provide certain high-rise provisions in compliance with Section 15.16.020-1.1.7.1 of the Temecula Municipal Code. a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1? Legend P C Use is permitted in subject zone Use is conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Use is prohibited in subject zone Notes 1 Parking for park visitor use only. 2 Conform with Housing Type regulations per Sections 10.10-10.22. 3 A CUP is required if use is added after initial development. 4 Conform with "accessory dwelling" regulations per Sections 10.11-10.22. 5 Permitted only as an ancillary use to the Nature Center. 6 Only a park ranger's residence is permitted, subject to City design review. 7 See Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.10, Supplemental Development Stds. Table 10-1 Permitted Uses November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Open Space Residential Mixed Use Public/Institutional Description of Use I ZONE: SP -AO SP -NO SP -R SP -M SP -MR SP -E SP -C Residential 2 Single-family detached Duplex (two-family dwellings) Single-family attached (greater than two units) Multiple -family - - - - - - - - P P P P P P P P P P P P - - - - P 6 - - - Manufactured Homes Mobilehome Park Efficiency / Micro- Units 2 Secondary Dwelling Unit 4 - - - - - - - - - - P P - - P P - - P P - - - - - - - - Group Homes Congregate care facilities (elderly or disabled) Residential care facilities 2 (for elderly, disabled, mentally disordered, dependent or neglected children) Recovery or treatment facility 7 - - - - - - - - C C C C C C C - C C C - - - - - - - - - Guest House 4 Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities 7 Bed and breakfast establishment 7 - - - - - - C C C P P P P P P - - - - - - Family day care homes Live/ Work Home Occupation - - - - - - P P P P P P P P P - - - - - - Nonresidential Day care centers Educational, K -8th grade Educational, trade or vocational school Higher Education Nature Center / Visitor Center Conference facility Libraries Museums and galleries (nonprofit) Nonprofit clubs and lodge halls Religious Institutions Hospital and Ancillary Medical Office - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P 3 - - - - - P 3 P 3 P 3 - - P - - - - - P P P C - C - - - - - P P P C - P P - - - - P P - C - - - - - P P 5 P 5 P 5 - - - Commercial Retail Restaurant Offices - - - - - - P P P P P P P P P - - - P 5 P 5 P 5 Open Space Community Gardens Athletic Field BicyclePaths/Trails Communications and microwave installations Game courts, badminton,tennis, racqetball Nature centers / exhibits Parking Areas Picnic group facilities Private parks and recreation facilities Public parks and recreation facilities Recreational vehicle park Riding stable, public or private Shooting galleries, ranges, archery courses P P P C P P P 1 P P P - - - - - C - - C - C - C - - - P - P C - P P P P - - - - - - P C P - P - P - - - - - - P C P - P - P C - - - P P P C P P P P P P - - - C - P C - P P 1 P P P - C - Legend P C Use is permitted in subject zone Use is conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Use is prohibited in subject zone Notes 1 Parking for park visitor use only. 2 Conform with Housing Type regulations per Sections 10.10-10.22. 3 A CUP is required if use is added after initial development. 4 Conform with "accessory dwelling" regulations per Sections 10.11-10.22. 5 Permitted only as an ancillary use to the Nature Center. 6 Only a park ranger's residence is permitted, subject to City design review. 7 See Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.10, Supplemental Development Stds. Table 10-1 Permitted Uses November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS Standards Pillage F Village G School 8 Civic Site min. max.3 min. maxi min. maxi min. max.3 min. max.3 min. € max3 min. max.3 min. max.3 min. maxi Lot Minimum Lot Area N/A Minimum Lot Frontage Determined by Building Type. See Sections 10.10-10.18 and Table 10-4 Setbacks (feet) 1'2 From Altair Vista Property Line 3 4 10 4 3 10 3 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 3 - 3 - 5 From Western Bypass ROW 20 130 20 100 10 - 10 From Ridge Park Drive ROW 20 160 From Coromell Trail ROW 3 From "A" Street Property Line 0 5 From Camino Estribo ROW 10 All other Lot Lines 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 : 10 0 - 0 - Height Maximum Height (feet) 6'7 65 70 75 65 55 55 55 50 50 Maximum Stories 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 2 2 Other Requirements Park Space Minimum total area 0.95 acre 0.60 acre 5.00 acres 0.80 acres 0.50 acres 1.00 acres 0.35 acre 2.00 Minimum contiguous area 0.65 acre 0.40 acre 5.00 acres 0.80 acres 0.25 acres 0.40 acres -- 1.50 Common Open Space (sq. ft. per unit) Determined by Building Type. See Section 10.10-10.18 and Table 10-4 Private Open Space (sq. ft. per unit) Determined by Building Type. See Sections 10.10-10.18 and Table 10-4 Allowable Building Types Detached Housing (Section 10.11) M ■ III • • • , 8 Multiplex (Section 10.12) III ■ • ■ ■ 1 r . 8 Rowhouse (Section 10.13) • ■ IN ■ 'a ! . 8 Live / Work (Section 10.14) i r • • . 8 - - - 8 Multifamily Walk -Up (Section 10.15) ■ • . Multifamily Podium (Section 10.16) • ■ III 8 Micro Unit (Section 10.17) ■ r 8 Mixed Use (Section 10.18) 8 Iconic Tower (Section 10.19) Civic Buildings (Section 10.20) School Buildings (Section 10.21) Community Buildings (Section 10.22) • Notes: 1. Setbacks do not apply to interior lot lines. 2. See Section 10.4 for allowable encroachments into setback area. 3. At least 30% of the building frontage area must comply with the maximum setback. See Fig. 10-1 4. Measured from Boundary Road easement at Village A. 5. May be increased to 8 feet maximum where an arcade is provided per Section 9.4. 6. Structure height is measured as the vertical distance from the grade established by the Grading Plan exhibit referenced in this Specific Plan to the highest point of the parapet of a flat or mansard roof, or to the mid -point of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. Screened mechanical and electrical equipment, chimneys, towers, railings and other integral parts of a building or structure occupying no more than five percent of the roof area shall be excluded from this measurement. Photovoltaic panels and their support framework may be excluded from this measurement. 7. Buildings greater than 55 feet in height from the lowest floor of fire department access shall provide certain high-rise provisions in compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code and California Fire Code. 8. If the School District elects not to receive the land, the land may be developed with the indicated residential uses. Setback and height regulations will match Village B. The park space requirements remain. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1C 10-4 10.4 Setbacks and Build -To Line Required setbacks are determined by the fronting street or boundary within each village per TABLE 10-2, not by zone. Setbacks are required only at the designated street and boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. 10.4.1 Build -To Line: These standards enforce a build -to line to define the streetscape and enhance the pedestrian character of Altair. Build -to lines are required at all street frontages listed in Table 10-2, so there may be multiple build -to lines on a lot. The build -to line is established by the placement of the building relative to required setbacks. The build -to line is essentially the front vertical plane of the building enclosure. To encourage multiplane facades, between 50% and 100% of the building front at street level shall be at the build -to line. Between 40% and 80% of the building front at upper levels shall be at the build -to line. The frontage -facing plane(s) of the remainder of the building must be within 30 feet maximum of the build -to line. 10.4.2 Encroachment into Setbacks: Architectural features including wall projections, eaves, overhangs, extensions, decorative materials and artwork may extend into the required setback zone. Porches, balconies, steps and landings, awnings and canopies (with or without vertical support) may encroach into setbacks, provided that the aggregate of these elements does not exceed 75% of the frontage length. Bay windows and chimneys may encroach no more than 2 feet 6 inches into setbacks. F ROPERTY LJNE SETBACK PER TABLE 10-2.. ROOFED PORCHES AND PORCHES SUPPORTING TERRACES ABOVE NAY BE LOCATED IN THE SETBACK, INCLUDING COLUMNS, ARCHES. PARTIAL WALLS, RAILING AND STEPS ASSOCLITED WITH THE PORCH. Figure 10-1 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Porch November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN fSi BUILDING HEIGHT PER TABLE 10-2 EAVES, CORNICE MD ROOF OVERHANGS MAY DE LOCATED H THE SETBACK ENTRY OVERHANGS & ORNAMENT MAY PROJECT INTO THE SETBACK RAUNGS OR LOW WALLS SHALL HOT ENCROACH! REYOHO THE PROPERTY LIE STOOPS MAY BE LOCATED I THE SETBACK MNVIX PER TAME lA-2 Figure 10-2 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Stoop Ln 12P PROPERTY UNE SETBACK PER TABLE 10-2 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS TRELLISES AND SUNSCREENS MY BE LOCATED IN TETE SETBACK GARDEN WALLS VAT BE LOCATED IN THE SETBACK. WALLS SHALL BE INTEGRATED WITH LANDSCAPING. SEE DESIGN CUIDELRES. Figure 10-3 Allowable Setback Encroachments - WaIIs+Trellises 10-5 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-6 BUILDING HEIGHT PER TABLE 10-2 BALCONIES, EYEBROWS AND ROOF OVERHANGS MORE THAN V -0 - VERTICALLY ABOVE THE SIDEWALK WY OVERHANG THE PROPERTY LINE BY UP TO 2'-0' MAX SIGNAGE PERMITTED IN EITHER LOCATION WALL -MOUNTED AWNINGS OR CANOPIES MORE THAN e -0 - VERTICALLY ABOVE THE SIDEWALK MAY OVERHANG THE PROPERTY LINE BY UP TO 4"-0". BLADE SIGNS MAY OVERHANG PROPERTY UNE BY BUILT-IN PLANTERS MAY BE LOCATED IN THE SETBACK PROPERTY LINE C61 SETBACK PER TABLE 10-2 Figure 10-4 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Awnings, Balconies, Roofs November 2017 BUILDING HEIGHT PER TABLE 10-2 7-0' MAIC -- BALCONIES MORE THAN B'-0° VERTICALLY ABOVE THE SIDEWALK MAY OVERHANG THE PROPERTY LINE BY UP TO 2'-O° SIGNAGE MAY PROJECT INTO SETBACK ARCADES OR CANOPIES SUPPORTED ON COLUMNS MAY NOI EXTEND BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE. a 0 SETBACK PER TABLE 10-2 SETBACK MAY BE INCREASED 10 N' -o' MAX WHERE AN - ARCADE IS PROVIDED AND FACE OF ARCADE IS AT PROPERTY LINE Figure 10-5 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Arcades airi7iiSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS 10-7 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.5 Signage Signage shall follow the general standards established in Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 17.28 Article 1, except that commercial signs are not prohibited next to residential areas and signage is allowed on awnings and canopies that project into the public right of way. 10.5.1 General Sign Standards: 1. A community -wide Sign Program for the Altair Specific Plan area may be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. 2. Individual development projects shall include signage exhibits with each Pre -Application Submittal to the City of Temecula per Section 11.1.3 (2). 3. All signs erected or modified in style, color or construction shall obtain a sign permit and shall be consistent with the Altair Sign Program and with approved Pre -Application exhibits. 4. Pylon signs and internally illuminated cabinet signs are prohibited. 5. Internally illuminated channel letters are discouraged. External illumination is preferred at all signs. 6. Illumination for signs must comply with the Zone B restrictions of the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance (Riverside County Ordinance No. 655) and with the MSHCP Urban/ Wildlands Interface Guidelines. 10.5.2 Building -Mounted Sign Standards: 1. Building signs include wall -mounted, window, blade and awning signs. 2. Commercial and office uses may have two signs for each business. The signs may be of two different types listed above. 3. Signs shall not be located above the finished floor elevation of the level above street level. The only exception shall be for only retail or restaurant uses above street level, where a sign for that establishment may be mounted at the main floor level for that retail or restaurant space. Sign Band Integrated with Architecture Window Sign No Signs Allowed Floor Line Signs Permitted Figure 10-6 Building -Mounted Signs November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 4. Signs shall be integrated into the building's architecture in style, location, proportion and materials. Building designs should provide logical locations for signage, while avoiding monotony across a long facade. 5. Sign colors shall provide sufficient contrast to be clearly legible, while complimenting the color scheme of the building. 6. Signs are allowed on awnings. Awnings may project into the public right of way or street easements per Figure 10-4. 7. Awnings shall be of canvas or other durable fabric. Hard plastic or vinyl awnings and internally illuminated awnings are prohibited. 8. Window signs are allowed in commercial, institutional, live/work and mixed-use buildings, but should not block or obscure transparency. Window signs are only permitted at street level. WINDOW SIGNS THAT BLOCK TRANSPARENCY LIKE THESE SHADE SIGNS ARE PROHIBITED 9. Blade signs are allowed and may encroach into setbacks as shown in Figure 10-5. Blade signs may also project into the public right of way or street easements by up to three feet. 10. The vertical clearance below blade signs and hanging signs shall be 8'-0" minimum. 11. Blade signs shall not be internally illuminated. 12. See Building Types in Section 10.10 through 10.22 for other restrictions on signage. 10.5.3 Monument Sign Standards: 1. Each residential development is limited to one (1) monument sign. 2. External illumination is required for monument signs. 3. Monument signs shall be integrated into the landscape design. 4. Monument signs are limited to one place name or business name, except directional signs may include multiple place names. 5. Monument signs for residential developments are limited in size to 32" high and 60" wide. Figure 10-7 Monument Signs 10.5.4 Sign Size and Scale: Signs shall be of an appropriate size and scale for a pedestrian, smart growth neighborhood. Auto - oriented signage is discouraged. Signs shall not be oriented toward the freeway or Western Bypass. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 32" max. 10-9 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-10 10.6 Conceptual Landscape Plan The landscape at Altair will be a key contributor to creating the community's sense of place. The plan will feature natural (native) landscaped open spaces and natural materials such as boulders and cobble contrasted with contemporary elements and materials of design such as corten steel or gabion walls. The preserved and restored natural open space, the Western Bypass streetscape and the Coromell Trail streetscape will lean towards a natural feel similar to the surrounding hillsides, while the urban villages, village streetscapes and parks will have a more refined contemporary flavor. Primarily native as well as non-native low water use plants will be introduced into the urban village areas and parks using clean, geometric patterns. Figure 10-8 categorizes the primary landscape tree types, quantity and arrangement for Altair along with areas of preserved open space and restored open space. Tree types are categorized in Appendix A. (This list is intended as a general guideline and is not all inclusive.) Restored natural open spaces and slopes will utilize the "Tyson Method" supplemented with additional native container stock and/ or seed. The Tyson Method removes (scrapes) the existing vegetation and top layer of seed -bearing topsoil from native areas slated for mass grading, grinds the plant/topsoil mixture and stores it in windrows, then redistributes the material back onto the surface of the completed manufactured slopes. This provides a natural seed bank and mulch material which helps to prevent erosion and encourages natural regrowth of the former vegetation. Container stock and seed for open space restoration (excluding trees) shall be propagated and collected from existing open space areas to ensure genetic compatibility and planted in addition to the Tyson Method mixture. Open space drainage draws, bioretention areas and bioswales shall be landscaped with native riparian vegetation. The list of shrubs, groundcovers and vines in Appendix A provides an opportunity to create a predominantly low water use landscape within the landscape theme of the community. (This list is intended as a general guideline and is not all inclusive.) Figure 10-9 through Figure 10-12 conceptually illustrate the landscape of each Village Planning Area. Building massing is shown on these exhibits only in order to convey potential landscape areas and urban fabric as related to the landscape, trails, bikeways, key walkways, streets, parks, and open space. Figure 10-13 shows the location of street trees referenced by street in Appendix A, Plant Lists. Trees shall be selected from the range of species designated for each street. Please refer to the Circulation Plan -Vehicular, Circulation Plan -Pedestrian/ Bicycle, Open Space and Recreation Plan, and Entry Statement Monumentation Plan for additional design requirements and landscape illustrations for each of those planning categories. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir PRESERVED / RESTORED DPEN' SPACE RaO�e a0orn/a Rd 1 VILLAGE `A' PARK mac a VILLAGE 'B' PAR 41114.6 SCHOOL • RECREATION HOA RECREATION CENTER CLUBHOUSE UPPER STAIRCASE SEATING PLAZA PROMENADE VILLAGE 'C' CORE PARK MAIN ST. PLAZA OLD TOWN GRAND STAIR VILLAGE 'D` PARK First Street VILLAGE 'E' PARK 10416.4111040511011 VILLAGE `F' PARKS CIVIC SITE Figure 10-8 Conceptual Landscape Plan SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 f 7 NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD, HyDROSEED AND CONTAINER STOCK PER ✓r LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TYP. (TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED) C PRESERVED OPEN SPACE ■ TEMPORARY SLOPES HYDROSEED PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TYP. [TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED/ TREES CONCENTRATED AT TOE OF SLOPE FOR A NATURAL CHARACTER WESTERN BYPASS TREES CLUSTERED WITH VARIABLE SPACING FROM 1R TO 400' WITH AN AVERAGE COUNT OF 40' ON CENTER. NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD. • HYDROSEED AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES (PERMANENTLY IRRIGATED} TREES CONCENTRATED AT TOE OF SLOPE FOR A NATURAL CHARACTER AND TO PRESERVE SCENIC VIEWS. TYP. 1 STREET TREES WITHIN URBAN VILLAGES SPACED 24' 0 C. TO REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND TO PROVIDE SHADED SIDEWALKS_ TTP Figure 10-9 Landscape Exhibit 1 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD. HYDROSEED AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES, TYP (TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED) NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD, HYDROSEED AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES, TYP. (PERMANENTLY IRRIGATED) ■ TEMPORARY SLOPES HYDROSEED PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES, TVP (TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED) SHADE TREES AT BIKEWAY AND TRAIL TO REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND TO PROVIDE A COMFORTABLE CIRCULATION CORRIDOR. WESTERN BYPASS TREES CLUSTERED WITH VARIABLE SPACING FROM 15'10 105 WITH AN AVERAGE COUNT OF 4V ON CENTER. U DRAINAGE DRAW WITH NATIVE RIPARIAN VEGETATION PRESERVED OPEN SPACE TREES CONCENTRATED AT TOE OF SLOPE FOR A NATURAL CHARACTER AND TO PRESERVE SCENIC VIEWS. TYP. STREET TREES WITHIN URBAN VILLAGES SPACED 24' 0 . TO REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND TO PROVIDE SHADED SIDEWALKS. TR. Figure 10-10 Landscape Exhibit 2 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. 1_21111FALI PLAN November 2017 10-13 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 H ■ ■ NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD, HYDROSEE❑AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TYP. (TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED) NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD, HYDROSEED AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TY? (PERMANENTLY IRRIGATED) TEMPORARY SLOPES HYDROSEED PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TYP. [TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED] 11 TREES CONCENTRATED AT TOE OF SLOPE FOR A NATURAL CHARACTER AND TO PRESERVE SCENIC NEWS, TYP. SHADE TREES AT TRAIL TO WESTERN BYPASS TREES j REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND CLUSTERED WITH VARIABLE . " r r EFFECT AND TO PROVIDE A SPACING FROM 15 TO IMF COMFORTABLE CIRCULATION WITH AN AVERAGE COUNT CORRIDOR. OF 45 ON CENTER SHADE TREES AT BIKEWAY TO REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND' EFFECT AND TO PROVIDE A7 COMFORTABLE CIRCULATIO CORRIDOR 1 1 • STREET TREES WITHIN URBAN VILLAGES SPACED 24' O.C. TO REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND TO PROVIDE SHADED SIDEWALKS. TYP Figure 10-11 Landscape Exhibit 3 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN NATIVE SLOPE RESTORATION USING TYSON METHOD. HYDROSEED. AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDLINES, NP. (TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED) DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS PRESERVE OPEN SPACE NATIVE TREES CONCETRATED AT TOE OF SLOPE FOR NATURAL CHARACTER.TYP. PRESERVE OPEN SPACE Figure 10-12 Landscape Exhibit 4 -4111111 - CONCEPTUAL CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. 'l/I,II/'SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-15 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 WESTERN BYPASS ALTAIR VISTA COROMELL TRAI A STREET B STREET C STREET 0 ROUNDABOUT L Refer to the Vehicular Circulation Plan for spacing and quantities per street. Refer to the plant list Appendix for tree species and species percentages per street. Figure 10-13 Street Tree Plan November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir 10.6.1 Landscape Development Standards 1. All detailed landscape plans shall be prepared by a California Licensed Landscape Architect for review and approval by the City of Temecula. 2. "Master Developer" and perimeter "Unit Tract" walls and fences will be prohibited at Altair to accommodate and encourage pedestrian and vehicular circulation throughout the community. Walls and fences are allowed for areas such as private residential courtyards, pool enclosures, or other areas where fences are required for safety. Fence materials shall be compatible with the architectural schemes and may include tubular steel view fence, stucco, stone veneer, or material that matches building architecture. Materials such as barbed wire and chain link are prohibited, except as noted in Section 10.8. Also se Section 9.6 for fence wall and gate design guidelines. 3. Retaining walls shall be softened or screened with trees, shrubs and vines. See Section 9.7. 4. At the time of recordation of any final subdivision map which contains greenbelts or open space areas, the subdivision shall have those common areas conveyed to the property owners association or appropriate public maintenance entity either in fee title or as an easement. 5. All planting, irrigation and built elements of open space, parks, streetscapes, monuments, walls, fences, street furnishings, pedestrian bridges, and slopes shall be maintained by an HOA, private maintenance association, or public maintenance entity. 6. All landscaping shall meet the City of Temecula Water Efficient Ordinance, Chapter 17.32 of the City of Temecula Development Code or to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 7. All loading, service, parking areas, and trash enclosures shall be screened with appropriate green -screens, vines, trees or shrubs at the direction of the City of Temecula. 8. The minimum sizes for trees, shrubs and groundcover shall meet City Code requirements. 9. All parking lot landscaping shall be consistent with the City of Temecula Development Code requirements. 10. Slopes shall be revegetated with trees, shrubs, groundcover, and seed (or mulch) to prevent erosion control. 11. Typical residential front yard landscape requirements shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Development Code. Special lots or configurations shall have modified landscape standards approved by the Planning Director. 12. Graded or disturbed areas not to be developed shall be treated per the approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 13. Developers/ applicants of each property shall ensure that plantings at maturity will not interfere with utility lines and traffic sight lines. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-17 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 14. Horticultural soil tests and recommendations shall be required for each developed area based on the proposed plant list for that area. (CA native plants require different horticultural amendments compared with ornamental plants and this shall be reflected in the test recommendations.) 15. All landscape areas shall be designed with a permanent below grade irrigation system based on current code requirements and the latest efficiency technologies. Restored native slopes may utilize a temporary system until established, but shall also be below grade and shall be shut off after full establishment. 16. Each landscape area shall be maintained by the landscape installer fora minimum of 90 days prior to the perpetual maintenance entity taking control of that area. 17. Weather -based or Soil moisture -based irrigation controllers shall be set to "automatically adjust" on or before day 60 of the 90 -day maintenance period. The installing contractor shall make fine-tuned adjustments to each station as necessary during days 60 to 90 of the 90 -day maintenance period in order to maximize water efficiency and plant health. 18. The landscape palette shall conform to the State of California Model Landscape Ordinance. 19. All landscape design and plant selection shall be compatible with recycled water use. 20. Plant species identified in Table 6-2 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) shall not be used in areas adjacent to the MSHCP corridor and/or native open space. 21. Recommend a guideline for care and long term maintenance of Oak trees be established. 22. Espaliers, or columnar small tree/clipped hedge, and vines should be used to soften building massing where limited planter areas and/or building density does not allow adequate room for typical tree placement or shrub massing. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 10.6.2 Natural (Permanent) Slopes: All permanent natural slopes (See Conceptual Landscape Plan for Locations) shall be revegetated with native landscaping utilizing native container stock and seed in addition to the "Tyson Method". The Tyson Method removes (scrapes) the existing native vegetation and top layer of seed -bearing topsoil from native areas prior to mass grading, grinds the plant/topsoil mixture and stores it in windrows, then redistributes the material back onto the surface of the completed manufactured graded slopes. This provides a natural seed bank and mulch material which helps to prevent erosion and encourages natural regrowth of the former vegetation. Except for boxed and larger container trees, supplemental container stock and seed for slopes should be collected and propagated from existing open space areas prior to grading to ensure genetic compatibility. Restored plant communities shall be designed to be consistent with the plant communities of the adjoining open space (i.e. Diegan coastal sage scrub next to Diegan coastal sage scrub, Southern mixed chaparral next to Southern mixed chaparral, etc.) especially along the Western Bypass Corridor and preserved natural open space areas. Slope banks five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes between 5:1 and 2:1 shall, at a minimum, be irrigated and landscaped with a combination of appropriate shrubs, vegetative ground cover, and mulch that will absorb rainwater and reduce runoff for erosion control. All trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary the slope plane. If drip irrigation is used on slopes, a fertilizer injector system shall also be used. A. Slope banks five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or equal to 3:1 shall, at a minimum, be irrigated and landscaped with a combination of appropriate shrubs, vegetative ground cover, and mulch that will absorb rainwater and reduce runoff for erosion control, and to soften their appearance as follows: Afir 1. One 15 -gallon or larger tree per each six hundred square feet of slope area. Large growing native trees, such as Coast Live Oaks, shall be clustered and concentrated at toes of slopes to emulate patterns found in nature (bigger trees in wetter areas at bottoms of slopes) and to accommodate views from residential pads. (Small native trees including Toyon, Laurel Sumac, Lemonadeberry, and Sugar Bush may be used on the remaining slope areas to meet the intent of this requirement); 2. One 1 -gallon or larger shrub for each one hundred square feet of slope area; and 3. Appropriate vegetative ground cover that will absorb rainwater and reduce runoff. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-19 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 B. In addition to the requirements above, slope banks in excess of ten feet in vertical height with slopes greater or equal to 2:1 shall also provide a 5 -gallon or larger tree per each one thousand square feet of slope area. Large growing native trees, such as Coast Live Oaks, shall be clustered and concentrated at toes of slopes to emulate patterns found in nature (bigger trees in wetter areas at bottoms of slopes) and to accommodate views from residential pads. (Small native trees including Toyon, Laurel Sumac, Lemonadeberry, and Sugar Bush may be used on the remaining slope areas to meet the intent of this requirement). C. Western Bypass Corridor slopes, as illustrated on the Conceptual Landscape Plan, shall comply to the requirements above and shall be irrigated on a temporary basis until establishment (estimated 3 to 5 years) or non -irrigated (only if planted during the appropriate season with the approval of the City.) - Refer to Section 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.3 Temporary Slopes: Temporary Slopes occur within Villages and are likely to be re -graded during the construction of that village. Temporary slopes are illustrated on the Conceptual Landscape Plan and shall be hydroseeded and temporarily irrigated. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.4 Hiking Trails, Bikeways: Restored natural open spaces and slopes adjacent to the hiking trails and bikeways will utilize the same landscape guidelines as Natural (Permanent) Slopes. Larger native trees shall be clustered around trails and bikeways to provide a natural appearance and shade for pedestrians. - Refer to Sections 4 and 8 for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. Key Pedestrian Walkways: When not within natural slope areas, key pedestrian walkway areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Recreational turf shall be provided for recreational use areas only per City standards. - Refer to Section 4 Circulation and Section 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 10.6.5 Drainage Draws, Bioswales, Retention/Detention/Water Quality Basins Drainage Draws, Bioswales, and Retention/ Detention/ Water Quality basins shall be designed using low water use native plants at the tops of slopes and medium to higher water use native plants towards the bottom of slopes and the bottom of swales and basins. The intent is to re-create a native riparian ecosystem of concentrated canopy trees such as California Sycamore, Cottonwood, and Cost Live Oak with an understory of native grasses and shrubs. (Trees may be reduced or eliminated for narrow bioswale areas if necessary based on site constraints). - Refer to Section 6 Infrastructure and Utilities for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.6 Roundabouts: These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water us- age. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) - Refer to Section 9 Design Guidelines for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.7 Entry Statements: These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) - Refer to Section 9 Design Guidelines for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.8 Park and Recreation Areas: These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Recreational turf is encouraged for park and recreation areas. Turf areas shall be wide and long enough to allow passive or active recreation uses per City standards. - Refer to Sections 3 and 8 for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-21 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.6.9 School: These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Recreational turf is encouraged for school recreation areas. Turf areas shall be wide and long enough to allow passive or active recreation uses per City standards. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.10 Villages A, B, C, D, E, F, G: It is intended that the Village areas use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Although the plant species will be the same or similar to the natural areas, it shall be designed in more defined patterns (such as blocks of matching plant material, interesting angles, or geometric patterns) rather than natural organic patterns. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Recreational turf shall be provided for recreational use areas only per City standards. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.11 Civic/ Community: These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non- native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Recreational turf shall be provided for recreational use areas only per City standards. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.12 Parking Lots: All parking lot landscape shall be consistent with the city's adopted water efficient landscape ordinance as listed in Chapter 17.32 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Parking areas shall have a minimum of a five foot perimeter planting area. A minimum of one tree per four parking spaces shall be provided. Trees shall be broad canopy species and at least fifteen - gallon in size at installation. Planting islands are required at the end of each parking bank and every ten spaces. Islands shall be a minimum of five feet wide and as long as the adjacent parking space. Each island shall have one tree and a combination of shrubs and groundcover. - For additional requirements, see Temecula Municipal Code, Chapter 17.24.050.H November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 10.6.13 Shade: The utilization of shade trees and shade structures is encouraged considering the climate in Temecula. Street trees in the urban village areas are spaced at 24' o.c. to optimize the shade canopy over the sidewalks and to reduce the urban heat island effect. The conceptual village park plans found in the Section 3 illustrate how shade trees, shade structures, and shade sails may be incorporated to provide shaded outdoor spaces. Clusters of native trees are also encouraged along bikeways and hiking trails in the natural open space areas to shade pedestrians. Figure 10-14 Urban Parkway with Tree Grate Figure 10-15 Urban Parkwaywith Planter Pocket 10.6.14 Tree Grates: This specific plan intends to provide a variety of street types, with both landscape parkways and urban parkways. Urban parkways may use either planting pockets or tree grates. Tree grates shall be used in higher pedestrian traffic areas. Tree grates shall complement the grates in Old Town. When planter pockets are used, plants shall be greater than 24" in height and robust/ hardy to prevent pedestrians from walking over them. -Refer to Section 4 Circulation for additional information. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-23 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.7 Parking Parking Lot Dimensions: The standard minimum parking space shall be nine feet wide by eighteen feet long. In exchange for electric vehicle charging stations or extensive bike rack systems above the minimum requirements, the Planning Director has the option to allow up to 10% of the required parking stalls to be compact stalls with minimum dimensions of eight feet wide by sixteen feet long. Parking spaces are required to have clear delineation with paint or other easily distinguishable material. Drive aisles shall be a minimum of fourteen feet wide for one-way aisles, and directional signs and arrows shall be provided. When fire apparatus access is required, the minimum driveway width shall be twenty feet for one-way traffic and twenty-four feet for two-way traffic. 10.7.1 Off-street parking and loading shall comply with City of Temecula Development Code Chapter 17.24, except as modified below and in Table 10-3. These modifications recognize that Altair is a pedestrian -oriented community where residents will walk to recreation facilities, restaurants, etc. A key principle of walkable and sustainable communities is the reduction of parking requirements, in order to change the mindset from driving to walking or cycling on short trips and to reduce the amount of space taken up by parking, which in turn allows the community to be more compact and walkable. Ride Share programs are encouraged to reduce traffic and parking demand. A higher proportion of enclosed and covered parking is mandated for residential uses to reduce the size of open parking areas and maintain the aesthetic quality of the community. Large parking areas are to be avoided, and are limited to locations of high parking demand, such as near the community center, school and park or at the civic use on the south parcel. Parking for the Recreation Center, Clubhouse and Park in Village C will be available to the public on a first come, first served basis. However, school parking will be prohibited in those lots. Parking on the school site will be for the exclusive use of the school on days when school is in session. On days when the school is closed, the school parking lot will be open to the public. A designated, permanent loading/unloading space shall be provided at each Village, and may provide shared use by multiple lots within that village. The size shall be large enough to accommodate moving and delivery trucks and ride share services. The loading space may be either off-street or on -street, including on Altair Vista. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT ' 10 STANDARDS Description of Use Required Number of Spaces Additional Requirements Residential Uses Single-family residence Detached residence 2 enclosed spaces per residence - Guest or service parking shall be provided for all residential uses at a rate of one space for every 10 dwelling units, unless noted otherwise. See Note 1. Duplex (two-family dwellings) 2 enclosed spaces for each unit within the duplex Single-family attached (greater than two units) 1.5 enclosed spaces per unit plus 0.5 covered space per unit Multiple -family residential 1 bedroom or less 1 covered space per unit _ Guest or service parking shall be provided for all residential uses at a rate of one space for every 10 dwelling units, unless noted otherwise. See Note 1. Provide secured bicycle parking for multifamily residential uses at a rate of 0.5 spaces per unit. Units with individual enclosed garages are exempt from this requirement. See Note 3 2 bedrooms 1.5 covered spaces per unit plus 0.5 uncovered spaces per unit 3 bedrooms or more 2 covered spaces per unit plus 0.25 uncovered spaces per unit Efficiency Units (micro -units) 0.5 covered spaces per unit Transitional Housing 0.5 covered spaces per unit Congregate care facilities (elderly or disabled) 0.5 covered spaces per unit plus 1 guest space for every 8 units Residential care facilities + group homes 1 covered space for every 3 residents Guest House Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities Bed and breakfast establishment 1 space per guest room or suite Family day care homes As required by Section 17.06.050(1) of the Temecula Municipal Code Live/ Work Same as for applicable Multiple -family residential unit plus 0.5 uncovered space per unit for customers Home Occupation Same as for applicable residence Nonresidential Uses Nature Center 120 spaces per Section 3.13 Bicycle Spaces: Note 3 1 space for every 10 vehicle spaces Note 2 Educational (trade or vocational school; higher ed) As required by Temecula Municipal Code, Table 17.24.040 Conference facility Religious Institutions 1 space for every 3 seats or 1 space per 35 gross square feet (gsf) 1 space for every 20 vehicle spaces Libraries, museums, galleries 1 space per 300 gross square feet (gsf) 1 space for every 10 vehicle spaces Recreational facilities (including pools) 1 space per 1,000 sf gross of recreation area Office 1 space per 300 gross square feet (gsf) Retail 1 space per 400 gross square feet (gsf) 1 space for every 20 vehicle spaces Restaurant, lodge hall, club 1 space per 200 gross square feet (gsf) Notes: 1. Guest parking requirement may be satisfied by on -street parking on internal Village streets and on A Street. Street parking on Altair Vista may not be used to satisfy the residential guest parking requirement. 2. Parking requirements at elementary school will be determined by Temecula Valley Unified School District, as approved by the City of Temecula. 3. No bicycle or motorcycle credits will be given for vehicle parking spaces. Table 10-3 Parking Requirements Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.7.2 On -street parking Safe and enjoyable pedestrian circulation is critical in the Altair Specific Plan. Street parking has been found to increase pedestrian safety and comfort by slowing traffic speeds and by separating traffic lanes from sidewalks. Therefore, street parking is strongly encouraged in this specific plan, including at internal streets and alleys. Street parking is provided on one side of Altair Vista. This will aleviate overflow parking from the parks in villages C and D. Guest parking requirements listed in Table 10-3 may be satisfied by on -street parking on internal streets, but not on Altair Vista. Striping is not required for parking on private streets. 10.7.3 Parking Standards "Enclosed" parking shall be located in a private garage with a door. "Covered" parking may be located in a garage or under a trellis, roof, building overhang or solar panels. No parking may be located between a building and the street, except in the case of motor courts where some buildings may be to the rear of the court. See the Design Guidelines for motor courts. Parking is prohibited in setback areas. Garage doors shall not face the street. Garage doors and parking may front alleys and motor courts. 10.7.3 Bicycle parking shall be provided per Table 10.4. Bicycle parking for multifamily residential uses shall be in a secure room or secure garage. Bicycle parking for office uses shall be located in lockers or a secure room. All other bicycle parking may be on exterior racks designed to be used with personal locks. Bicycle parking shall comply with the Design Standards in Section 17.24.040(F)(3) of the City of Temecula Development Code. 10.7.4 Motorcycle parking shall be provided to meet the requirements of Section 17.24.040(G) of the City of Temecula Development Code. No bicycle or motorcycle parking credits will be given for vehicle parking spaces. 10.7.5 Landscaping of parking areas shall comply with Section 10.6 Landscape Standards and Appendix A Plant List. 10.8 Fences, Hedges and Walls Fences, hedges and walls are limited to 6 feet high in residential areas and 3 feet high in required front setbacks, except where serving as a guardrail or enclosing a pool or other hazard. The design and materials of fences and walls shall comply with the Design Guidelines in this plan, Sections 9.6 and 9.7. Exceptions at sports fields and dog parks may be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. 10.8.1 Site Visibility A triangular site visibility area shall be provided at all street intersections, with each leg of the triangle measured at 15 feet from the curb return. Nothing may be located or allowed to grow in the visibility area which obstructs visibility and is taller than 36 inches from the top of the curb. Site visibility areas are not required at alley or driveway intersections with streets. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 10.9 Refuse and Service Areas There are a variety of housing types at Altair that will receive services such as trash pickup in different ways depending on the extent to which facilities are shared within the sub -development. A multifamily apartment building over a common garage both generates and disposes of refuse differently than a household in detached housing or a commercial building. Guidelines for each building type are included in the following sections, with general information below. The City of Temecula contracts with a private waste disposal service, currently CR&R Inc., for collection of trash, recycling and organic waste. The franchise agreement for these services will guide the type and quantity of waste bins, storage areas and collection routes for waste disposal and recycling. Single-family detached homes typically have three bins (one for each type of waste collected) that are stored in private garages or other enclosures and moved to the curb on collection day. Multiplex housing and rowhouse developments may store all refuse bins, including trash and recycling, in a common location by demonstrating that adequate space is provided for the number of dwelling units and other uses, as approved by the Planning Director and the franchise hauler. Live/Work and multifamily housing projects that do not have private garages, mixed use, commercial and institutional buildings will have common enclosures for waste bins with space for trash, recycling and organics. Compactors are encouraged to reduce the quantity of bins and resultant space needed. For Live/Work units, the commercial and residential bin requirements should be calculated separately for the areas of each use. Larger mixed use projects should have separate trash rooms or enclosures for commercial and residential uses. Residential podium buildings greater than three stories and over 30 dwelling units, with a common garage, are strongly encouraged to provide trash and recycling chutes to a common trash room, typically in the garage. When stored in private garages, sufficient space must be provided for the three bins outside of the required parking space (20'x20' for 2 -car garage, 10'x20' for single -car and 10'x36' for tandem garages). There also must be adequate clearance to manuever the bins past parked cars and out to the street. Refuse enclosures shall be opaque for at least the height of the tallest waste container and must have a solid cover to prevent rainwater intrusion and windblown trash, in compliance with the City of Temecula Water Quality Management Plan. Common waste bin enclosures shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code and the City of Temecula Waste and Recycling Guidelines for Commercial and Multifamily Housing, which detail clearances around bins, aisles, gates and a paved surface with curb. Clearances for truck access must be provided as defined in the guidelines. Paving in front of refuse enclosures shall be reinforced with stress pads to protect the paving from the weight and operation of the collection truck. Site plans and trash enclosure plans for all new projects shall be submitted to the City and the franchise waste hauler for review and approval.. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-27 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.10 Building Types A wide variety of building types are encouraged at Altair, to promote the social diversity of the community as well as serving the housing needs of the City of Temecula. A mix of building types also enhances visual interest and creates a vibrant urban fabric. The building types should support the goals of a compact and walkable com- munity with fairly high densities. Traditional, single-family houses on single lots are not included, as they are al- ready prevalent in the City. Large footprint multi -family housing encircling common garages, commonly referred to as "wraps", are also discouraged because they create uncomfortably large block lengths for pedestrians. Building types are listed below and are described in greater detail in the following pages. Table 10-4 as well as the Planning Area descriptions in Section 3 identify allowable building types for each village. section Building Type Lot Width (ft.) Lot Depth (ft.) Private Open Space Common Open Space Building Height min. 25 max. 45 min. 60 max. -- 1 ratio 100% 3,5 min. size 4 100 s.f. area per d.u. 80 s.f. (stories) 2 - 4 10.11 Detached Housing 10.12 Multiplex 24 -- 35 -- 100% 4 100 s.f. 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.13 Rowhouse 24 -- 35 -- 100% 4 100 s.f. 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.14 Live / Work 24 -- 35 -- 100% 4 100 s.f. 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.15 Multifamily Walk -Up -- -- -- -- 100% 80 s.f. 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.16 Multifamily Podium -- -- -- -- 100% 60 s.f. 50 s.f. 4 - 5 10.17 Micro Unit 2 2 2 2 75% 50 s.f. 45 s.f. -- 2 10.18 Mixed Use -- -- -- -- 100% 60 s.f. 50 s.f. 4 - 5 10.19 Iconic Tower 50-75 feet 10.20 Civic Buildings 2 10.21 School Buildings 2 10.22 Community Buildings 1- 3 Notes: 1. Percentage of dwelling units that must provide a private exterior open space of the minimum size indicated. 2. As defined by the building type in which the micro -unit is located. 3. If project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit, but to no less than 6' x 6'. 4. If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in the noted housing types, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. for that dwelling unit, but to no less than 6' x 6'. 5. Reductions granted by notes 3 and 4 may not be used in combination. Table 10-4 Building Types November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN A tir 10.11 Detached Housing Single -Family cluster development consists of individually owned, multistory dwellings arranged around or along a common outdoor space. In contrast to traditional single-family / single -lot housing, a higher density is achieved in the cluster type by placing buildings in close proximity to each other and by greatly reducing or eliminating private yards. The design and execution of the common outdoor space is critical to replace the privacy and buffering provided by private yards. Buildings may be arranged around courts, commons, greens or linearly along pedestrian mews, paseos, or "rosewalks". Each dwelling has a private garage accessed from a motor court or alley. Figure 10-16 Detached Housing with small entry yard A. Lot Size Width: 25 feet minimum; 45 feet maximum, except at corner lots Depth: 60 feet minimum; no maximum B. Access: 1. All units shall have doors at street level facing the lot frontage or common open space. Stoops are encouraged, except at required accessible units for the disabled. 2. Private garages should be accessed through the dwelling or a private, enclosed court. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-29 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-30 Setback Per Table 10-2 w w BUNGALOW COURT 6' Minimum Between Houses ALLEY ALLEY Garages Face Alley Garages Face Alley A Pedestrian Front Entry TVehicular Garage Entry 6' Minimum Between Houses a ALLEY OR MOTOR COURT Figure 10-17 Detached Housing clustered around common green spaced November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN A tir STREET 1 Afir C. Parking: 1. See Table 10-3 for the required minimum number of resident and guest parking spaces. 2. See Section 10.7 for general parking requirements. 3. Required enclosed parking shall be in private garages accessed from a motor court or alley. See Section 9.3.12 and Figure 10-17 through Figure 10-19 for motor court and alley standards. 4. Garages must be of sufficient size to allow a 20'x20' parking area (for 2 -car garages) clear of any equipment and clear of the space needed for refuse and recycling bin storage. The clear parking area shall be 10'x20' for single -car garages or 10' x 36' for tandem garages. 5. An enclosed storage area for three bins (refuse, recycling and organic waste) must be provided at each dwelling unit, preferably in private garages. Location for bin storage in garages must allow for manuevering of the bins to the street or alley when cars are parked. 6. Garages may be attached, detached or located beneath the dwelling and shall be fully enclosed. Detached garages must be linked to dwellings by walls, trellises and / or decorative paving to create an outdoor room between the garage and dwelling, and shall be of similar materials as the dwelling. 7. Unenclosed off-street guest parking shall be located in motor courts or behind buildings and shall not be visible from streets. See Figure 9-1 and Figure 10-19. 8. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be covered with a trellis or solar panels. 9. Dwelling units may have direct or indirect access to parking stalls. c E Ln co 4 v J 30' min. 45' max. Property Line Garages Face Alley .—HAlley paving meanders around landscape, utility, and/or parking area 6'Min. Between Buildings Figure 10-18 Detached Housing Facing Street SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-31 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 STREET MOTOR COURT V Entry ! - I Figure 10-19 Detached Housing around Motor Court Property Line Garage entries & additional parking at motor court. Dwelling entries at common green space(pedestrian only). Common may be easement or separate parcel. D. Services: 1. Utilities and meters shall be screened from view from the street or common areas. 2. Residential mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units shall be located on private property and screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Sections 9.5 and 9.6. 3. Air conditioner compressors should not be near dwelling entries. 4. A common area to store the individual bins for organic waste for each dwelling unit may be considered, if consistent with the franchise waste disposal agreement and as approved by the Planning Director and franchise hauler. The storage area shall be enclosed by walls or an opaque fence and roof. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANr.] Figure 10-20 Detached Housing Clustered around Green E. Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 100% of detached dwelling units shall have at least 100 square feet of private open space in a balcony, porch, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 6'-0" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2. If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in a detached dwelling unit, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. for that dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for common open space on the second level or higher (note 5 below). 3. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 80 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space may be shared among buildings in a single, central park, but the minimum ratio shall be based on the total number of dwelling units and may not be reduced. 5. If a project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for private open space on the third level or higher (note 2 above). 6. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 7. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. 8. Roof decks and terraces are encouraged. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-33 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 EVERGREEN =OUNDAT •N SHRUB, TYPICAL._- 4w, • r O*O*O*OO ovmei o*'o*4;*%ivo ACCENT SHRUB, TYPICAL. ACCENT TREE, TYPICAL. FLOWERING ACCENT PERENNIAL SHRUBS, TYPICAL. EVERGREEN GROUNDCOVER, TYPICAL. ACCENT SHRUB EVERGREEN CANOPY TREE, TYP. CONCRETE WALK STREET TREE PROPERTY LINE 7' WIDE SIDEWALK 5' WIDE PARKWAY ACCENT TREE, TYPICAL. EVERGREEN FOUNDATION SHRUB, TYPICAL. FLOWERING ACCENT PERENNIAL SHRUBS, TYPICAL. Figure 10-21 Typical Landscaping at Bungalow Court and Rose Court November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN A kir MTTORCOURT EVERGREEN FOUN HRUB, TYPIC L. FLOWERING A PERENNIAL S EVERGREEN GROUNDCOV ACCENT SHR B, TYPICAL. ACCENT TREE, TYPICAL. D�O�Or1K • STREET ALLEY STREET TREE PROPERTY LINE 7' WIDE SIDEWALK 5' WIDE PARKWAY EVERGREEN FOUDATION SHRUB, TYPICAL. FLOWERING ACC�NT PERENNIAL SHRU S, TYPICAL. EVERGREEN GROUNDCOVER, TYPICAL. ACCIN TREE, TYPICA ACCEN SHRUB, TYPICA STREET STREET TREE PROPERTY LINE 7' WIDE SIDEWALK 5' WIDE PARKWAY Figure 10-22 Typical Front Yard Landscaping at Detached Housing Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 SIMILAR MATERIALS WITHIN GROUP - OF BUILDINGS F. Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3. Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Porches, stoops and balconies may project into required street setbacks. H. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two to four stories. 2. The fourth story may not exceed 65% of the building footprint area. See Figure 10-23. 3. A minimum of 6 feet shall be provided between buildings. 4. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. AREA OF 4th FLOOR MAY NOT EXCEED 65% OF FOOTPRINT AREA LEVEL 4 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA Figure 10-23 4th Floor Limits in Detached Housing LOW WALLS AT GRADE Figure 10-24 Typical Massing at Detached Housing LANDSCAPED SPACE BETWEEN BUILDINGS VARIED MATERIALS AT EACH DWELLING November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN11�I Accessory Dwellings: 1. Accessory dwellings are allowed with detached housing, and should be linked to dwellings by walls, trellises and / or decorative paving to create an outdoor room between the main and accessory dwelling. See Figure 10-25. Both dwellings shall be of similar materials. 2. The accessory dwelling shall be smaller than and clearly subsidiary to the main dwelling. Only one accessory dwelling is permitted per detached home. 3. Accessory dwellings may be located over detached garages. 4. A secondary dwelling unit permit is required for accessory dwelling units that include cooking facilities with a vent. 5. One off-street covered parking space shall be provided for each accessory dwelling unit in addition to the parking required for the main dwelling unit. 6. Accessory dwelling units may not be sold separately or sub -divided from the main residence. Afir Accessory Dwelling Detached Garage Property Line Street or Common Figure 10-25 Detached garages and/or accessory dwelling . SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.12 Multi- Plex Multi-plexes combine two- to six -dwelling units into one structure. They differ from both the single-family cluster type and the rowhouse type in that the individual dwelling unit is not distinctly expressed in the multi-plex type. Duplexes and triplexes in particular should appear as a single large house. Duplexes and triplexes can then be combined with courtyards to form quad- and six-plexes. Multi-plexes generally include multi -story dwelling units of two to three stories each. Flats may be allowed in combination with multi -story dwellings, but no multi-plex structure should consist exclusively of flats. A. Lot Size Width: 24 feet, minimum Depth: 35 feet, minimum B. Access: 1. Dwelling unit entries shall primarily be located at the ground floor. 2. No dwelling unit entry shall be above the second floor above grade. 3. Dwelling unit entries should be located on different facades in an asymetrical arrangement or may face interior courts. 4. At least one dwelling unit entry of a multi-plex shall face the street at or near street level. 5. Each dwelling unit entry should have a unique character and/ or orientation. C. Parking: 1. Required enclosed parking shall be in private garages below and / or adjacent to dwelling units. 2. Garage entries should be on different sides of the multi-plex structure. 3. Garage doors should be of similar materials, but should vary in size or detailing. 4. Free-standing private garages are discouraged. 5. Dwelling units shall have direct access to parking garages. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN SIMILAR AND COMPLEMENTARY MATERIALS REDUCE MASS WITH DECKS, OVERHANGS, ETC. Afir GARAGES ON DIFFERENT SIDES Figure 10-26 Typical Massing at Multiplex 6. Garages must be of sufficient size to allow a 20'x20' parking area (for 2 -car garages) clear of any equipment and clear of the space needed for refuse and recycling bin storage. The clear parking area shall be 10'x20' for single -car garages or 10' x 36' for tandem garages. 7. An enclosed storage area for three bins (refuse, recycling and organic yard waste) must be provided at each dwelling unit, preferably in private garages. Location for bin storage in garages must allow for manuevering of the bins to the street or alley when cars are parked. Alternatively, a common space may be provided as described in the next paragraph. D. Services: 1. In lieu of waste bin storage in individual garages, a common area may be provided to store the individual bins for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins for each dwelling unit, or common dumpster bins for each type of waste. The storage area shall be enclosed by walls or an opaque fence and roof. 2. Access must be provided to common waste storage enclosures from each dwelling unit, as well as access by collection trucks per Section 10.9. Driveway or alley access is accept- able for both resident and collection access, if consistent with the franchise waste disposal agreement and as approved by the Planning Director and franchise hauler. 3. Utilities and meters shall be screened from view from the street or common areas. 4. Residential mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units shall be located on private property and screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Sections 9.5 and 9.6. 5. Air conditioner compressors should not be near dwelling entries. 6. A fire riser room is required to house the fire sprinkler riser and fire alarm control panel. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DISTINCT DWELLING ENTRIES 10-39 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 — VARIED ROOF FORMS STEPPED BUILDING E. Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 100% of multiplex dwelling units shall have at least 100 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 6'-0" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2. If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in a multiplex dwelling unit, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. for that dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for common open space on the second level or higher (note 5 below). 3. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 60 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space may be shared among buildings in a single, central park, but the minimum ratio shall be based on the total number of dwelling units and may not be reduced. 5. If project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for private open space on the third level or higher (note 2 above). FORMS WITH ROOF DECK OVER GARAGE DISTINCT DWELLING ENTRIES Figure 10-27 Multiplex Housing with shared Driveway & Motor Court , ENHANCED PAVING DEFINES DRIVE COURT LOW WALLS & GATE AT SHARED DRIVEWAY DEFINE STREET WALL November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir 6. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 7. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. 8. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 9. Roof decks and terraces are encouraged. F. Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3. Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Porches, stoops and balconies may project into required street setbacks. H. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two to four stories. 2. The fourth story may not exceed 65% of the building footprint area. See Figure 10-23. 3. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. Accessory Dwellings: Accessory dwellings are not appropriate to the multi-plex building type. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-41 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.13 Rowhouse Rowhouses are attached dwelling units arranged side-by-side, typically in a linear manner. The massing and character of the rowhouse type differs from multi-plexes in the clear and distinct expression of each dwelling unit. The basic forms and volumes should be repetitve, creating a rhythm of projecting elements both in plan and elevation. Materials should be consistent and complementary. Variation is achieved through modulation of the facade and roof line, rather than through color and materials. Dwelling units can be given individuality by smaller changes in entry detailing, etc. The end units of a row should have openings on the side and a counterpoint to the forms of the middle units. A. Lot Size Width: 24 feet, minimum Depth: 35 feet, minimum B. Access: 1. All units, except end units, shall have doors at street level facing the lot frontage or common open space. Stoops are encouraged, except at required accessible units for the disabled. 2. End units should have doors at the end (side) walls. REPETITIVE ENTRY DETAILS AND MATERIA STOOPS VARY IN ORIENTATION, BUT NOT MATERIALS Figure 10-28 Rowhomes provide an interesting rhythm along a street facade. November 2017 REPETITIVE VOLUMES AND ROOF FORMS SPECIFIC PLAN Afir C. Parking: 1. Required enclosed parking shall be in private garages accessed from a motor court or alley. See Section 9.3.12 for motor court standards. 2. Garage entrances should be on the opposite side of the building from the predominant entry side, to avoid interruption of the pedestrian frontage by driveways. 3. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be located in motor courts or behind buildings and shall not be visible from streets. 4. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be covered with a trellis or solar panels. 5. Free-standing private garages are discouraged. 6. Dwelling units shall have direct access to parking garages. 7. Garages must be of sufficient size to allow a 20'x20' parking area (for 2 -car garages) clear of any equipment and clear of the space needed for refuse and recycling bin storage. The clear parking area shall be 10'x20' for single -car garages or 10' x 36' for tandem garages. 8. An enclosed storage area for three bins (refuse, recycling and organic waste) must be provided at each dwelling unit, preferably in private garages. Location for bin storage in garages must allow for manuevering of the bins to the street or alley when cars are parked. D. Services: 1. In lieu of waste bin storage in individual garages, a common area may be provided to store the individual bins for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins for each dwelling unit, or common dumpster bins for each type of waste. The storage area shall be enclosed by walls or an opaque fence and roof. 2. Access must be provided to common waste storage enclosures from each dwelling unit, as well as access by collection trucks per Section 10.9. Driveway or alley access is acceptable for both resident and collection access, if consistent with the franchise waste disposal agreement and as approved by the Planning Director and franchise hauler. 3. Utilities and meters shall be screened from view from the street or common areas. 4. Residential mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units shall be located on private property and screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Sections 9.5 and 9.6. 5. Air conditioner compressors should not be near dwelling entries. 6. A fire riser room is required to house the fire sprinkler riser and fire alarm control panel. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-43 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 E. Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 100% of rowhouse dwelling units shall have at least 100 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 6'-0" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2. If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in a rowhouse unit, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. for that dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for common open space on the second level or higher (note 5 below). 3. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 60 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space may be shared among buildings in a single, central park, but the mini- mum ratio shall be based on the total number of dwelling units and may not be reduced. 5. If a project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for private open space on the third level or higher (note 2 above). 6. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 7. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. 8. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the com- mon open space requirement. 9. Roof decks and terraces are encouraged. F. Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3. Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Porches, stoops and balconies may project into required street setbacks. See Section 10.4. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN REPEATED VERTICAL VOLU MES Figure 10-29 Rowhouse massing and articulation 'l/I,II/'SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 • Rhythm and repetition of forms are fundemental to rowhouse massing Entry porches and stoop add visual interest at street level, continue rhythm, and reduce scale. Repetitive roof forms and differentiation of end units. 10-45 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 H. Building.Size and Massing; 1. Buildings may be two to four stories. 2. No dwelling unit entries may be above the third story. 3. The fourth story may not exceed 65% of the building footprint area. See Figure 10-23. 4. Rhythm and repetition of forms are fundamental to row house massing 5. Entry porches and stoops add visual interest at street level, continue rhythms and reduce scale. 6. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. I. Accessory Dwellings: Accessory dwellings are not allowed in the rowhouse building type. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN EMPHASIZE CORNERS CONSISTENT SIGNAGE PROGRAM 10.14 Live/Work The Live / Work building type combines residential and commercial uses into a single dwelling unit. Those dwelling units are then repeated side-by-side to create a commercial strip that serves as the focus of a neighborhood. The residential portion of the unit can either be behind or above the commercial portion. Subject to building codes and other applicable regulations, the living space may be either open to or separated from the commercial space. Additional residential -only units may also be included in Live / Work buildings, typically on upper floors. A. Lot Size Width: 24 feet, minimum Depth: 35 feet, minimum f RECESSED COMMERCIAL ENTRIES OR ARCADE DISTINCT RESIDENTIAL SCALE AT UPPER LEVELS AWNINGS OR ARCADE FOR SHADE SHOPFRONT PER GUIDELINES IN SECTION 9.4.7 Figure 10-30 Typical Live/Work Building Ufa SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-47 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 — B. Access: 1. All commercial spaces shall be accessed at street level, generally on the same side of the building. 2. Commercial frontage shall follow the "shopfront" guidelines in Section 9.4.7. Arcades (Section 9.4.8) are also appropriate at Live/Work buildings 3. Separate doors shall be provided to the residential portions of live/work units. These doors may be located at the commercial "store front" facade of the building or at the rear or sides. 4. Residential entries adjacent to commercial "store fronts" shall be limited to doorways and shall not include any living space, in order to maintain a cohesive and uninterrupted commercial "street". 5. If residential entries are adjacent to commercial entries, they should be designed to clearly differentiate between residential and commercial access. For example, the dwelling entry might have an opaque door and stoop, while the commercial front would be very transparent with at -grade entry. Figure 10-31 Example Live/Work Building Section C. Parking: 1. Residential parking shall be in enclosed private garages accessed from the rear of the building, opposite the commercial front 2. Commercial parking will be provided on the street. 3. Garages must be of sufficient size to allow a 20'x20' parking area (for 2 -car garages) clear of any equipment and clear of the space needed for refuse and recycling bin storage, if not provided in a common area. The clear parking area shall be 10'x20' for single -car garages or 10' x 36' for tandem garages. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN D. Services: 1. A common enclosure for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided in motor courts or alleys and shall be covered by an opaque fence and roof. 2. For Live/Work units, the commercial and residential bin requirements should be calculated separately for the areas of each use. See Section 10.9. 3. See Section 10.9 for trash bin enclosure requirements. 4. Access must be provided to common waste storage enclosures from each dwelling unit, as well as access by collection trucks per Section 10.9. Driveway or alley access is acceptable for both resident and collection access, if consistent with the franchise waste disposal agreement and as approved by the Planning Director and franchise hauler. 5. Utilities and meters shall be grouped as much as possible and shall be screened from view from the street or common areas. 6. Residential mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units shall be located on private property and screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Sections 9.5 and 9.6. 7. Air conditioner compressors shall be located on the roof and screened from view from the street, public areas or other buildings with a parapet or mechanical equipment screen. E. Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 100% of live/work dwelling units shall have at least 100 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 5'-6" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2. If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in a live/work unit, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. for that dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for common open space on the second level or higher (note 5 below). 3. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 60 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space may be shared among buildings in a single, central park, but the minimum ratio shall be based on the total number of dwelling units and may not be reduced. 5. If a project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for private open space on the third level or higher (note 2 above). 6. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 7. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. 8. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 9. Roof decks and terraces are encouraged. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-49 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 F. Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3. Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Porches, stoops and balconies may project into required street setbacks. See Section 10.4. H. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two to four stories. 2. No dwelling unit entries may be above the third story. 3. The fourth story may not exceed 65% of the building footprint area. See Figure 10-23. 4. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. Accessory Dwellings: Accessory dwellings are not allowed in the live/work building type. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 10.15 Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Walkups are buildings of two to four stories combining stacked dwelling units. The dwelling units are typically flats, but can be multistory. Vertical circulation is via stairs rather than elevators, typically exterior stairs and walkways that are internal to the site. A. Lot Size Not applicable to this building type B. Access: VARIED ROOF LINES HIGHLY DETAILED 3 - DIMENSIONAL FACADES 1. Ground floor units shall have doors at street level facing the lot frontage or common open space. Stoops are encouraged, except at required accessible units for the disabled. 2. Upper level units are accessed via open stairs and walkways. No more than four dwelling units shall be served by a single walkway. C. Parking 1. Required enclosed parking shall be in private, interior tuck -under garages accessed from a motor court. See Section 9.3.12 and Figure 10-33 for motor court standards. 2. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be located in motor courts or behind buildings and shall not be visible from streets. 3. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be covered with a trellis or solar panels. LOW WALLS AT GRADE Figure 10-32 Typical Massing at Multifamily Walk -Up SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 VARIED MATERIALS 10-51 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1( 4. Garages must be of sufficient size to allow a 20'x20' parking area (for 2 -car garages) clear of any equipment and clear of the space needed for refuse and recycling bin storage, if not provided in a common area. The clear parking area shall be 10'x20' for single -car garages or 10' x 36' for tandem garages. Free-standing private garages are permitted. 5. Dwelling units may have direct or indirect access to parking stalls. VARY GARAGE DOOR SIZE&TYPE DECORATIVE GARAGE DOORS OF HIGH-QUALITY MATERIALS COVERED REFUSE ENCLOSURE WINDOWS+BALCONIES FACE COURT GATEWAY HIGHLY DETAILED ENTRY 3-DIMENSIONAL FACADES TRELLIS OR SOLAR PANEL TO SHADE PARKING ENHANCED PERVIOUS PAVING Figure 10-33 Motor Court at Multifamily Housing D. Services: 1. Common enclosures for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided in motor courts and shall be covered by an opaque fence and roof. 2. See Section 10.9 for trash bin enclosure requirements. 3. Access must be provided to common waste storage enclosures from each dwelling unit, as well as access by collection trucks per Section 10.9. Driveway or alley access is acceptable for both resident and collection access, if consistent with the franchise waste disposal agreement and as approved by the Planning Director and franchise hauler.. 4. Utilities and meters shall be grouped as much as possible and shall be screened from view from the street or common areas. 5. Air conditioner compressors shall be located on the roof and screened from view from the street, public areas or other buildings with a parapet or mechanical equipment screen. LANDSCAPING AT VARIOUS HEIGHTS MAXIMIZE GREEN SPACE November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN E. Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 100% of multifamily walk-up dwelling units shall have at least 80 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 6'-0" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 60 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. 3. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space may be shared among buildings in a single, central park, but the minimum ratio shall be based on the total number of dwelling units and may not be reduced. 5. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 6. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 7. Roof decks and terraces are encouraged for either private or common open space. 8. If the project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with other reductions for private open space. 9. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. pedestrian access vehicular entries Figure 10-34 Multifamily Walk -Up Housing Arrangement arranged to form a court with multiple vehicular and pedestrian openings Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-53 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-54 F. Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3. Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Porches, stoops and balconies may project into required street setbacks. See Section 10.4. H. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two to four stories. 2. No dwelling unit entries may be above the third story. 3. The fourth story may not exceed 65% of the building footprint area. See Figure 10-23. 4. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. Accessory Dwellings: Accessory dwellings are not allowed in the multifamily building type. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 10.16 Multifamily Podium Multifamily Podium buildings combine four or five stories of stacked dwelling units over a subterranean or partially subterranean enclosed parking garage. The dwelling units are typically flats, but can be multistory. Vertical circulation is via interior stairs and elevators, accessing internal common corridors. Multifamily podium buildings are often also mixed-use buildings (see 10.18). Ground floor retail is encouraged in multifamily podium buildings to activate the street and the pedestrian experience. A. Lot Size Not applicable to this building type. B. Access: 1. Dwelling units are typically accessed via internal common corridors. 2. Entries to the building are through a common lobby and directly from the garage. 3. Ground floor units may have doors at street level facing the lot frontage or common open space, but this is not a requirement. 4. The common garage is accessed by no more than two secured openings from a driveway or alley, not directly from the street. C. Parking: 1. Required enclosed parking shall be located below the residential portion of the building, typically in a common garage structure. 2. Private garages may be allowed to satisfy a portion of the enclosed parking requirement, provided they are located along the edge of the common garage, under the footprint of the residential floors, and are accessed from an alley or motor court. 3. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be covered with a trellis or solar panels. 4. Free-standing private garages are not permitted to serve multifamily podium buildings. 5. Dwelling units shall have direct access through the building to the common parking garage. Figure 10-35 Multifamily Podium example with street -level entries. 1_21/111/111LISPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-55 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 — D. Services: 1. Common refuse and recycling bins shall be provided in an enclosed room within the common garage. 2. Residential podium buildings greater than three stories and over 30 dwelling units, with a common garage, are strongly encouraged to provide trash and recycling chutes to a common trash room. 3. An area for organic waste bins shall be provided outside the building and shall be covered by an opaque fence and roof. 4. See Section 10.9 for trash room and waste bin enclosure requirements. 5. Compactors are encouraged to reduce the quantity of bins and resultant space needed. 6. Air conditioner compressors shall be located on the roof and screened from view from the street, public areas or other buildings with a parapet or mechanical equipment screen. Figure 10-36 Multifamily Podium Building 7. Utilities shall be screened from view from the street and closets with decorative gates and fencing for security. E. 1. shall be located in building recesses or Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) Private Open Space: 100% of multifamily podium dwelling units shall have at least 60 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 6'-0" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 50 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. 3. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space is typically accomodated as a courtyard over the parking structure and/or located on roof decks. 5. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 6. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 7. Both private and common roof decks and terraces are encouraged. 8. If the project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit, but not to less than 6' x 6'. This reduction may not be used in combination with other reductions for private open space. 9. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANr.] F. Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3. Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Stoops, balconies, canopies and entry marquees may project into required street setbacks. BuildinLSize and Massing: 1. Buildings may be four to five stories. 2. Massing shall be broken into multiple components resulting in an overall pedestrian scale. 3. Provide multiple off -setting planes at each facade. 4. Vary roof lines. 5. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. Accessory Dwellings: Accessory dwellings are not allowed in the multifamily podium building type. Afir Figure 10-37 Resident Courtyard at Multifamily Podium Housing SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-57 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1C 10.17 Micro -Units Micro -units are efficiency dwelling units that provide affordable housing for smaller households. The units are typically between 250 and 400 square feet. Micro -units may be located in any building type except detached housing, although they may be an accessory dwelling to detached housing as described in paragraph 10.11.1. .r A. Development Standards: Micro -units shall comply with Sections 17.10.025. C and D of the Temecula Municipal Code. B. Lot Size: As defined by the building type in which the unit is located. C. Access: As defined by the building type in which the unit is located. Figure 10-38 Micro -Units Typical Layout D. Parking: 1. Parking for micro -units shall be provided at a ratio of one space per dwelling unit. 2. If the micro -unit development employs management or support staff on site, then one parking space shall be provided for each employee that does not live on on site. 3. Micro -unit parking may be enclosed or open. D. Services: As defined by the building type in which the unit is located. Figure 10-39 Building with Micro -Units November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN E. Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 75% of micro dwelling units shall have at least 50 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. 2. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 45 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 3. Common open space is typically accomodated as a courtyard over the parking structure and/or located on roof decks. 4. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 5. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 6. Both private and common roof decks and terraces are encouraged. 7. If the project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit, but not to less than 6' x 6'. This reduction may not be used in combination with other reductions for private open space. 8. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. F. Landscape Standards: As defined by the building type_in which the unit is located. G. Frontage Guidelines: As defined by the building type in which the unit is located. H. Building Size and Massing: As defined by the building type in which the unit is located. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-59 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.18 Mixed -Use Mixed -Use buildings combine two or more distinct uses into a single structure or group, typically residential in combination with neighborhood -serving commercial, service or office uses. Mixed-use buildings benefit a community by activating the public realm and providing goods and services within walking distance of dwellings. Mixed -uses are generally stacked vertically, with dwellings over ground floor commercial. A podium building type with a subterranean garage, retail space at street level and several stories of residential flats above is a common example of a mixed-use building. Different uses may also occur side-by-side, such as rowhouses with a commercial or office use at the end of a row or at a street corner. A. Develgpment Standards: 1. Commercial, assembly or office uses shall occur at the ground floor and shall have direct access from the street frontage or a public plaza or park. 2. Multi-level uses are allowed if the levels share an entry at the street. 3. Individual tenants in non-residential uses should have distinct entries at street level. B. Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN C. Access: 1. Dwelling units above street level uses are typically accessed via internal common corridors. 2. Entries to upper level residential units are through a common lobby and directly from the garage. 3. Rowhomes in mixed-use blocks shall have entries at street level facing the lot frontage or common open space. Stoops are encouraged, except at required accessible units for the disabled. 4. The common garage is accessed by no more than two secured openings from a driveway or alley, not directly from the street. Di Parking.: 1. Required parking quantity shall be calculated based on the cumulative requirements of each use. 2. A reduction for shared parking between uses may be allowed if justified through an approved shared parking analysis, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. 3. Parking provided for multiple uses, including residential, may be located in the same common garage structure or area. 4. Reserved residential parking shall be secured separately from parking provided for other uses. 5. Private residential garages may be allowed to satisfy a portion of the enclosed parking requirement, provided they are located along the edge of the common garage, under the footprint of the residential floors, and are accessed from an alley or motor court. 6. Unenclosed off-street residential and office parking shall be covered with a trellis or solar panels. 7. Free-standing private garages are not permitted to serve mixed-use buildings. 8. Dwelling units shall have direct access through the building to a common parking garage. D. Services: 1. Common refuse and recycling bins shall be provided in an enclosed room within the common garage. 2. Residential buildings greater than three stories should have trash and recycling chutes to a trash room. 3. An area for organic waste bins shall be provided outside the building and shall be covered by an opaque fence and roof. 4. See Section 10.9 and the City of Temecula Waste and Recycling Guidelines for trash room and waste bin enclosure requirements. 5. The commercial and residential bin requirements should be calculated separately for the areas of each use, per the requirements of the City of Temecula Waste and Recycling Guidelines and as approved by the Planning Director and the franchise hauler. 6. Compactors are encouraged to reduce the quantity of bins and resultant space needed. 7. Air conditioner compressors shall be located on the roof and screened from view from the street, public areas or other buildings with a parapet or mechanical equipment screen. 8. Utilities shall be screened from view from the street and shall be located in building recesses or closets with decorative gates and fencing for security. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-61 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-62 E. Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 100% of dwelling units in mixed-use buildings shall have at least 60 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. 2. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 50 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. 3. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space is typically accomodated as a courtyard over the parking structure and/or located on roof decks. 5. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 6. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 7. Both private and common roof decks and terraces are encouraged. 8. If the project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with other reductions for private open space. 9. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. F. Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3. Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Stoops, balconies, canopies and entry marquees may project into required street setbacks. H. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be four to five stories. 2. Massing shall be broken into multiple components resulting in an overall pedestrian scale. 3. Each use shall be distinctly expressed on the building exterior through scale, materials, detailing and ornament appropriate to each use. 4. Provide multiple off -setting planes at each facade. 5. Vary roof lines. 6. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. Accessory Dwellings: Accessory dwellings are not allowed in the mixed-use building type. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 10.19 Iconic Tower An Iconic Tower is featured in Village C, where it can be see from most of the Altair community and from Main Street in Old Town. A. Development Standards: 1. See Figure 10-40. 2. A commercial use may be located at the base of the tower. 3. There shall only be one iconic tower. B. Building Size and Massing: 1. Tower height will be between 50 feet and 75 feet. 2. Proportions shall emphasize verticality. 3. Tower may be attached to a building or may be free-standing. C. Parking, services, open space, landscape standards, frontage guidelines and accessory dwelling regulations do not apply to this building type. 3 SLOPED ROOF OF METAL OR TILE CLOCK OR SIGNATURE ARTWORK STONE OR BRICK VENEER ON ALL OR PORTION OF WALLS ON ALL SIDES REVEALS AND NARROW OPENINGS DEEP OPENINGS WITH WRAPPED VENEER FINISH TO MAKE WALLS APPEAR THICK TOWER SHALL BE DESIGNED AS A 3-DIMENSIONAL ELEMENT TO BE VIEWED FROM ALL EXPOSED SIDES. Figure 10-40 Iconic Tower CONCEPTUAL IMAGE ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-63 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.20 Civic Buildings / Nature Center Civic buildings are located at the Civic Site, where a Nature Center is proposed (see Section 3.13). This category does not include community buildings, such as recreation centers and clubhouses that are described in Section 10.22. A. Development Standards: 1. The nature center at the Civic Site must be sensitive to the adjacent natural open space and the Pechanga Origin Area/ Traditional Cultural Place (TCP) site to the south. 2. The scale, materials and style of civic buildings should be appropriate for a public facility and should be an asset to the community. 3. Materials at the nature center shall be sturdy, fire-resistant and complementary to the natural setting, with massing and details appropriate to those materials, as seen in the "PARKitecture style" of many buildings in National Parks of the West. 4. Integrated indoor and outdoor spaces are encouraged. 5. Attached or detached shade structures that are appropriate to the building style are encouraged. 6. The building and key outdoor spaces should be arranged to maximize and/ or frame views that have historic or regional significance. Educational installations, such as plaques or artwork, are appropriate to explain these vistas. NATURE CENTER AT SAN ELIJO LAGOON, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA B. Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. C. Access: 1. Building entries will typically be at the ground floor and should be apparent to visitors. 2. Pedestrian access must be provided from a public way, from public transportation, and from off-street parking. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir D. Parking: 1. Surface parking must be landscaped per Section 10.6.12 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.050.H. Solar panels on canopy structures may be substituted for required trees in the same ratio. 2. See Section 3.13 for additional parking standards. E. Services: 1. Loading zones shall be provided per Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.060. Delivery and loading areas shall be screened from view from the street. 2. A single area for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided and shall be screened by an opaque fence or wall and covered. 3. Additional refuse and recycling receptacles shall be distributed along trails and in parking areas. Receptacles shall have an integral lid or be otherwise designed to prevent wind-blown trash and to keep animals out. A combined refuse / recycling receptacle is preferred. 4. See Section 10.9 for enclosure and access requirements for trash collection. 5. Utilities shall be grouped and screened from view from the street, trails or common areas. F. Open Space: Common open space will be provided as described in Section 3.13. Spaces should facilitate gatherings and the interaction of visitors with staff and with the surrounding environment. G. Landscape Standards: See Section 10.6.11 (Civic / Community) as well as the corresponding plant lists in Appendix A. H. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Section 9.4 for applicable street and garden frontage types. 2. The nature center should provide a public front on all sides, not just a single facade. 2. Frontages for civic buildings should be of a larger scale than residential frontages to convey a greater sense of importance. 3. Architectural elements should characterize social institutions, rather than residences. Spaces that comprise civic frontages are public and should celebrate building entry. 4. Arcades, colonnades, entry courts and shopfronts are appropriate to civic buildings such as a nature center. They also provide shade and help to integrate the building into the landscape. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two stories maximum. 2. Floor plates of an individual building should not exceed 15,000 sf. 3. Individual buildings should be well-proportioned. Massing that sprawls horizontally, as in a large 1 -story building, does not present the proper stature of a civic building. Avoid tower forms that compete with the Iconic Tower at Altair's core. J. Accessory Dwellings: A park ranger's residence is permitted, subject to City design review. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-65 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.21 School Buildings The educational buildings at the School Site will ultimately be designed and developed by the Temecula Valley Unified School District with public input. However, the guidelines and standards included in this Specific Plan should be followed to ensure that the school architecture complements the community of Altair and supports the underlying principles of smart growth, compact design, walkability and strong neighborhood identity. See Section 3.12 for further information regarding the site. A. Development Standards: 1. The School Site should be planned as a campus. There should be a clear integration of functional elements within each campus. Multiple buildings are preferred to reduce the overall scale and to create active space between buildings. 2. The relationship between buildings on a campus is as important as the buildings themselves. Buildings should refer to eachother to maintain a cohesive aesthetic. Buildings should be arranged to form outdoor rooms for shared use by occupants. 3. The scale, materials and style of school buildings should be appropriate for a public facility and should be an asset to the community. 5. Integrated indoor and outdoor spaces are encouraged. 6. Materials shall be durable, timeless, and shall give edifices a sense of importance, with massing and details appropriate to those materials. Brick and stone veneers are encouraged, as are metal roofs B. Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. C. Access: 1. Building entries will typically be at the ground floor and should be apparent to students and visitors. 2. There should be a sense of formality to entering the buildings and /or the campus. 3. Clearly defined pedestrian access must be provided from a public way, from public transportation, and from off-street parking. D. Parking: 1. Surface parking must be landscaped per Section 10.6.12 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.050.H. Solar panels on canopy structures may be substituted for required trees in the same ratio. 2. See Sections 3.12 for additional parking standards. E. Services: 1. Loading zones shall be provided per Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.060. Delivery and loading areas shall be screened from view from the street. 2. A single area for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided for each campus and shall be screened by an opaque fence or wall and covered. 3. See Section 10.9 for enclosure and access requirements for trash collection. 4. Utilities shall be grouped and screened from view from the street or common areas. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir ALEX G SPANOS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL F. Open Space: Common open space will be provided as described in Section 3.12. Spaces should facilitate education and recreation programs and the interaction of students. G. Landscape Standards: See Sections 10.6.9 (School) as well as the corresponding plant lists in Appendix A. H. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Section 9.4 for applicable street frontage types. 2. Frontages for educational buildings should be of a larger scale than residential frontages to convey a greater sense of importance. 3. Architectural elements should characterize educational institutions, rather than residences. Spaces that comprise school frontages are public and should celebrate building entry. 4. Arcades, colonnades and entry courts are appropriate to educational buildings. They also provide shaded exterior common spaces to facilitate civic engagement. 5. Frontages should be designed to tie buildings together and create a single theme for the campus. For instance, buildings can be grouped around an entry court with an arcade linking them together. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two stories maximum. 2. Individual buildings should be well-proportioned. Massing that sprawls horizontally, as in a large 1 -story building, does not present the proper stature of a school building. 3. Avoid tower forms that compete with the Iconic Tower at Altair's core. J. Accessory Dwellings: Not applicable. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-67 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-68 10.22 Community Buildings The main community buildings at Altair are located in Village C around its central Plaza that anchors the western end of the Main Street axis to the Temecula Civic Center. These include a Recreation Center with pool to the west of Altair Vista and a Community Center/ Clubhouse east of Altair Vista at the high point of the Village C Park. Smaller community buildings may also occur in the other villages, such as at neighborhood pools and parks. A. Development Standards: 1. The combined community buildings at Village C should frame and define the central Plaza and promontory steps that anchor the Main Street axis. The two buildings should relate to each other to form a cohesive whole. 2. Community buildings should be four-sided, due to their prominent and central location. The Community Center, especially, must have facades addressing the Plaza and Altair Vista as well as the Park. The Park facade may be slightly different in character to engage terraces into the Park and to take advantage of the expanding views. 3. Community buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes, nestling into hillsides, with entries on multiple levels where possible. The Recreation Center, in particular, shall be a two-story structure forming the north edge of the promontory steps, with building entries at the top and bottom landings of these steps and a publicly accessible elevator. 4. Community Buildings should combine interior and exterior space through such design ele- ments as courtyards, terraces, colonnades, roof overhangs and permeable walls with large openings. B. Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. C. Access: 1. Building entries should occur on all at -grade levels and should be apparent to visitors. 2. Pedestrian access must be provided from the common circulation network and from off- street parking. D. Parking: 1. Per Table 10-3. This ratio assumes that most users of Community facilities will be residents who will walk or bike to the facility. 2. Surface parking must be landscaped per Section 10.6.12 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.050.H. Solar panels on canopy structures may be substituted for required trees in the same ratio. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANrJ/!JI E. 1. Services: Loading zones shall be provided per Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.060. Delivery and loading areas shall be screened from view from the street. 2. An area for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided and shall be screened by an opaque fence or wall and covered. 3. See Section 10.9 for enclosure and access requirements for trash collection. 4. Utilities shall be grouped and screened from view from the street or common areas. 5. Mechanical equipment such as cooling towers and water heaters should be located on the building roof and screened from view from the street or from above by parapets, equipment screens or trellises. F. Open Space: Open space requirements do not apply to this building type. However, community buildings are typically adjacent to or within shared open spaces and should be integrated into these landscapes through stepped massing, courtyards, arcades or low walls. G. Landscape Standards: See Sections 10.6.11 (Civic / Community) as well as the corresponding plant lists in Appendix A. H. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Section 9.4 for applicable street frontage types. 2. Frontages for community buildings should be of a larger scale than residential frontages to convey a greater sense of importance. 3. Architectural elements should characterize social institutions. Residential elements such as porches and pitched roofs may also be appropriate, but should be at a larger scale. 4. Arcades, colonnades and entry courts are appropriate to community buildings and provide shaded indoor/outdoor space for passive recreation. 5. A community building sets the aesthetic tone for the village where it is located. The main Recreation Center and Club House, in particular, should be stylistically similar or of similar materials to establish Altair's architectural image. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be one to three stories tall. 2. Floor plates of individual buildings should not exceed 40,000 sf. 3. Individual buildings should be well-proportioned. Massing that sprawls horizontally, as in a large 1 -story building, does not present the proper stature of a civic building. Avoid tower forms that compete with the Iconic Tower at Altair's core. J. Accessory Dwellings: Not applicable. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-69 1 I IMPLEMENTATION 11 IMPLEMENTATION The methodology for the implemenation of the Altair Specific Plan is provided in accordance with Government Code 65451 of the California Planning Law, which requires "a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out" the specific plan. The following elements compose the Implementation Program: 1. Adoption of the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 2. Administration of the Specific Plan 3. Development Agreement 4. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation + Monitoring Program 5. Master Tentative Tract Map 6. Master Conceptual Grading Plan 7. Discretionary Approvals 8. Individual Tentative and Final Maps 9. Finish Grading Plans and Improvement Plans 10. Financing Strategies 11. Maintenance Program The Altair Specific Plan will be adopted by Ordinance of the City of Temecula City Council. Adoption of the Specific Plan defines land use and development standards for the project area which shall supersede current zoning regulations. 11.1 Regulations that Administer the Specific Plan 11.1.1 Development in the Altair Specific Plan area shall be regulated by this document in combination with the City of Temecula General Plan and Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code (referred to as the City of Temecula Development Code). Unless otherwise regulated in this Specific Plan, the following Articles of the City of Temecula Development Code shall apply: Chapter 17.01 General Provisions Chapter 17.03 Administration of Zoning Chapter 17.04 Permits, except 17.04030 Home occupation permits does not apply. A home occupation permit is not required for accessory commercial uses in residential zones (i.e. live/work). Chapter 17.06.050(I.)Family Day Care Home Facilities Chapter 17.06.060 Landscape Standards Chapter 17.16 Specific Plan Zoning District Chapter 17.26 Covenants for Easements Chapter 17.34 Definition of Terms Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance Chapter 17.32 Water Efficient Landscape Design Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 IMPLEMENTATION 11 11-2 The City shall enforce the provisions of the Altair Specific Plan and City Development and Subdivision Codes for all projects located wholly or partially within the Altair Specific Plan area limits, in accordance with the State of California Government Code, Subdivision Map Act and Local Subdivision Ordinance. In case of conflict with directives or restrictions in other documents, the requirements of this specific plan shall apply. Where regulation is not provided in this Specific Plan, the provisions of the Development Code shall prevail. 11.1.2 Minor modifications to the approved Specific Plan which will not detract from the general intent of the plan may be approved by the Planning Director. Such modifications may include, among other allowances: 1. Changes in the size of planning districts (i.e. Villages) not exceeding 20 percent of their gross area and not increasing the overall density of the project. 2. Transfer of density between planning districts, with limitations as described in Section 11.5. 3. Changes to the alignment of pedestrian and/or bicycle paths, or utility networks from that shown in the Specific Plan figures, as long as intended linkages are maintained. 4. Modifications to the orientation of buildings and site elements such as yards, walls, walkways, landscaping or parking from that shown in typical examples. 5. Plant material substitutions, as long as they are consistent with the Landscape Development Standards. 6. Variations of materials, color, architectural styles or design details from those shown in the examples. 7. Reductions from required setbacks not to exceed 15 percent. 8. Future adoption of a Signage Program. 9. Phasing that differs from the Conceptual Phasing Plan and the Phasing Summary in this Specific Plan, as long as the infrastructure and community facilities needs of Altair are met. Any changes to the approved Phasing Plan shall require review and approval from the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments. 10. The Planning Director has the option to allow up to 10% of the required parking stalls to be compact stalls with minimum dimensions of eight feet wide by sixteen feet long, when utilized with electric vehicle charging stations or extensive bike rack systems above the minimum requirements. 11. Exceptions to fence height and material standards at sports fields and dog parks. 11.1.3 Development plans for individual projects (i.e. by Merchant Builders) within the Altair Specific Plan area shall be submitted to the City of Temecula and reviewed by several departments under the following sequential process: 1. Master Developer Consultation With Guest Builder: Guest Builders submit architectural, civil and landscape plans, elevations, sections, renderings and material/color sample boards to the Master Developer. Necessary design revisions are made following consultation. Guest Builders must have approval from the Master Developer prior to making a Pre -Application Submittal to the City of Temecula. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir 11 IMPLEMENTATION 2. Standard Pre -Application Submittal: Following Master Developer approval, a pre -application submittal is made to the City. This free review is intended to provide a more efficient Development Plan review and public hearing process. Applications are reviewed by the Planning, Public Works, Fire, Building and Safety, and Police Departments to assist in providing critical design feedback. The review period is two weeks. Any revisions made during the pre -application process shall be reviewed with the Master Developer prior to Development Plan Submittal to the City. The pre - application submittal should include the following: A. Site plan to include common open space calculation, size and location B. Conceptual architecture plans and elevations C. Private open space calculation, locations and dimensions D. Pedestrian circulation exhibit. E. Trash exhibit. Show garage dimensions and bin locations in single-family residential projects, refuse / recycling enclosure locations, dimensions, materials and cover design in multifamily and commercial development. Show collection route with clearances. See Section 10.10. F. Dimensioned parking exhibit and calculation. See Table 10-3. G. Utilities screening and location exhibit (AC units, electric meters, FDC/PIV, etc...) H. Sign location and size parameters; show dimensioned envelope where signage will occur. Include proposed sign materials and illumination method. See Section 10.5. I. Frontage exhibit. See Figure 9.2 for street and garden frontage orientation. Provide 3-dimensional diagram showing frontage type per Section 9.4 and compliance with build -to line regulations in Section 10.4 and Table 10.2. 3. Development Plan Approval: Development plans and related documents, such as tract maps, grading plans, architectural and engineering drawings are reviewed by the appropriate departments for compliance with requirements and guidelines of this specific plan, The Temecula Municipal Code, conditions of approval and other applicable codes and regulations. Fees are charged for Development Plan review. For Development Plan Approval, City staff must make the following findings: 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Development Agreement, EIR and MMRP 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. 4. Conditions Of Approval govern utilization of the Development Permit and list infrastructure improvements and other requirements necessary for the project or benefitting the community. 5. Planning Commission Approval of each Development Plan is required in order to obtain a Development Permit. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 11-3 IMPLEMENTATION 11 STREET LEGEND PRIVATE STREETS PUBLIC STREETS OFF-SITE STREETS Figure 11-1 Public and Private Roads at Altair November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 11 IMPLEMENTATION Once the Development Permit has been granted, builders may proceed with Plan Check, in which construction documents are reviewed for compliance with requirements and guidelines of this specific plan, conditions of approval and all applicable City, state and federal codes, regulations and standards. Building permits are then issued after approval of construction documents and collection of securities and Development Impact Fees (DIF), as outlined in the Development Agreement. 11.2 Capital Improvements Several capital projects are needed for the successful implementation of the Altair Specific Plan. The projects are listed and detailed in the Development Agreement between the Master Developer and the City of Temecula (see Section 11.7). These projects include: • Western Bypass Road connecting SR -79 South (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. • Improvements to Rancho California Road at its intersection with the Western Bypass • Bridge over Murrieta Creek between Western Bypass and Temecula Parkway • Storm water management system • Water system improvements • Sewer system improvements • B Street intersection with Pujol Street and with the Western Bypass • Pedestrian promenade at the west end of Main Street (west of Pujol Street) 11.3 Phasing Altair will be developed in multiple phases, with the advancement of circulation, utilities and other infrastructure as necessary for each phase. Relocation of substantial quantities of earth, particularly in grading of the Western Bypass Corridor, is an important consideration in the phasing schedule to avoid soil export and subsequent re -grading. The north parcels at Villages A and B are anticipated to comprise the first phase of development. Phasing will subsequently continue southward, village by village, as indicated in Figure 11-2 Phasing Plan. The process of developing the site, village by village, will be commensurate with market demand. The Development Agreement between the Master Developer and the City of Temecula outlines the on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements that must be complete at certain development thresholds within each phase. Phasing may occur out of sequence, as long as the infrastructure required for that phase is completed. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 11-5 IMPLEMENTATION 11 PHASING SUMMARY PHASE TRACT NOP N0. NLLME AREA (CROSS AC.) TRACT LOP MIME 'A' 15.60 NORTH 40. 36959-1 NLLME'N' 12.40 TRACT 4444 MIME '0' NORTH 7.74 CENINPL 60. 36956-2 VILLAGE 'C' SOUTH 13.32 NLLAGE'0' 6.96 mU1H No. 5 3 VILLAGE 'E' 7.84 NUACE P 9.03 CMC TRACT NMP MACE t. 7.05 CMC SIZE 16.13 NO. 36959 PHASING MAP TRACT MAP \ NO. 36959.1 NORTH PHASE TRACT MAP NO. 36959.2 1 CENTRAL PHASE 1 TRACT MAP 1 NO. 36959.3 1 20 SOUTH PHASE 9 TRACT MAP NO. 36959 CIVIC PHASE 4 J. GRAPHIC SCALE 400 0 200 400 800 1200 Figure 11-2 Altair Conceptual Phasing Plan November 2017 �N SPECIFIC PLAN — 11 IMPLEMENTATION 11.4 Maintenance Maintenance shall generally be the responsibility of the property owners within the Altair development, except at public roads and any spaces dedicated to the City of Temecula. Included in this project are parks, parkways and public areas that beautify the development. The future maintenance of these common areas into perpetuity shall be the responsibility of the Home Owner's Association (HOA) established by the development. There will be a Master HOA for spaces shared by the entire community and sub-HOA's within each village or planning district. Common area landscaping and open areas will be developed in conjunction with the project. The maintenance of these areas will also be the responsibility of the Home Owner's Association. See Figure 11-3 Developer Responsibility Map. The following areas will be maintained by the City: • Western Bypass Corridor, including the Class 1 Bikeway where it is in the public right of way. The main portion of the Class 1 Bikeway is on private property and will be maintained by the Master HOA. • the north portion of Altair Vista from Coromell Trail to the Western Bypass • "B" Street south • "C" Street • Village C Park • Grand Stair • Plaza at west end of Main Street (Main Street Transition) The School site will be maintained by the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) after ownership of the property is transferred to the District. If the TVUSD declines to accept the dedication, then the property will be maintained by the respective property owners and the Master HOA, as applies. 11.5 Density Transfer Transfer of dwelling units is permitted between districts in the specific plan area with the following limitations: A. The total number of dwelling units in the specific plan area shall not exceed 1,750 units. B. No planning area may exceed the target quantity of dwelling units by more than 20%. C. Transfer must not cause significantly increased or new environmental impacts. D. Circulation, infrastructure and utility systems must be adequate for the altered density distribution. E. Applications for density transfer shall include a Project Residential Unit Reconciliation Report comparing the approved number of units to the proposed quantity for each planning area, including the remaining permitted quantity of dwelling units. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 11-7 IMPLEMENTATION 11 1 Master Developer Constructed, Master Developer Constructed, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Constructed, Sub HOA Maintained Master HOA Maintained Deeded to Guest Builder, Deeded to Guest Builder, Private Roads: Master Developer Responsible for Curb to Curb Street Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Public Roads: Master Developer Responsible for Curb to Curb Street Improvements, City of Temecula Maintained Master Developer Road Frontage Improvements, Deeded to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Constructed Pedestrian Corridor Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Park Improvements, Deeded to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Park Improvements, Easement Granted to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Park Improvements on Land Owned and Maintained by the City of Temecula Master Developer Park Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Recreation Center, Master HOA Maintained Guest Builder Constructed, Sub HOA Maintained Figure 11-3 Developer Responsibility Map November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANCltr! ` — 11 IMPLEMENTATION 11.6 Lot Reconfiguration or Consolidation Lots within the Altair Specific Plan area may be consolidated, subdivided or otherwise adjusted as allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Temecula and other applicable codes. Such adjustments do not require an amendment this Specific Plan, as long as the resultant lot(s) comply with the intent and guidelines of this Specific Plan. All lots shall meet the minimum lot dimensions outlined in Section 10, Development Standards. This Specific Plan does not limit construction of buildings over lot lines of contiguous lots under the same ownership. 11.7 Financing Strategies Funding for the construction of the infrastructure and facilities at Altair may be provided by a variety of potential sources, such as Developer Financing; Development Impact Fees (DIF); Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF); Federal, State or Local Grant Funding; or revenue from any Community Facilities District, Assessment District, Infrastructure Financing District, Gasoline Taxes, or the General Fund. In several instances including but not limited to the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge, the sewer facilities, parks, etc., the developer shall utilize fee credits and/or reimbursements from the various agencies, including the City of Temecula, to directly off -set the costs expended by the developer. Some of these credits and reimbursements are outlined in the Development Agreement described below. The Master Developer and the City of Temecula will enter into a Development Agreement for Altair Specific Plan and Related Entitlements to enable adequate and timely funding of the infrastructure necessary to Altair's success. The Agreement will outline public and private improvement cost responsibilities, project related costs, credits and/or reimbursements and corresponding agencies. The Development Agreement lays out the timing of infrastructure improvements relative to project phasing. A Community Finance District (CFD) will be formed which will include special taxes to fund public infrastructure related to the project as well as the projected annual deficit for the cost of City Services. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 11-9 IMPLEMENTATION 11 11-10 11.8 Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. B. The owners and their successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 11.9 Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, each Occupied Residential Property in the Specific Plan area shall pay Forty -Three Dollars ($43.00) per dwelling unit per year, to be increased each fiscal year by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's payment, to fund the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs. B. For the purposes of this provision, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. For the purposes of this provision "Wildlife Conservation Costs" means: (1) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority within the Interstate 15 freeway Special Linkage Area south of the Project whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lions) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 11 IMPLEMENTATION (2) Acquisition by the City of lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the Project for conservation; and/or (3) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (i) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Specific Plan area. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 11.10 Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or portion of this specific plan, or any future amendments or additions hereto, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this specific plan, or any future amendments or additions hereto. The City hereby declares that it would have adopted these requirements and each sentence, subsection, clause, phrase or portion or any future amendments or additions thereto, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, portions or any future amendments or additions thereto may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 Altair Appendix -Plant Lists (Refer to various Specific Plan Sections for Design Intent Descriptions of each area) APPENDIX Al f"Ai r NOTE: Plant species identified in Table 6-2 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) shall not be used in areas adjacent to the MSHCP corridor and/or native open space. Natural (Permanent) Slopes: Scientific Name Common Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CERCOCARPUS BETULOIDES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS GLAUCA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS 'ALBA' ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM CANUM SSP. CANUM KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA MI MUL US A URANTIACUS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE NARROWLEAF MILKWEED BIGBERRY MANZANITA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON MONKEY -FLOWER COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 Water SoCaI Use Native L L L L X X X X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X A-1 Altair Appendix -Plant Lists (Refer to various Specific Plan Sections for Design Intent Descriptions of each area) NOTE: Plant species identified in Table 6-2 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) shall not be used in areas adjacent to the MSHCP corridor and/or native open space. Natural (Permanent) Slopes: Scientific Name Common Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CERCOCARPUS BETULOIDES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARB UTI FOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS GLAUCA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS 'ALBA' ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM CANUM SSP. CANUM KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA MI MUL US A URANTIACUS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE NARROWLEAF MILKWEED BIGBERRY MANZANITA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON MONKEY -FLOWER COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY Water SoCaI Use Native L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANd APPENDIX Temporary Slopes: Seed Mix AMBROSIA PSILOSTACHYA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA CAMISSONIOPSIS CHEIRANTHIFOLIA CLARKIA PURPUREA CORETHROGYNE FILAGINIFOLIA DISTICHLIS SPICATA STRICTA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM ERIOPHYLLUM CONFERTIFLORUM ESCHSCHOLZIA CALIFORNICA GALIUM ANGUSTIFOLI UM ISOCOMA MENZIESII LUPINUS BICOLOR SALVIA APIANA SALVIA MELLIFERA STIPA PULCHRA Seed Mix Supplemental Products CONWED 1000 WOOD FIBER ECOLOGY CONTROLS M-BINDER/TACK BIOSOL FORTE 7-2-1 ORGANIC FERTILIZER AM -120 MYCORRHIZAL INOCULUM TRI -C SOLUBLE HUMATE Pure Live Seed Lbs./Acre WESTERN RAGWEED CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH SUN CUP FOUR -SPOT CLARKIA CALIFORNIA -ASTER SALTGRASS BUCKWHEAT GOLDEN -YARROW CALIFORNIA POPPY NARROW -LEAVED BEDSTRAW GOLDENBUSH MINIATURE LUPINE WHITE SAGE BLACK SAGE PURPLE NEEDLEGRASS 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.10 1.00 2.00 0.70 1.50 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50 1.00 3.00 Application Rate 2000 LBS/ACRE 200 LBS/ACRE 800 LBS/ACRE 60 LBS/ACRE 1 LBS/ACRE NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-3 Hiking Trails, Bikeways Scientific Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CERCOCARPUS BETULOIDES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARB UTI FOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS GLAUCA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS 'ALBA' ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM CANUM SSP. CANUM KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA MIM UL US A URANTIACUS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA SALVIA APIANA SALVIA MELLIFERA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers ADENOSTEMA FASCICULATUM 'NICOLAS' ARTEMESIA CALIFORNICA 'CANYON GRAY' Common Name COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE NARROWLEAF MILKWEED BIGBERRY MANZANITA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON MONKEY -FLOWER COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY WHITE SAGE BLACK SAGE MISSION MANZANITA PROSTRATE CHAMISE CANYON GRAY SAGEBRUSH Water SoCaI Use Native L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir BACCHAR/S PILULAR/S 'PIGEON POINT' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM 'DANA POINT' ELYMUS TR/TICO/DES ENCEL/A CAL/FORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM Vines LONICERA SUBSPICATA V/T/S CAL/FORNICA Seed Mix AMBROSIA PS/LOSTACHYA ARTEM/S/A CAL/FORNICA CAM/SSON/OPS/S CHE/RANTH/FOL/A CLARK/A PURPUREA CORETHROGYNE FILAGIN/FOLIA D/STICHL/S SPICATA STRICTA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM ER/OPHYLLUM CONFERT/FLORUM ESCHSCHOLZ/A CAL/FORNICA GAL/UM ANGUST/FOL/UM ISOCOMA MENZ/ES/I LUP/NUS BICOLOR SALVIA AP/ANA SALVIA MELLIFERA ST/PA PULCHRA Seed Mix Supplemental Products CONWED 1000 WOOD FIBER ECOLOGY CONTROLS M-BINDER/TACK BIOSOL FORTE 7-2-1 ORGANIC FERTILIZER AM -120 MYCORRH/ZAL INOCULUM TRI -C SOLUBLE HUMATE DWARF COYOTE BUSH DANA POINT BUCKWHEAT BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCEL/A BUCKWHEAT L X VL X L X L X L X CHAPARRAL HONEYSUCKLE L X CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L X Pure Live Seed Lbs./Acre WESTERN RAGWEED CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH SUN CUP FOUR -SPOT CLARK/A CALIFORNIA -ASTER SALTGRASS BUCKWHEAT GOLDEN -YARROW CALIFORNIA POPPY NARROW -LEAVED BEDSTRAW GOLDENBUSH MINIATURE LUPINE WHITE SAGE BLACK SAGE PURPLE NEEDLEGRASS 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.10 1.00 2.00 0.70 1.50 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50 1.00 3.00 Application Rate 2000 LBS/ACRE 200 LBS/ACRE 800 LBS/ACRE 60 LBS/ACRE 1 LBS/ACRE APPENDIX NOTE: SEED MIX MAY BE OMITTED WHEN FULL PLANT COVERAGE /S OBTAINED THROUGH CONTAINER STOCK. NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED /F APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 Key Pedestrian Walkways Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN ARBUTUS 'MARINA' CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' CHITALPA x TASHKENTENSIS GEIJERA PARVIFLORA LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' PINUS ELDARICA PISTACHIA CHINENSIS POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS ILEX QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 'HERITAGE' RHUS LANCEA Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEARIS 'WARREN JONES' CITRUS SPP. LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA SILK TREE MARINA ARBUTUS PALO VERDE CHITALPA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE AFGHAN PINE CHINESE PISTACHE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK HOLLY OAK SOUTHERN LIVE OAK AFRICAN SUMAC STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW ORGANGE, LEMON, LIME, ETC. CRAPE MYRTLE TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH Water SoCaI Use Native L M M L X L M L L L M M X L X L X L M L L L L M M L X VL X L X L X VL X VL X L X L L L X L X L X L X L X L L November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ENCELIA FARINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' EUPHORBIA MILII 'REDI-RED' FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GAURA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARB UTI FOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MAHONIA NEVINII MI MUL US A URANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAC' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS 'MAKI' RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON SILVERBERRY BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH RED EUPHORBIA PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON SHRUBBY YEW PINE MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CURRENT rc1lSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 L L VL M L X L L X L L L L L L L X L L X L L M L X L M L L X L L X L X L L L M VL X L L X M X M L X L L X M M M L X L X L X M X APPENDIX A-7 SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE VL X L X L L L L X L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L M L M L X NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Drainage Draws, Bioswales, Retention/Detention/Water Quality Basins Scientific Name Trees - Shade PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD' * * PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA'** PLATANUS RACEMOSA 'ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA SALIX LASIOLEPIS Common Name LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ARROYO WILLOW* (* WET AREAS ONLY) Water SoCaI Use Native M M M X M X L X H X ** Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs/ Grasses ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARTEMISIA DOUGLASIANA BACCHARIS SALICIFOLIA JUNCUS MEXICANUS JUNCUS PATENS JUNCUS XIPHOIDES LEYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS RIBES SPP. ROSA CALIFORNICA RUBUS URSINUS VERBENA LASIOSTACHYS Seed Mix ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM AGROSTIS PALLENS AMBROSIA PSILOSTACHYA ARTEMISIA DOUGLASIANA CLAYTONIA PERFOLIATA DESCHAMPSIA DANTHONIOIDES GRACILIS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES HORDEUM BRACHYANTHERUM JUNCUS BUFONIUS MIMULUS GUTTATUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS OENOTHERA ELATA HOOKERII BLUE ELDERBERRY NARROWLEAF MILKWEED MUGWORT MULE FAT MEXICAN RUSH CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH IRIS -LEAVED RUSH BLUE LYME GRASS DEER GRASS CURRENT CALIFORNIA ROSE CALIFORNIA BLACKBERRY WESTERN VERAIN L X L M M M M M M M M M M M X X X X X X X X X X X X Pure Live Seed Lbs./Acre 1.00 3.00 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.50 COMMON YARROW SEASHORE BENT GRASS WESTERN RAGWEED CALIFORNIA MUGWORT MINER'S LETTUCE ANNUAL HAIR GRASS BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS MEADOW BARLEY TOAD RUSH COMMON MONKEYFLOWER DEERGRASS EVENING PRIMROSE SJSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 APPENDIX PLANTAGO INSULARIS DESERT PLANTAIN 5.00 FESTUCA MICROSTACHYS SMALL FESCUE 5.00 TRIFOLIUM OBTUSIFLORUM CLAMMY CLOVER 3.00 Seed Mix Supplemental Products CONWED 1000 WOOD FIBER ECOLOGY CONTROLS M-BINDER/TACK BIOSOL FORTE 7-2-1 ORGANIC FERTILIZER AM -120 MYCORRHIZAL INOCULUM TRI -C SOLUBLE HUMATE Application Rate 2000 LBS/ACRE 200 LBS/ACRE 800 LBS/ACRE 60 LBS/ACRE 1 LBS/ACRE NOTE: SEED MIX MAY BE OMITTED WHEN FULL PLANT COVERAGE /S OBTAINED THROUGH CONTAINER STOCK. NOTE: TOPS OF SLOPES AND DRYER AREAS SHALL TRANSITION TO THE NATURAL SLOPES PLANT PALETTE. NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Roundabouts Scientific Name Trees - Shade CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA Shrubs AGAVE SPP ARISTIDA PURPUREA BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA MILII 'REDI-RED' GALVESIA SPECIOSA HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA ILEX VOMITORIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAC' SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SANTOLINA SPP. TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DELA MINA' Afir SPECIFIC PLAN Common Name PALO VERDE COAST LIVE OAK CENTURY PLANT PURPLE THREE AWN DESERT MARIGOLD BULBINE CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON CALIFORNIA ENCELIA GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA L ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON L RED/YELLOW YUCCA L BACC YAUPON LANTANA LAVENDER BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED DEER GRASS COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE LAVENDER COTTON GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA Water SoCaI Use Native L X L X L L X L L L L L L L L L X L L X L L X X L L L L X VL X M X L X L L L L L L X November 2017 APPENDIX A-11 Groundcovers BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA CALIFORNIA ENCELIA TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS L L L L X L L L NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Entry Statements Scientific Name Trees - Shade PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD' * * PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA'** PLATANUS RACEMOSA 'ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA SALIX LASIOLEPIS Common Name LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ARROYO WILLOW* (* WET AREAS ONLY) Water SoCaI Use Native M M M M L H ** Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEARIS 'WARREN JONES' HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM SPECIFIC PLAN STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY November 2017 X X X X L L L L X VL X L X L X VL X VL X L L L X L X L X L L X L L L L VL M L X L L X L L APPENDIX COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA MILII 'REDI-RED' FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GAURA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARB UTI FOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MAHONIA NEVINII MI MUL US A URANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAC' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS PODOCARPUS GACILIOR RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON SILVERBERRY BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON FERN PINE (HEDGE FORM) MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE L L L L L X L X L X L L X L L X L M L X L M L L X L L X L X L L L M L X VL X L L X M X M L X L L X M M M L X L X L X M X VL X L X L L L November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN APPENDIX SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA CALIFORNIA ENCELIA TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L X L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L X L L L M L M L X NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED /F APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-15 Park and Recreation Areas Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN ARBUTUS 'MARINA' CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' CHITALPA x TASHKENTENSIS GEIJERA PARVIFLORA LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' PINUS ELDARICA PISTACHIA CHINENSIS PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'** PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA'** PLATANUS RACEMOSA 'ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS ILEX QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 'HERITAGE' RHUS LANCEA Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA SILK TREE MARINA ARBUTUS PALO VERDE CHITALPA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE AFGHAN PINE CHINESE PISTACHE LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK HOLLY OAK SOUTHERN LIVE OAK AFRICAN SUMAC Water SoCaI Use Native L M M L X L M L L L M M M M X M X L X L X L M L ** Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEARIS 'WARREN JONES' CITRUS SPP. HETEROMELES ARB UTI FOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW ORGANGE, LEMON, LIME, ETC. TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN L L L M L VL L L VL VL L L L L L X X X X X X X X X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA MILII 'REDI-RED' FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GAURA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARB UTI FOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MAHONIA NEVINII MI MUL US A URANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON SILVERBERRY BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA G UARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L L X L L X L L L L VL M L X L L X L L L L L L L X L X L X L L X L L X L M L X L M L L X L X X LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR rc1lSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 L L L M L VL L L M M L X X X X X APPENDIX A-17 OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAC' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS PODOCARPUS GACILIOR RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON FERN PINE (HEDGE FORM) MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA CALIFORNIA ENCELIA TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L L X M M M L X L X L X M X VL X L X L L L L X L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L X L L L M L M L X NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN School Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN ARBUTUS 'MARINA' CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' CHITALPA x TASHKENTENSIS GEIJERA PARVIFLORA LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' PINUS ELDARICA PISTACHIA CHINENSIS PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'** PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA/** PLATANUS RACEMOSA 'ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRI FOL IA QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS ILEX QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 'HERITAGE' RHUS LANCEA Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA SILK TREE MARINA ARBUTUS PALO VERDE CHITALPA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE AFGHAN PINE CHINESE PISTACHE LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK HOLLY OAK SOUTHERN LIVE OAK AFRICAN SUMAC Water SoCaI Use Native L M M L X L M L L L M M M M X M X L X L X L M L ** Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEARIS 'WARREN JONES' CITRUS SPP. HETEROMELES ARB UTI FOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW ORGANGE, LEMON, LIME, ETC. TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH rc1lSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 L L L M L VL L L VL VL L L L L L L X X X X X X X X X X APPENDIX A-19 BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GAURA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MAHONIA NEVINII MI M UL US A URANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAC' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON SILVERBERRY BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON L L X L L L L VL M L X L L X L L L L L L L X L X L X L L X L L X M L X L M L L X L L X L X L L L M L X VL X L L X M X M L X L L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN PODOCARPUS GACILIOR RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA FERN PINE (HEDGE FORM) MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA CALIFORNIA ENCELIA TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE M M M L X L X L X M X VL X L X L L L L X L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L X L L L M L M L X APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-21 Villages A, B, C, D, E, F, G Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN ARBUTUS 'MARINA' CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' CHITALPA x TASHKENTENSIS GEIJERA PARVIFLORA LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' PINUS ELDARICA PISTACHIA CHINENSIS POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS ILEX QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 'HERITAGE' RHUS LANCEA Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEARIS 'WARREN JONES' CITRUS SPP. HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA MAGNOLIA G. 'LITTLE GEM' PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE AMERICANA ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA SILK TREE MARINA ARBUTUS PALO VERDE CHITALPA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE AFGHAN PINE CHINESE PISTACHE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK HOLLY OAK SOUTHERN LIVE OAK AFRICAN SUMAC STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW ORGANGE, LEMON, LIME, ETC. TOYON CRAPE MYRTLE LITTLE GEM MANGOLIA HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH DESERT BROOM November 2017 Water SoCaI Use Native L M M L X L M L L L M M X L X L X L M L L L L M L X M M VL X L X L X VL X VL X L X L L L X L X L X L X L X SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. DODONAEA VISCOSA ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ENCELIA FARINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' EUPHORBIA MILII 'REDI-RED' FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GAURA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARB UTI FOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MAHONIA NEVINII MI MUL US A URANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAC' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS 'MAKI' RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA la/ SPECIFIC PLAN DESERT MARIGOLD WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON HOPSEED BUSH SILVERBERRY BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH RED EUPHORBIA PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA G UARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON SHRUBBY YEW PINE MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY November 2017 L L L L VL M L X L L X L L L L L L L L X L L X L L M L X L M L L X L L X L X L L L M VL X L L X M X M L X L L X M M M L X APPENDIX A-23 RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L X L X M X VL X L X L L L L X L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L M L M L X NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Civic/ Community Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN ARBUTUS 'MARINA' CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' CHITALPA x TASHKENTENSIS GEIJERA PARVIFLORA LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' PINUS ELDARICA PISTACHIA CHINENSIS POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS ILEX QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 'HERITAGE' RHUS LANCEA Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEARIS 'WARREN JONES' CITRUS SPP. HETEROMELES ARB UTI FOLIA MAGNOLIA G. 'LITTLE GEM' PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE AMERICANA ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA SPECIFIC PLAN Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA SILK TREE MARINA ARBUTUS PALO VERDE CHITALPA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE AFGHAN PINE CHINESE PISTACHE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK HOLLY OAK SOUTHERN LIVE OAK AFRICAN SUMAC STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW ORGANGE, LEMON, LIME, ETC. TOYON LITTLE GEM MANGOLIA HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD November 2017 Water SoCaI Use Native L M M L X L M L L L M M X L X L X L M L L L L M L X M VL X L X L X VL X VL X L X L L L X L X L X L L X L APPENDIX A-25 BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. DODONAEA VISCOSA ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA MILII 'REDI-RED' FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GAURA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARB UTI FOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MAHONIA NEVINII MI M UL US A URANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAC' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS PODOCARPUS GACILIOR WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON HOPSEED BUSH SILVERBERRY BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA G UARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YAUPFIND ON YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON FERN PINE (HEDGE FORM) November 2017 L L L VL M L X L L X L L L L L L L L X L X L X L L X L L X L M L X L M L L X L L X L X L L L M L X VL X L L X M X M L X L L X M SPECIFIC PLANE PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS 'MAKI' RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA SHRUBBY YEW PINE MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE M M M L X L X L X M X VL X L X L L L L X L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L M L M L X APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-2 7 Street Types: Western Bypass Corridor 1 and 2 Scientific Name Trees - Shade PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'BL OODGOOD' * * PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA' * * PLATANUS RACEMOSA 'ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Common Name LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK Water SoCaI Use Native M M M X M X L X L X L X L X ** Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CERCOCARPUS BETULOIDES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS DASYLIRION SPP. ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS DESERT SPOON BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH November 2017 L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X VL X L X L L L X L X L X L X L L X L L X L L X L X L X SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM GALVESIA SPECIOSA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MIM UL US A URANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS VERBENA LILACINA 'DELA MINA' XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. BACCHARIS PILULARIS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM Vines VITIS CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA L BUCKWHEAT L ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON L TOYON L YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE JOJOBA CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA MISSION MANZANITA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH COYOTE BRUSH BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE X X X X X X L X VL X L X M X L X L X L X L X L X M X VL X L X L L L X L VL X L X L X L L X L X L X L X L X APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-29 Street Types: B Street South and C Street Scientific Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII Trees - Accent CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS DASYLIRION SPP. ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM GALVESIA SPECIOSA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA Common Name COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK WESTERN REDBUD TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS DESERT SPOON BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BUCKWHEAT ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON TOYON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY Water SoCaI Use Native L X L X L L X VL X L X L X VL X VL X L L L X L X L X L X L L X L L X L L X L X L X L X L X L X L X X X L X VL X L X M X L X L X L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. BACCHARIS PILULARIS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM Vines VITIS CALIFORNICA LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE JOJOBA CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA MISSION MANZANITA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH COYOTE BRUSH BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L X L X M X VL X L X L L L X L VL X L X L X L L X L X L X L X L X APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-31 Street Type: Coromell Trail — Split Lanes, Separate Trail, no Parking Scientific Name Trees - Shade PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'BL OODGOOD' * * PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA' * * PLATANUS RACEMOSA 'ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Common Name LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK Water SoCaI Use Native M M M X M X L X L X L X L X ** Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CERCOCARPUS BETULOIDES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS DASYLIRION SPP. ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS DESERT SPOON BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X VL X L X L L L X L X L X L X L L X L L X L L X L X L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM GALVESIA SPECIOSA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MIM UL US A URANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS VERBENA LILACINA 'DELA MINA' XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. BACCHARIS PILULARIS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM Vines VITIS CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA L BUCKWHEAT L ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON L TOYON L YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE JOJOBA CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA MISSION MANZANITA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH COYOTE BRUSH BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE X X X X X X L X VL X L X M X L X L X L X L X L X M X VL X L X L L L X L VL X L X L X L L X L X L X L X L X APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-33 Street Type: Altair Vista - Landscaped Parkways with Parking one side and Altair Vista (Public) — Split Lanes with No Parking Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ILEX RHUS LANCEA Shrubs AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARISTIDA PURPUREA BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA MILII 'REDI-RED' GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GAURA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA PALO VERDE SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE COAST LIVE OAK HOLLY OAK AFRICAN SUMAC CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS PURPLE THREE AWN DESERT MARIGOLD BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON CALIFORNIA ENCELIA GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L LANTANA L LAVENDER L BLUE LYME GRASS L Water SoCaI Use Native L L X L L L X L L L L L X L L L VL M L L L L L L L X L L X L L X L L X L M L L X X X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' Groundcovers BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS DEER GRASS MYRTLE PENSTEMON YEDDO HAWTHORN CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS M X M L X M L L L L L VL X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. a kir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-35 Street Type: Altair Vista and A Street - Urban Parkways with Parking one side Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ILEX RHUS LANCEA Shrubs AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARISTIDA PURPUREA BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA MILII 'REDI-RED' GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GAURA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA PALO VERDE SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE COAST LIVE OAK HOLLY OAK AFRICAN SUMAC CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS PURPLE THREE AWN DESERT MARIGOLD BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON CALIFORNIA ENCELIA GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L LANTANA LAVENDER BLUE LYME GRASS DEER GRASS Water SoCaI Use Native L L X L L L X L L L L L X L L L VL M L L L L L L L X L L X L L X L L X L M L L X X L L L X M X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir MYRTUS COMMUNIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' Groundcovers BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS MYRTLE PENSTEMON YEDDO HAWTHORN CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS M L X M L L L L L VL X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-37 Street Type: B Street North - Landscaped Parkways with No Parking Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ILEX RHUS LANCEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ENCELIA CALIFORNICA EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA MILII 'REDI-RED' GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GAURA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA PALO VERDE SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE COAST LIVE OAK HOLLY OAK AFRICAN SUMAC CHAMISE CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD BULBINE BAJA DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON CALIFORNIA ENCELIA CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L Water SoCaI Use Native L L X L L L X L L VL L L L L L L L L L M L L L L L L L L L L L L L M L L L X X X X X X X X X X X X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' MI M UL US A URANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER BLUE LYME GRASS MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE PENSTEMON YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L L L L X L X M X M L X M L X L X L X L L L L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L M L M L X APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 1 O1 / IP SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-39 Street Type: Altair Vista - One-way Street with Parking one side Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ILEX RHUS LANCEA Shrubs AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARISTIDA PURPUREA BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA MILII 'REDI-RED' GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GAURA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA PALO VERDE SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE COAST LIVE OAK HOLLY OAK AFRICAN SUMAC CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS PURPLE THREE AWN DESERT MARIGOLD BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON CALIFORNIA ENCELIA GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L LANTANA LAVENDER BLUE LYME GRASS DEER GRASS Water SoCaI Use Native L L X L L L X L L L L L X L L L VL M L L L L L L L X L L X L L X L L X L M L L X X L L L X M X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir MYRTUS COMMUNIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' Groundcovers BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS MYRTLE PENSTEMON YEDDO HAWTHORN CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS M L X M L L L L L VL X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST /S NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADD/TONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A -41 Street Type: Altair Vista Culvert and A Street Bridge - Contiguous Sidewalks with no Parking These areas do not have landscaping since they are bridges or faux bridges (culverts.) Street Type: Alley — 24' Width See Village Plant lists. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir Altair Appendix -Plant Lists (Refer to various Specific Plan Sections for Design Intent Descriptions of each area) NOTE: Plant species identified in Table 6-2 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) shall not be used in areas adjacent to the MSHCP corridor and/or native open space. Natural (Permanent) Slopes: Scientific Name Common Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CERCOCARPUS BETULOIDES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS GLAUCA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS 'ALBA' ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM CANUM SSP. CANUM KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA MIM UL US A URANTIACUS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE NARROWLEAF MILKWEED BIGBERRY MANZANITA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON MONKEY -FLOWER COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY SJSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 Water SoCaI Use Native L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X APPENDIX A --a3 Altair Appendix -Plant Lists (Refer to various Specific Plan Sections for Design Intent Descriptions of each area) NOTE: Plant species identified in Table 6-2 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) shall not be used in areas adjacent to the MSHCP corridor and/or native open space. Natural (Permanent) Slopes: Scientific Name Common Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CERCOCARPUS BETULOIDES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS GLAUCA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS 'ALBA' ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM CANUM SSP. CANUM KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA MI MUL US A URANTIACUS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE NARROWLEAF MILKWEED BIGBERRY MANZANITA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON MONKEY -FLOWER COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY Water SoCaI Use Native L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN a f"ir 1 I ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940- 320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development in the proposed Project area. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." G. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007).- H. On , the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. I. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17 and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Altair Specific Plan hereby makes the following findings: A. The Specific Plan, which is incorporated herein by this reference, complies with the requirements of California Government Code section 65451 based on, but not limited to, the following: (1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the Specific Plan (Sections 2, 3 and 8 of the Specific Plan). (2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the Specific Plan and needed to support the land uses described in the Specific Plan (Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Specific Plan). (3) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable (Sections 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Specific Plan). (4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above (Sections 5 and 11 of the Specific Plan). (5) The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan). B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that: (1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the general plan and development code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Land Use Element identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The Specific Plan is consistent with these objectives. The Specific Plan provides a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Specific Plan respects existing topography and embraces existing scenic vistas as focal points for the community. The Specific Plan satisfies two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area," and "[I]ocating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The proposed Specific Plan is also consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which is to create a "regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." A significant portion of the Western Bypass Corridor project is accomplished in the Specific Plan, connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The Specific Plan will create a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the Specific Plan implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." The Specific Plan development is predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the Specific Plan area as natural open space, thus consistent with Policy 1.5 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles." The Specific Plan will establish the design and development framework for the proposed Project. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as amended by this Ordinance. As proposed and conditioned, the Specific Plan will be consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of State Law and other Ordinances of the City. Further findings of consistency with the General Plan can be found in Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. (2) The proposed specific plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of, and is not detrimental to, the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The proposed specific plan is located directly adjacent to OId Town Temecula and its added residential population base will support the commercial uses of Old Town. There are few housing opportunities in OId Town currently, limiting the clientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. OId Town businesses are therefore dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The proposed specific plan will provide up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. The General Plan sets the policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The subject property is currently undeveloped land with only a few of the required public utilities located onsite. The proposed development within the Specific Plan area will provide the necessary connections, extensions, and upgrades as required to serve the area. (4) The proposed specific plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Specific Plan conforms to the City's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the City's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. In addition, the Specific Plan is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well- designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preserve open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. Section 3. Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the proposed Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the proposed Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the proposed Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the proposed Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. B. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. C. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan. Section 4. Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, owner shall pay to the City the following: (i) on or before the issuance of the first (1st) building permit for the proposed Project, the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) (the "Initial Wildlife Conservation Fee") less the cost of the land purchase and associated closing costs described in 4.4.5 (iv) of the Development Agreement; and (ii) as provided in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan and Section 4.5.2 of the Development Agreement, an annual payment of $43 per Occupied Residential Property, in perpetuity, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of two percent (2%) of the prior year's fee (the "Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee"). B. For purposes of this Section, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. The proceeds of the Wildlife Conservation Fee shall be used for the following purposes ("Wildlife Conservation Costs"): (1) The initial six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) of the Initial Wildlife Conservation Fee and the Wildlife Conservation Fee shall be held in an account by the City for the purposes of acquiring one hundred (100) acres of conservation lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the Property and/or in Riverside County and within ten (10) miles of the proposed Project site. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, a Joint Powers Agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. ("RCA") shall acquire such land and City shall reimburse RCA for the cost of its land purchase and associated closing costs, with interest, from the initial $6,000,000.00. The land acquisitions shall be in accordance with the equivalency standards for the acquisition of land submitted to the RCA and the City prior to the City Council's approval of the proposed Project. Once this objective has been satisfied, then the City shall use such funding thereafter for one or more of the conservation activities described below in subsections (2), (3) or (4). The interest rate for the reimbursement shall be compound interest at the rate equal to the average interest rate paid on deposits in the State Local Agency Investment Fund, Government Code Sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, during the year prior to July 1 of each year. Pursuant to Section 4.5.2 of the Development Agreement and Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan, owner, its successors to the property within the proposed Project, including End Users, shall fulfill this obligation of the Specific Plan with the proceeds of Special Tax C of the CFD(s), provided, however, that the obligation set forth herein and in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan remains regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it or whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. (2) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the RCA along Interstate 15 between the proposed Project site and the San Diego County Line whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lion) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or (3) Reimbursement to the RCA of its costs, with interest, for the acquisition of lands south of the proposed Project for conservation (the interest rate for the reimbursement shall be compound annual interest at the rate equal to the average interest rate paid on deposits in the State Local Agency Investment Fund, Government Code Sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, during the year prior to July 1 of each year); and/or (4) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (i) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Project Site undertaken by the City or RCA. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. E. Owner shall not be entitled to any fee credits in connection with such conservation funding. F. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan. Section 5. Section 17.16.070 (Approved specific plans.) of Chapter 17.16 Specific Plan Zoning District (SP-) of Title 17 (Zoning) is hereby amended to add the following, with all other provisions of Section 17.16.070 remaining the same: "SP -15 Altair Specific Plan" Section 6. Zoning Map Amendment. The City Council hereby amends the Official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula to change the zoning classification for the property located on 270 acres in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, west of Old Town (APNs 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007) to the Altair Specific Plan #15. The Altair Specific Plan slip sheets are attached as Exhibit "B" to this Ordinance and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 7. Consistency with General Plan, On , the City Council adopted Resolution No. , which amended the Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan, in conformity with Government Code section 65300. Therefore, the foregoing amendments outlined in this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula. Section 8. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the Altair Specific Plan subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Altair Specific Plan is on file in the City Clerk's office and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. Section 9. Severability. If any portion, provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Ordinance. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 11. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , 2018. ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 18- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12th day of December, 2018, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA14-0159 Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: QUIMBY Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of Approval A proposed Specific Plan to include the four -lane divided Western Bypass, up to 1,750 residential units, an elementary school, up to 7,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, a clubhouse, civic site, parks, trails, and hillside preservation. The Specific Plan will also include off-site improvements for public infrastructure including, but not limited to, construction of the Western Bypass bridge over Murrieta Creek, road widening of Vincent Moraga, construction of Main Street north of Pujol, and off-site sewer, water and dry utility extensions 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310- 044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007 Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Exempt per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,128.00) which includes the Three Thousand and Seventy Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,078.00) fee, required by Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Fifty Dollars ($50.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City and its attorneys from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within twenty (20) years per the Development Agreement; otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. 5. Consistency with Specific Plans. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 15, Altair Specific Plan. 6. Consistency with Development Agreements. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to Development Agreement (PA14-0161). Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the EIR for Altair (SCH No. 2014111029). 8. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 9. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 10. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers, equipment, walls, or other structures. 11. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 12. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 13. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 14. Subdivision Map Act. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. An Extension of Time may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 60 days prior to the expiration date. 15. Subdivision Phasing. If subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 16. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 17. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median, landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. 18. Class I Multi -Use Trails. Class I multi -use trails shall be provided as per the City of Temecula's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan. The construction plans for the Class 1 trails shall be included on the perimeter landscape plans and constructed in concurrence with the installation of the landscaping. 19. Class II Bicycle Lanes. Class II bicycle lanes, as specified in the City of Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, , the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan, shall be identified on the street improvement plans, and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 20. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Altair project is required to comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 21. Maximum Number of Rental Units (Apartments). Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City for a residential community in the Project, the Guest Builder shall provide a letter to the City declaring whether the project will include residential units for sale to homeowners (a "For -Sale Community") or residential units for rent (Apartments) to tenants (a "For -Rent Community"), and if it is a For -Rent Community, the number of Rental Units being proposed for the For -Rent Community. Further, in conjunction with the overall development of the Project, the Guest Builder will also provide a list of all previously approved For -Sale and For -Rent Communities in the Project and the number of Rental Units for each For Rent Community. There shall be a maximum of 750 Rental Units within the Project. Notwithstanding the forgoing, homes that are in a For -Sale Community that are sold to individuals and then later rented to the public shall not count towards the 750 Rental Unit threshold. 22. Proiect Phasing. The project shall be built in four phases per the attached "Phasing Exhibit, 10D." Infrastructure shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits in each phase per the phasing plan. 23. Fiscal Impact Compliance. Any development within the Altair Specific Plan will be required to address impacts to the City's budget as a result of the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the Project area substantially exceeding the municipal revenue generated from the Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has a received a Fiscal Impact Analysis dated October, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the Project, and their successors of interest, at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for a residential dwelling, shall pay the City the sum of two - hundred thirty-seven ($237) per residential dwelling unit within the project each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit. Owner and its successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through a Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq., provided however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to the pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owner and its successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 24. Trail Siting and Location on the South Parcel/Civic Site. In addition to the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for cultural resources, MM -CUL -la through MM -CUL - 3, City Staff will work with the Pechanga Tribe to determine the final trail alignment for an out and back, or loop trail. Using trail siting guidance identified in the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Section 7.0, the trail will utilize existing dirt roads whenever possible. Portions of existing trail may be eliminated, and revegetated to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Any new trail segment will be designed to discourage and prevent intrusion into adjacent environmentally sensitive areas. 25. Direction Fencing. Directional Fencing for wildlife shall be required as identified in the Specific Plan, EIR, and in conformance with the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). 26. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the RCA shall review and approve for conformance with the Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines the design of the applicant's Urban Wildlands Interface measures (fencing, lighting, access control, plant palette, drainage, etc.) for development adjacent to all conservation areas (Western Bypass, Villages A and G, and Nature Center). The Nature Center trails shall be reviewed and approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies for compliance with Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines and MSHCP Section 7.4.2, Conditionally Compatible Uses 27. Partial conservation lands totaling 65 acres (APNs 918-080-008 and 009) will be transferred to the RCA prior to any project grading. 28. Acquisition of an additional 100 acres of biologically equivalent or superior replacement lands by the RCA and funded by the proposed Altair Wildlife CFD. All CFD funding up to 6 million dollars will be directed to the RCA until the 100 acres is acquired. 29. The conservation easement over ungraded of the South Parcel will be offered either to the RCA or an entity with a management agreement with the RCA. 30. MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees will be paid for the project. Fee credits for onsite conservation acres will be consistent with RCA Resolution 2016-003, Fee Credit and Waiver Policy. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 31. Central Park Design Meeting. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits associated with the Central park area, a pre -design meeting shall be held to include Planning, TCSD, and Public Works to complete a final design for the Central Park. The Altair Specific Plan includes a conceptual plan for the park, however, final arrangement and location of amenities shall be determined prior to any grading and/or construction. 32. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check valves prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 33. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 34. Pechanga Mitigation Measures. The Altair project is required to comply with Mitigation measures MM -CUL -la through MM -CUL -3. 35. Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered. the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find_ Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource. the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 36. Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement_ The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 37. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation." 38. Archaeological Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property." 39. Tribal Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading. excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer." 40. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." 41. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 42. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -la — Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. 43. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -lb - Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor. At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed grading and excavation. and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. 44. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1c — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. The qualified archeologist, or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. 45. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1d — Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading. trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -1 a and lb. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly Togs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. 46. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1e — Unanticipated Discovery. If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis. reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -lb. 47. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f — Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP. The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP, Should any of these activities, or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. 48. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The applicant shall implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot- checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. 49. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2b - Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries. If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. 50. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains. If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. 51 _ MSHCP Pre -Construction Survey. A 30 -day preconstruction survey, in accordance with MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The results of the 30 -day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. 52. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30 -day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist." 53. Rough Grading Plans. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 54. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 55. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). 56. Quimby Requirements. Per the Development Agreement, the developer has satisfied the City's parkland dedication (Quimby) requirement through the provision of parks and open space identified in the Altair Specific Plan_ These parks will be privately maintained, but open to the public. The Central Park in Village C will be dedicated to the City per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). 57. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 58. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 59. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 60. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 61. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 62. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without Toss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 63. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas. 64. Wall and Fence Plans. Wall and fence plans shall be reviewed with all landscape plans, and shall be consistent with the Altair Specific Plan. 65. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 66. Landscaping Requirement for Phased Development. If any phase or area of the project site is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of grading, the landscaping plans shall indicate it will be temporarily landscaped and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. 67. WQMP Landscape Compliance. The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with Appendix A, Table 31 of the Low Impact Development (LID) Manual for Southern California for plant materials and treatment facilities, and shall reference the approved precise grading plan for WQMP features. 68. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 69. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 70. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 71. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 72. Final Map. A copy of the Final Map for each phase shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division. 73. Environmental Constraint Sheet. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) shall be submitted to. and approved by, the Planning Division with the following notes: a. This property is located within 30 miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. 74. Submittal of CC&Rs. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project or any phase thereof shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development. The CC&Rs shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings, and landscaped and open areas, including parkways. Applicants shall provide a deposit in the amount of $3,750 for the review of the CC&Rs. Amended CC&Rs will require a $2,000 deposit. The applicant shall be responsible for al costs incurred during review of the CC&Rs and additional fees may be required during the course of the review. 75. Form and Content of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and its residents. 76. Preparation of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. 77. Review of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owners Association are subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development, Public Works Director, and the City Attorney. 78. CC&Rs and Management and Maintenance of Common Areas. The CC&Rs shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas, drainage facilities, and pollution prevention devices outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan for the project or any phase thereof. 79. CC&Rs and Public Nuisance. The CC&Rs shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated, and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. 80. Termination of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall provide that the association may not be terminated without prior City approval. 81. CC&Rs and Maintenance of Property. The CC&Rs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&Rs, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&Rs or the City Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. 82. Interest in Association. Every owner of a suite or lot governed by CC&Rs shall own as an appurtenance to such suite or lot, either: (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. 83. Maintenance of Open Areas. All open areas and landscaping governed by CC&R shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning Divisions and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 84. Reciprocal Easements. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives, parking areas, drainage facilities, and water quality features, shall be provided by the CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 85. Consent of City of Temecula. An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs, following the Declarant's signature, to read as follows_ CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 36959, -1, -2, and -3, require the City of Temecula to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolutions of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs. Luke Watson Director of Community Development Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 86. Operation of Association. No lot or suite in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owners group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&Rs, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or suites and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&Rs shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 87. Recordation of CC&Rs. CC&Rs shall be finalized and recorded at the time of Final Map Recordation. 88. Copies of CC&Rs. Three copies of the final recorded CC&Rs shall be provided to the Planning Division. 89. General. The CC&Rs shall contain a provision requiring the HOA to perform yearly inspections of garages to ensure adequate parking. 90. General, The CC&Rs shall contain a list of all disclosures (tax rate — Mello Roos, wildlife, noise, etc.) as required by the City of Temecula and State of California. OUTSIDE AGENCY LETTERS 91. Rancho Water. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water transmittal dated August 26, 2014, a copy of which is attached. 92. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the RCFCWD transmittal dated March 5, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 93. Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the MWD transmittal dated April 14, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 94. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the ACOE transmittal dated May 18, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 95. Southern California Edison (SCE). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the SCE transmittal dated September 17, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 96. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the EMWD transmittal dated September 21, 2016, a copy of which is attached. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 97. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure for a 2 -hour duration for this projects. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 98. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x (2) 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent public streets. For all multi -family projects hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant for all and for single family dwellings and tract homes hydrants shall be 500 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 99. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 100. Water Maintenance Agreement. An agreement for the maintenance and repair of any and all existing underground Fire Department water systems, including all fire sprinkler supplies, and all fire hydrants and supplies, will be in place as a condition of this division to maintain available water in perpetuity Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 101. Turning Radius (Culdesac). Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 37 -feet for single family dwelling tracts and 45 feet for multi -family dwelling tracts. (CFC Chapter 5 along with the Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 102. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed Toads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 103. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not Tess than 13 feet 6 inches. (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 104. Gradient Of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 105. Knox Box. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5) 106. File Format Requirements. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format, must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of alternative file formats which may be acceptable PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 107. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. 108. Developer shall execute a City Standard Subdivision Improvement Agreements for the applicable phase of the development to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map. These improvements include, but are not limited to paving, base, signing & striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, pedestrian ramps, drainage structures, and best management practices for stormwater treatment, reconstruction, replacement and repair of adjacent improvements where the subdivision transitions and connects to existing improvements as applicable. Said improvements shall be installed to City Standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 109. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map for each phase, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the Water District Engineer. 110. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase, Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along and within the subdivision boundary. 111. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots abutting the Western Bypass Corridor Road. 112. Developer shall cause Owner to make an offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for the Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. 113. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the Director of Public Works. prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. 114. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights -of -ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 115. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Works, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 116. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 117. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with all street improvements on and off-site grading. Perimeter walls, where required, shall be treated with graffiti -resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 118. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06, unless otherwise provided for by a written agreement between the City and the Developer. 119, All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein or by development agreement, and State laws, and shall conform to the approved Specific Plan_ Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. 120. Approval of this Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are certified by the City Council_ 121. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Temecula Valley Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to comply with all school district requirements. 122. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans for each phase shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans. 123. A detailed noise attenuation evaluation shall be conducted in a supplemental acoustical study to be submitted when the tract map is filed with the appropriate agency. 124. Prior to the approval of a development plan or tentative map for individual planning areas, the developer and City staff will review plans, especially for multi -family housing areas, commercial uses, and parks for the provision of appropriate, necessary. and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 125. Prior to approval of any development projects, appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review shall be obtained by the developer. These agencies shall be determined by the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works. 126. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the Director of Public Works for recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. 127. The developer or the developer's successor -in -interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement, litter removal and erosion control as applicable. 128. Prior to approval of any development projects, the developer shall investigate the feasibility of a reclaimed water system, to irrigate landscaping within the roadway medians, parkways, drainage channel, schools, the community park, the paseo park, neighborhood parks, and other common open space areas. The developer shall provide evidence that compliance with this condition is in accordance with Senate Bill 2095. 129. Developer shall provide to the Director of Public Works, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements (e.g. roads, driveways, sidewalks, utilities, water quality treatment facilities and private storm drain improvements, etc.) located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. 130. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 131. All lighting shall be reviewed by the City to assure compliance with the Ordinance No. 655. 132. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs consistent with the Specific Plan. Grading 133. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 134. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 135. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, erosion control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements as applicable. 136. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: a) Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. b) Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. c) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. d) Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. e) Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. f) Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 137. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 138. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of completion of grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 139. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 140. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 141. An importlexport route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 142. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 143. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction_ The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 144. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 145. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Drainage 146. Floodplain/Floodwav Development. If applicable, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, which requires a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. A FEMA -approved CLOMR shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The developer shall pay all fees required by FEMA (and City) for processing of the FEMA reviews. 147. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100 -year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site as required by the City. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 148. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 149. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 150. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 151. All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100 -year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 152. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the interim detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 153. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 154. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site as required by the Director of Public works. 155. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements as necessary. 156. During review of any future tentative map, an updated geotechnical/geologic report shall be prepared to include any necessary revisions to earthwork, foundation, design, and construction recommendations. 157. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 158. Geological Report. The developer shall complete any outstanding County geologist's requirements, recommendations and/or proposed Conditions of Approval as identified during entitlement. 159. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. WQMP 1 SWPPP 160. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; or other affected agencies 161. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal for any phase approval by Public Works. A copy of the final project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: http://www. cityoftemecula.orq/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/WQMPandNPDES/W QMP.htm 162. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http://www.cityoftemecula.orgfTemecula/Government!PublicWorks/engineeringconstman ual.htm 163. 0 & M Agreement: The developer shall submit a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement for review and approval 164. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 165. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmohandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: htto://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml Circulation 166. Prior to Final Map recordation for each phase, the Developer is responsible to bond for or construct the traffic signals at the project's accesses, as required, including the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications. 167. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to and from developments areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual tentative maps and/or development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works, consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 168. The exact location and number of access points shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works upon future tentative map and/or development plan approvals consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 169. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards or as approved with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Map. 170. All intersection intervals shall comply with City standards and requirements. 171. Developer, at its sole cost, shall design and improve Vincent Moraga Road to ensure that all driveways providing access from to adjoining properties shall be allowed for safe ingress and/or egress. Improvements may include, but not be limited to, truck deceleration, acceleration and turn -in lanes. The improvements shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for public roadway and rights of way consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 172. Developer, at its sole cost, shall fund the acquisition and installation of traffic signals and related roadway and right of way improvements, when warranted. The design and installation shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula, consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 173. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in accordance with City Engineering Standards. The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on all improvement, grading, or landscape plans prepared in association with the development. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor as defined by City of Temecula Engineering Standards. 174. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). Additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. 175. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Temecula Standards based on R -value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. 176. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown in the Altair Specific Plan. Any substantive re -phasing of the development must be approved by the Planning and Public Works Director through a re -phasing application. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. 177. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program 178. The Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be established in compliance with the approved mitigation measures identified in the approved Traffic Impact Analysis and shall be completed prior to issuance of first occupancy permit in each additional phases of the development as required by the Director of Public Works. Water and Sewer 179. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applicable thru completion of this development. 180. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase as subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 181. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 182. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at locations approved by the Water District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 183. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean -outs at locations approved by the Sewer District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. Final Map Notes 184. Add the following notes to the final map as non -mapping data: "All improvements within private Streets are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with including but not limited to: Curbs, gutter, A.C. paving, street lights, storm drains. All Storm Water treatment control facilities are considered private requiring private maintenance." Master HOA 185, Developer shall establish a Master homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a phase, the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: d. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. e. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to reasonably disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. f. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements, In the event that the Association fails to maintain the "Common Area Lots and/or the Association's Easements," the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements within the period specified by the City's notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. g. Special Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association's Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal pro rata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. h. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth on the "Developer Responsibility Map" of the Specific Plan. i. Lighting Restrictions on Private Residential Lots: Restrictions on lighting within residential lots adjacent to open space conservation areas shall be as set forth in the Specific Plan and Final EIR. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 186. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance when applicable, from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; e. Riverside County Health Department; f. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau; g. Planning Department; h. Department of Public Works; i. Community Services District; j. Caltrans; k. Rancho California Water District; I. Eastern Municipal Water District; m. Verizon; n. Telephone Company; o. P. q. Southern California Edison Company; The Gas Company; and Metropolitan Water District or other affected agencies 187. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid or fee credits have been provided. 188. Securities. For each of the phases, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the grading and erosion & sediment control improvements. 189. Area Drainage Plan (ADP) Fee to RCFC&WCD. For each phase, the developer shall demonstrate to the City that the flood mitigation charge (ADP fee) has been paid to RCFC&WCD. If the full ADP fee has already been credited to this property, no new charge will be required. 190. The developer shall provide proof to the Department of Public Works and Planning that the conditions of any Wildlife Agency or Army Corps permits if necessary for any restoration have been bonded for and shall be implemented consistent with the timing requirements of the permits. 191. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided in Altair Specific Plan and the Development Agreement. 192. The project shall comply with the latest disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the California Building Code. 193. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for each phase of this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the Director of Public Works. 194. This project requires off site grading. No grading for any improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records, and submits a recorded copy to the Director of Public Works a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the Director of Public Works and Planning Director. 195. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained: a. from Public Works for public offsite improvements; b. from the California Department of Transportation if encroaching within their right- of-way; and c. from Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) if encroaching within their right-of-way. 196. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the Director of Public Works for the proposed haul route. 197. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an "as -graded" geologic plan with the Director of Public Works. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24"x 36" mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 198. Final Map. Final Map shall be approved and recorded for the applicable phase. 199. The developer shall provide proof to the Director of Public Works that the has contributed its fair share towards regional traffic improvements systems (Le., traffic impact fees) for the area the area through a Development Agreement. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development of each phase. 200. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. Phasing 201. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 202. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. 203. The Developer shall be permitted to seek a reimbursement agreement for qualifying facilities and improvements. The City and the Developer shall proceed in good faith to allocate appropriate reimbursements to the Developer pursuant to the City's then enforceable ordinance applicable to such reimbursement pursuant to Development Agreement. Tract Map 36959-1 (North Phase) In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of North Phase and prior to 1 s' building permit in North Phase: 204. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side of Vincent Moraga between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor northbound right turn lane improvements within this road segment. 205. Acquisition of right-of-way on the south side of Rancho California Road between Vincent Moraga Drive and the Murrieta Creek Bridge and construction of all intersection improvements within this road segment including an additional westbound left turn lane on Rancho California Road to Vincent Moraga Drive. 206. Traffic signal and utility relocation where needed and construction of the ultimate build -out of the Rancho California Road, Diaz Road and Vincent Moraga Drive intersection. 207. Construction of the designed onsite Western Bypass Corridor Phase 1 improvements from the project's northern property line to the future Altair Vista intersection. 208. Construction of the Ridge Park Drive and Western Bypass Corridor intersection improvements to provide left -turn ingress and right-in/right-out to Ridge Park Drive. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 209. Install Multi -Way Stop Controls at the First Street & Pujol Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 210. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the North Phase and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 350th building permit in North Phase, or ii) the 1st building permit in the Central Phase: 211. Acquisition of right-of-way on the west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 212. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side and west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Ridge Park Drive and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 213. Following the occupancy of both villages within this North Phase (Village A and Village B), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road; (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-2 (Central Phase) In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Central Phase and prior to 1 S' building permit in Central Phase: 214. Construction of the designed Coromell Trail road segment between Altair Vista and First Street. 215. Installation of one (1) new left turn lane (re -stripe only), and modify signal operation, install signal indications and necessary equipment at Ynez Road and Santiago Road. 216. Construction of traffic signals at the Pujol Street and First Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 217. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase and completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on pads south of the Village C Park: a. Construction of the "A" Street vehicular bridge that crosses over the Village C Park. 218. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase, shall commence before the 700th building permit is issued in the project and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 950th building permit in the project, or ii) the 1S' building permit in the South Phase: a. Construction of either the Western Bypass Bridge or construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Civic Phase. 219. Following the construction of the Western Bypass Bridge and Phase 2 Road, optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-3 (South Phasel 220. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of South Phase and prior to 1$t building permit in South Phase: a. Construction of both the Western Bypass Bridge and construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Nature Center Phase. b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass Corridor and Altair Vista intersection. c. Construction of the designed "B" Street North road segment between Altair Vista and the Western Bypass Corridor. 221. Following the completion of the villages in this South Phase (Village D, Village E and Village F), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959 (Civic Phase) 222. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Civic Phase and prior to 1St building permit in Civic Phase: a. Construction of all remaining Western Bypass Corridor improvements (Phase 3 which includes 2 western lanes; southbound). b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass and "B" Street intersection. 223. Following completion of both villages in this Civic Phase (Village G and Nature Center), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road. (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (d) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (e) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (f) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 224. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 225. The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the 5 -acre community park, the proposed private Parks that are HOA owned and maintained including recreational areas identified in the Altair Specific Plan. 226. The actual design of the 5 -acre community park in Central Phase shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. Construction plans and specifications must be approved by the Director of Community Services. 227. All park plans submitted for consideration shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process. 228. The design of the community park in Central Phase shall provide for pedestrian circulation and access for the disabled throughout the park. 229. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, or Master HOA shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites and slopes/landscaping areas except as defined in the Development Agreement, on Developer Responsibility Map. 230. The 5 -acre community park shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 231. The developer may receive a credit against the park component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) based upon the actual cost of improving the community park in Central Phase. The fee/credit issue shall be addressed pursuant to the execution of a Development Agreement or a Park Improvement Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. 2.3 Site The Altair Specific Plan area encompasses 270 acres west of Old Town and Murrieta Creek within the City of Temecula in Riverside County in southern California. The City limits form the western edge of the property. The subject land area is comprised of two portions: the majority 215 acres and a non-contiguous 55 -acre site to the south that is designated for a commercial or institutional use benefitting the public. 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. Riverside • Box ings MounSprtain Park Upland Game Hunting Area Mystic Lake Lake Perris State Recreation Area Yucaipa Lake Mathews 4111°— *Perris Reservoir Lake Mathews Estelle Mountain Reserve Santiago Peak Wincheste Ronald W. Caspers Wildernes Park Lake 15 Elsinore Murrieta Doheny State Park San Bernadino National Forest Hemet Diamond Valley Lake erg Skinner Reservoir Santa Rosa Plateau Rancho Santa Rosa Historic Area Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Camp Pendleton Capistrano Par Oceanside Pt Vail Lake Cleveland National Forest Bi. Morongo Canyon Preserve 62 Mt. San Jacinto Palm Springs Idyllwild County Park San Bernadino National Forest Palomar Mountain Cleveland National Palomar Mountain Forest State Park Hellhole Canyon Reserve Los Coyotes Reservation Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PI INTRODUCTION 2 }QJ r - Main — -- ' I'Civic IL Center re'et 9 - 7I First Street Figure 2-3 Connection to Open Space Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' View Gully Altair Vista 1200' SPECIFIC PLAN n o■: ■0 Grand Staircase Civic Center Promontory ' Plaza,+Steps First Street Figure 2-4 Connection to Old Town Temecula 1IiIISPECIFIC PLAT‘ Draft : November 2016 2 INTRODUCTION • • IM) Visual Axis Park/Open Space Altair Vista 0 300' 600' N 1200' INTRODUCTION 2 o Ra 2 I u.i Y - 1-1n L Civic L -1 r I1 1 1 Center -a L'I- reset - L I LL -L First Stret Figure 2-5 View Opportunities Draft : November 2016 HUH > Panoramic View 411111 View Up to Open Space/Ridge Park/Open Space 'Lic•G< SR\, A 9 \ 71/ 0 300' 600' Altair Vista N 1200' SPECIFIC PLANS . 2.5 Land Use 2 INTRODUCTION The predominant land use at Altair is residential, consisting of multifamily, attached and detached housing types. Housing types are further defined in Sections 10.10-10.20. Densities range from 4 to 33 dwelling units per net acre, with the higher densities at the village nodes, in the primary village and at the north end of the property. Development will be phased, achieving 870 to 1,750 dwelling units at full build -out. A Community Center to include a recreation center and clubhouse is provided for residents. Some ancillary retail or restaurant space may be included, depending on market demand, as well as a limited number of live/work units located within certain village centers, where street frontage lends itself to ground floor business storefronts. Commercial and live/work uses are allowed in all residential and mixed-use zones with a limit on the total area of such uses in Altair, as described in Table 3-1. An approximate 7 -acre site is set aside for an elementary school and playfield. The school site is located adjacent to the recreation center and near the main park to facilitate shared parking and common amenities. The separate 55 -acre property to the south, referred to as the Civic Site in this Plan, provides the opportunity for an educational, institutional or business use that will serve as an economic generator for the City of Temecula. Possible uses include conference and/or higher educational classroom space. Up to 450,000 square feet of floor space may be achieved. The existing oak tree groves at the west side of the Civic Site will be preserved. Land Use is discussed in further detail in Section 3. /I�SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 INTRODUCTION 2 - Policy 1.3 Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people 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. The Land Use section of this specific plan describes the diversity of residential types and the concentration of densities at village nodes and plazas. Development is predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the property as natural open space. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan addresses both the need for active parks and recreational space for residents and conservation of natural open space to protect wildlife and resources. Policy 1.1 A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the diverse recreation needs of residents. Ensure sufficient parkland and recreation facilities to support new development through acquisition and/or dedication that meets the requirement for 5 acres of useable park land per 1,000 population. Policy 1.5 Coordinate long-range park, trail and open space planning with Riverside County and the City of Murrieta. The neighborhoods at Altair are designed around village greens and parks that serve as focal points identifying each village. These urban green spaces are then linked by a system of pedestrian walkways and trails across open space — a "string of pearls". The core village is developed around a large central park linked to Main Street in Old Town Temecula, both visually and via a pedestrian path. Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. The Altair Specific Plan is consistent with the many General Plan policies aimed at achieving this goal. Water conservation and protection strategies are detailed in the Drainage Plan and Water Plan portions of Section 6, as well as in the Landscape Guidelines in Section 10. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN Goal 3 Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors and general biodiversity. Policy 3.3 Policy 3.4 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Encourage developers to incorporate native drought -resistant vegetation, mature trees, and other significant vegetation into site and landscape designs for proposed projects. Goal 5 Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment .... and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. 2 INTRODUCTION Policy 5.13 Utilize natural, undeveloped greenbelts as buffers between developments and on outskirts of the City to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula. Portions of the Altair site lie within Proposed Linkage 10 in the Southwest Region of the MSHCP Plan Area. This linkage is intended to provide both "live-in habitat" for various species and a movement corridor connecting the Santa Margarita and the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserves. The proposed Western Bypass as well as roads at the north and south ends of the site will serve as a buffer between development and the Linkage. Edge treatment along these roads will be developed through the environmental review process with input from Riverside County and MSHCP stakeholders. The Linkage conserves the ridgeline and escarpment west of Old Town and includes the highest elevations of the Altair property. The Growth Management / Public Facilities Element seeks to ensure that growth in the City occurs in such a manner that services may be provided efficiently and adequately. 12 Orderly and efficient patterns of growth that enhance quality of life for Temecula residents. The proximity of Altair to Old Town Temecula lends efficiency to the project and City since the facilities needed to serve the land uses are close by. The location eliminates the need to install and maintain long distribution mains. In addition, on site facilities such as the school and parks can serve the surrounding neighborhood. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 2-21 2-22 INTRODUCTION 2 Goal 4 A quality school system with adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula. Policy 4.4 Coordinate with the School District to provide safe access for school children walking, bicycling, or driving to and from school sites. Policy 4.5 Policy 4.6 Pursue the establishment of a trade school, a junior college, and/ora four-year college that offers education required by the engineering, biotechnical and biomedical industries located in Temecula. Plan for the joint use of school/municipal facilities wherever feasible and desirable, including: school grounds, buildings, City parks, multi-purpose buildings, and recreation facilities. Altair includes a site of approximately 7 acres for a public elementary school and playfield to be built by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The school site is near the main park and community center. Opportunities for shared use of school and community facilities will be pursued with the School District. The Civic Site also has the potential to be developed for higher education to support local industry. The Air Quality Element strives to improve regional air quality through better land planning, reduction of automobile emissions and energy conservation. Goal 2 Policy 2.2 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula. Encourage infill development near activity centers, within Mixed Use Overlay Areas, and along transportation corridors. Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions. Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. Altair is a walkable community connected with pedestrian and bicycle trails to the employment, shopping and entertainment activities of Old Town Temecula. Both the location and design of the project will give residents a choice other than automotive transportation. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN 3 LAND USE 3.1 Summary LAND USE The Altair Specific Plan depicts a 270 -acre community of primarily residential development with supporting civic uses and open space. It presents an urban lifestyle in its density, convenience of activities and close relationship to the shopping, dining and entertainment venues of Old Town Temecula. Altair is intended to house multiple demographics, spanning age groups and household types. A dominant pedestrian network linking active open spaces encourages interaction amongst these diverse residents. Due to the property's shape and location, the Altair Specific Plan area is physically and conceptually divided into three main parts. To the south is a 55 -acre area that is separated from the remaining site by a parcel under ownership of the Metropolitan Water District. The location of the original Luiseno Native American settlement, the Temeku Village Site is immediately adjacent to the south. The parcel also lies within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) corridor, discussed in more detail in Section 8 of this Specific Plan, and supports an existing stand of oak trees. Because of these significant cultural and biological considerations the southern parcel is mostly reserved as open space. The remaining area of approximately 13 acres is intended for civic or community use that will generate employment or stimulate the local economy. Possible uses include higher education, a convention and / or a training facility. The remaining 215 -acre parcel is bifurcated by the Western Bypass road that carries through - traffic around Old Town Temecula. To the west of this road is predominantly natural open space that is a component of the Proposed Linkage 10 of the MSHCP (discussed in Section 8.1). Only two small residential components lie west of the Bypass, villages A and G. The area east of the Bypass is developed with the most density. Uses are mainly residential with supporting civic and community uses (including a school) and interstitial and active open space. These residential uses are described in the following Community Design narrative and in the village descriptions that follow. All residential uses allow a small amount of accessory commercial use to support the neighborhood. These might be a corner coffee shop, ice cream parlor or live/work units with ground floor offices. Accessory commercial uses shall be at street level near village cores. TABLE 3-1 describes the acreage and density of each land use. FIGURE 3-2 shows the location of each use on the Altair site and FIGURE 3-3 shows zoning per parcel. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 3-1 LAND USE 3 ., Natural Ope-h Space a) a) / k -K r err- rm Civic LL Lv CenteriiHe Main La J I � rrn m 7 55 -Acre Civic Site Parcel Line Natural or Revegetated Open Space Off -Site Natural Open Space Property Line Figure 3-1 Natural Open Space Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' 1200' SPECIFIC PLAN A k ir School Wil?? Civic LLL-LLLLLI�T Tr;r1n Center r h? �0H li Civic Site Figure 3-2 SPECIFIC PLAN Land Use Draft : November 2016 m qy Open Space Civic/Community Residential Property Line O 3-3 LAND USE Planning District Tract Map 5 Lot No. Land Use 2 Zone 2 Area Density Range (for Net Lot Area) Intensity Range Open Space Buildable Lots Min. Max. 1 Min. Max. 1 Upper Hillside Conservation Area 36959-1 8 Open Space SP -NO 29.37 ac Conservation Area 36959-2 25 Open Space SP -NO 8.06 ac Conservation Area 36959-3 20 Open Space SP -NO 8.30 ac Open Space 36959-1 7 Open Space SP -NO 4.83 ac Open Space 36959-2 13 Open Space SP -NO 4.60 ac Open Space 36959-3 12 Open Space SP -NO 5.40 ac Open Space 36959 13 Open Space SP -NO 4.01 ac Conservation Area 36959 14 Open Space SP -NO 4.23 ac Villages VILLAGE A 36959-1 1 Residential SP -R 6.18 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 56 - 110 D.U. 36959-1 2 Residential SP -R 4.17 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 38 - 75 D.U. 36959-1 3 Residential SP -R 2.36 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 21 - 42 D.U. 36959-1 4 Residential SP -R 2.89 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 26 - 52 D.U. 140 - 280 Village A Subtotal (D.U.) VILLAGE B 36959-1 5 Residential SP -R 7.24 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 64 - 128 D.U. 36959-1 6 Residential SP -R 5.16 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 46 - 92 D.U. 110 - 220 Village B Subtotal (D.U.) VILLAGE C: Recreation Center 36959-2 17 Mixed Use SP -M 1.75 ac Clubhouse 36959-2 18 Mixed Use SP -M 0.30 ac Park 36959-2 19 Open Space SP -AO 5.04 ac North Core 36959-2 2 Residential SP -R 2.37 ac 18 - 29 D.U./ac 43 - 69 D.U. 36959-2 3 Residential SP -R 3.74 ac 18 - 29 D.U./ac 68 - 109 D.U. 36959-2 4 Residential SP -R 1.63 ac 18 - 29 D.U./ac 29 - 47 D.U. 140 - 225 North Core Subtotal (D.U.) South Core 36959-2 5 Residential SP -MR 0.40 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 8 - 13 D.U. 36959-2 6 Residential SP -R 2.53 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 54 - 84 D.U. 36959-2 7 Residential SP -R 1.64 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 34 - 54 D.U. 36959-2 8 Residential SP -R 1.84 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 39 - 61 D.U. 36959-2 9 Residential SP -R 1.53 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 32 - 50 D.U. 36959-2 10 Residential SP -R 1.30 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 27 - 43 D.U. 36959-2 11 Residential SP -R 1.80 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 38 - 59 D.U. 36959-2 12 Residential SP -R 2.28 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 48 - 75 D.U. 280 - 440 South Core Subtotal (D.U.) VILLAGE D 36959-3 1 Residential SP -R 2.55 ac 8 - 18 D.U./ac 20 - 45 D.U. 36959-3 2 Residential SP -R 2.32 ac 8 - 18 D.U./ac 18 - 41 D.U. 36959-3 3 Residential SP -R 1.96 ac 8 - 18 D.U./ac 15 - 35 D.U. 36959-3 4 Residential SP -R 2.15 ac 8 - 18 D.U./ac 17 - 38 D.U. Park 36959-3 14 Open Space SP -AO 0.80 ac 70 - 160 Village D Subtotal (D.U.) VILLAGE E 36959-3 5 Residential SP -R 1.51 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 8 - 22 D.U. 36959-3 6 Residential SP -R 1.23 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 6 - 18 D.U. 36959-3 7 Residential SP -R 1.17 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 6 - 17 D.U. 36959-3 8 Residential SP -R 2.51 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 13 - 37 D.U. 36959-3 9 Residential SP -R 1.42 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 7 - 21 D.U. 40 - 115 Village D Subtotal (D.U.) VILLAGE F 36959-3 10 Residential SP -R 4.51 ac 7 - 20 D.U./ac 30 - 90 D.U. 36959-3 11 Residential SP -R 4.52 ac 7 - 20 D.U./ac 30 - 90 D.U. 60 - 180 Village D Subtotal (D.U.) VILLAGE G 3 36959 1 Residential SP -R 3.05 ac 4 - 18 D.U./ac 12 - 54 D.U. 36959 2 Residential SP -R 4.25 ac 4 - 18 D.U./ac 17 - 76 D.U. 30 - 130 V!I!^nA n Subtotal (D.U.) SUBTOTAL 74.64 ac 84.26 ac 10 - 21 D.u./ac average 870 - 1,750 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS Table 3-1 Zones and Development Intensity 3-4 Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN n JM 3 LAND USE School 9 Civic Site 3 36959-2 1 Educational SP -E 7.07 ac 50,000 gsf 450,000 gsf 600 - 730 students 5,000 students, max. Campus 36959 3 Institutional SP -I 2.84 ac Campus 36959 4 Institutional SP -I 3.09 ac Campus 36959 5 Institutional SP -I 2.76 ac Campus 36959 6 Institutional SP -I 4.68 ac Campus 36959 7 Institutional SP -I 3.16 ac Campus 36959 8 Institutional SP -I 2.25 ac Campus 36959 9 Open Space SP -NO 0.31 ac Campus 36959 10 Open Space SP -NO 0.14 ac Campus 36959 11 Open Space SP -NO 0.49 ac Conservation Area 36959 12 Open Space SP -NO 34.63 ac Interstitial Open Space Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 14 Open Space SP -AO 4.54 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 15 Open Space SP -NO 0.78 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 16 Open Space SP -NO 0.52 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 20 Open Space SP -AO 0.59 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 21 Open Space SP -NO 0.83 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 22 Open Space SP -NO 1.63 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 23 Open Space SP -AO 1.39 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 24 Open Space SP -AO 1.80 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 13 Open Space SP -AO 4.88 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 15 Open Space SP -NO 0.74 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 16 Open Space SP -NO 0.52 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 17 Open Space SP -AO 0.25 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 18 Open Space SP -NO 0.38 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 19 Open Space SP -AO 2.64 ac Circulation 28.09 ac TOTALS 159.79 ac 110.11 ac 10 - 21 D.U./ac AVERAGE 870 - 1,750 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 269.90 ac Definitions: Gross Area: the total area within the lot lines of a lot or parcel of land before public streets, easements or other areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use are deducted. Net Area: the gross project or lot area, less that portion of the site to be used for arterial and collector roads, public parks, and/or the floodway portion of a floodplain. For the purposes of this Specific Plan, arterial and collector roads shall include only those roads provided by the Master Builder and/or public roads owned by the City of Temecula. Interstitial Open Space: non -developable area installed by the Master Developer including fixed slope banks and retaining walls, floodways and drainage basins, utility easements, the Class 1 bikeway, the Western Bypass and Street 1. D.U.: dwelling unit Notes: 1, Maximum density and intensity within a village may be increased by the transfer of unused development intensity (D.U.) from one village to another, but the total number of dwelling units in the Altair Specific Plan shall not exceed 1,750 D.U. 2, Commercial and live/work uses are allowed in residential and mixed use designations, but the total amount of commercial space in the Altair Specific Plan shall not exceed 25,000 square feet. See zoning regulations and Table 10-1 for permitted uses. 3. Student housing may be provided as an option at Village G and the Civic Site if an institution of higher education is located on the Civic Site. 4. If the School District does not use the site, residential uses are permitted on this lot as described in Section 3.12. 5. Lot numbers indicated here correspond to the lot numbers in Tentative Tract Map 36959 and 36959-1, 2 and 3. SP - SPECIFIC PLAN NO - NATURAL OPEN SPACE AO - ACTIVE OPEN SPACE R - RESIDENTIAL ZONE M - MIXED USE MR- MIXED USE / RESIDENTIAL E - EDUCATIONAL ZONE I - INSTITUTIONAL ZONE Table 3-1 Continued Zones and Development Intensity SPECIFIC PLAT, Draft : November 2016 3-5 LAND USE 3 Western Bypass Corridor Figure 3-3 Zoning Map Draft : November 2016 ZONING MAP LEGEND SP -A0 Active Open Space SP -NO Natural Open Space SP -R Residential Zone SP -M Mixed -Use SP -MR Mixed -Use/ Residential SP -E Educational SP -I Institutional SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE 3 I School �- T Main n MT TTITTT1.11 r� „„„ Civic L `�` 11 Center Trrr as F 111.1 m 1 ti 01 cI E' --I r U� M • i i i Figure 3-4 Village A - Plan Area al Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' 1200 ,PECIFIC PLAN niainiri LAND USE 3 Figure 3-8 Village Mk Plan Area Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' 1200 SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE 3 Figure 3-12 Village C - Plan Area al Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' i n 1 1200 PECIFIC nlihrah LAND USE 3 2 i "School rrr-1my iii . n Civic L: 1' Center 1L0 100L]a First Street W Co / yr Figure 3-17 Village D - Plan Area AM Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' 1200 PECIFIC PLAN[if//" LAND USE 3 1 1 School �- FiY-st Street 471 W Figure 3-21 Village Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' I I- E 1200 PECIFIC PLAN rIIIJI LAND USE 3 p School / 1/ 0/2 '1- i ') J L J n az u_ u �� err 11u_ F I I CIVIC L_1 ` }1-LL11-1 Center r _ T is 77775 iii Main treet m L-1 w Civic Use • • I1 i Figure 3-25 0111 Draft : November 2016 0 300 600 1200 SPECIFIC PLAN A kir LAND USE 3 Figure 3-29 11111. Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' 1200 1 PECIFIC PLAN 3.11 Village G Village G is south of the Western Bypass on land that slopes steeply to the southeast, offering prime views. The area has a stronger connection to the south 55 -acre parcel than to the main residential community of Altair. The interface with the MSHCP corridor is a critical edge condition. A less urban development of clustered, detached homes is appropriate here to take advantage of the views and negotiate the terrain. If the civic site is developed as a higher education campus, then student housing is another possible use of Village G. Student housing may be owned and operated by the educational institution or may be held privately and rented to students. Student housing would typically be provided in micro -units or multifamily walk-up residences. BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the north and northeast; Camino Estribo to the east; Metropolitan Water District drainage area to the south; MSHCP corridor to the west. SIZE: Approximately 7.3 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining Afir SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 LAND USE 3 • ❑ ❑■ walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: Camino Estribo from the south. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel vehicular path. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. MINIMUM DENSITY PRODUCT: Detached Housing DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village G. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Lower density uses should be focused toward the north end of this village, with higher scale framing the urban park. Student housing, if provided, would typically be developed in micro -units or multifamily walk-up residences. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up B Street North Primary Access C Street Camino Estribo • + C Street a Vehicular Access Secondar Fire Access (emergency only) B Street South Figure 3-30 Village G CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on CStreet, BStreetSouth, secondary roads and on open space. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Sections 10.4 and 10.5 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From C Street ROW: All other Lot Lines: 3 ft. min 0 ft. min ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-4 stories No maximum 10 ft. max. C Street Camino Estribo B Street South 1 C Street B Street North Figure 3-31 Pedestrian Circulation - Village G CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 D■ ■D" LAND USE 3 E� err 1 J1 T LJ iu . i TTT TTTI T r -m -Timm Civic 44 _10Center T +rf Main 0H Finure 3-32 School - Plan Area ; 0 300' 600' 1200' Draft : November 2016 I n PECIFIC PLANC' M,17 LAND USE 3 Figure 3-36 Civic Site - Plan Area Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' 1200' SPECIFIC PLAN A hr 3.13 Civic Site The southernmost parcel at Altair will be reserved for an institutional use that will benefit the public through education, employment, and / or civic functions. A significant portion of the site will be natural open space. BOUNDARIES: Camino Estribo and open space to the west; C Street and storm water easement (open space) to the north; Murrieta Creek to the east and south. SIZE: Approximately 55 total gross acres and 9.6 net acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: B Street South from the Western Bypass and 1-15; C Street from Village G. MAXIMUM SIZE: Institutional Use: Office or R+D Use: 5,000 students, maximum 450,000 s.f. max. in multiple buildings BUILDING TYPE: The scale, materials and style of the buildings should be appropriate for a public institution and should be an asset to the community. The buildings must also be sensitive to the adjacent natural open space and the Temeku Village site to the south. The buildings should relate to eachother to maintain a consistent campus aesthetic. If it is developed as a higher education campus, then student housing to support the campus is allowed on the civic site. Student housing and rented to students. Student housing would typically be provided in micro -units or multifamily residences. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 LAND USE 3 • ❑ ❑■ BUILDING FRONTAGE: A clear campus entry shall be provided on Camino Estribo. Development on this site shall consist of multiple buildings arranged in a cohesive campus focused on shared open space and places for outdoor gathering. Both the buildings and the common spaces should take advantage of the impressive vistas from this site. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at south parcel boundary. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the overall boundary.. At Camino Estribo and C Street: 10 ft. min C Street 1 1 Seconder Fire I Access Only No maximum Open Space •a 1 I 1 1 Camino 1 1 Estribo 1 Institutional' Civic Use ■ 1li • I 1 1 I • •Open Space • I • • • / $ 1 / / I 1 / I / I / / / 1 / I / I / / B Street South Primary Access \ 1 1 Western Bypass Figure 3-3 Vehicular vi CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN A kir ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: Up to 5 stories Afir DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be one primary driveway entry onto Camino Estribo. 2. Up to two secondary driveways may also be provided on Camino Estribo in addition to the primary driveway. PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parking shall be provided per the City of Temecula Zoning Code for the actual use of the site. I C Street Open Space ®. I • 1 I Camino • Estribo 1 L Institutional Civic Use B Street South 1 1 1 / I •• • I . I / I . . i i Western y Bypass / Figure 3-38 Pedestrian Circulation - Civic Site CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 0 V LAND USE 3 3-72 APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards GRADING STANDARDS: The site slopes down from west to the east and south, with slope banks on three sides. See Section 9.8 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. COMMON OPEN SPACE: Most of the south parcel will be left as natural open space. An existing stand of native oak trees at the west side of the parcel will be maintained. The south portion of the parcel will also be maintained as an open space buffer between new development and the historic Temecu Village site to the south. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: N/A LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See "Civic / Community" section under Appendix A Plant List and Section 10.6.10. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES: The Environmental Impact Report for Altair describes mitigation measures that, while applicable to the entire site, are particularly relevant to the conservation open space in the south and west portions of the south parcel and the goal of encouraging wildlife movement through this tract. Noted measures include: • Control Zones for exterior lighting; • Shielded exterior light fixtures that avoid light spillage or uplighting; • Site features and landscaping that screen vehicle headlights; • Construction of a berm and landscape buffer along the southern edge of the south parcel to screen views of buildings and activity from adjacent conserved lands; • Installation of a Wildlife Fence as shown in Figure 8-1 and described in Section 8.1. • Construction period best practices to minimize noise, erosion and other disturbances; • The portion of Camino Estribo west of the development area will remain unpaved to minimize vehicular speeds. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir ot ALTAIR VISTA i 1 1 COROMELL TRAIL 0 1 MAIN STREET OLD TOWN WESTERN BYPASS C STREET B STREET S Figure 4-12 FIRST STREET UTH B STREET NORTH LEGEND: 4 CIRCULATION STREET SECTION - WESTE9h1 BYPASS CORRIDOR 1 [PLIBug STREET SECTION - WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR 2 (PLIBLIC) STREET SECTION - C STREET & B STREET S. (PUBUO) STREET SECTION - COROMELLTRAIL SPLR- (PRIVATE) • • • STREET SECTION - COROMELL TRAIL (PRIVATE) li STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA &A S EI - EE k, PLANTED PARIGVAYS {PRIVATE) STREET SECTION-ALTAIR VISTA &A STREET. URBAN PARKWAYS (PBNATE) STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA ONE WAY WITH PARKING ONE SIDE {PRIVATE) STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA {PUBLIC) STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA CULVERT / A STREET BRIDGE STREET SECTION - B STREET N. VJR-I CLASS I BIKE TFIAIL {PRIVATE) = STREET SECTION - B STREET N. WITH SHARED BIKE LANE )PRIVATE) TRANSITIONAL AREA PER TENTATIVE MAP ROUNDABOUT- 1 ROUNDABOUT - 2 ROUNDABOUT - 3 Vehicular Circulation Plan SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 CIRCULATION 4 C Street & B Street South I Q 10" _ .. '$l 14' I 14" 6' 4'_, 6' PKWAY BIKE LANE LANE BIKE PKWY WALK 40' 10' 60' R.Q.W. Figure 4-16 Street Section - C Street (TTM lots Q+R) & B Street South (lots O,S+P) ( Public ) C Street and B Street South - 60' ROW , FIGURE 4-16 (Section) and FIGURE 4-17 (Axonometric). Features: • Two 14 -foot travel lanes with 6 -foot wide bike lanes each side. • 6 -foot sidewalk along one side. • 10 -foot landscaped parkway along the other side of the street. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. • Dedicated bike lanes shall be provided. • Street trees shall be spaced at 24 feet on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN NATIVE SLOPE 4 CIRCULATION SCORED C ONCREf NATIVE SLOPE Figure 4-17 Street Axon - C Street & B Street South ( Public ) C Street and B Street South These areas shall use a combination of primarily SoCal natives with limited non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 85% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 15%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 90% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 10%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 D■ II El Afir Figure 5-1 Project Grading Diagram SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 5 GRADING PLAN ID ■a INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 EXHIBIT F - TRACT 36959 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN PLAN LEGEND: OCTOBER, 2016 EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE CHANNEL Figure 6-3 Storm Drainage Plan Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN 25 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 20 ; 24" 6' CONC. L HANNEL r6 36" 48kink" EX. 36" EX. 36" EX. 6' CON CHANNEL C. EX. 24" LEX 36" SEX. 42" 6' CONC. CHANNEL EX. 6' CONC. CHANNEL k\_ PUJQLSTREET EX. 2-24" CIVIC PHASE TR 36959 \ Afir 12 \ N.A.P \ 12 / C STREET 24 11 SOUTH PHASE TR 36959-3 \,./ 20 14 GP 36 dsF: 8" 2 SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 LEGEND: EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE CHANNI INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 PUJOL STREET co m EX (3) 8" W CENTRAL PHASE CIVIC PHASE TR 36959 EXISTING DOMESTIC WATER LINE / EX 97° MWd S.D. AQUEDUCT EX. 89° MWD \ \ SD. AQUEDUCT \\ --- //ill- /\\ / 14 13 • • z // •ice / \\ 12"W \ `'� i2 VA\ a // n // \ \ 8" RW /EX 42°W EX 30° W ' EX 36 E PV30�g�R- - 6 — 4 EX. 36° W EX. 42° W LEGEND: 1- EXISTING DOMESTIC WATER LINE EXISTING RECYCLED WATER LINE PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER LINE PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER LINE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT 6 \O N SCREE EXHIBIT D-2 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL WATER PLAN OCTOBER 2016 Figure 6- 6 ( continued) Enlarged Domestic Water Plans by Phase Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 EXHIBIT C - TRACT 36959 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN LEGEND: OCTOBER 2016 (MIN 8 ) EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER LINE EXISTING FORCE MAIN PROP. GRAVITY SEWER LINE PROP. 24" SEWER FORCE MAIN BY EMWD Figure 6-7 Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN A hr INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 1�s 8 <'o - -L__ _ 25 WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR PROP e 15 PROP_ I2 L EX 20" FORCE MAIN EX 13" FORCE MAIN PUJOL STREET PUJOL STREET \_ Ex 8' PROP. 15" EX. 12" FORCE MAIN Ex 20" FORCE MAIN EX 18" FORCE MAIN PROP. 24" FORCE MAIN (BY EMWD) EX. 8 EX 20" FORCE MAIN EX 18" FORCE MAIN PROP. 24" FORCE MAIN (BY EMWD) EX. PUJOL LIFT STATION (UPGRADES BY EMWD) HMT NORTH PHASE TR 36959-1 20 1-1 20 STREET 8 PROP 7 ALTAIR 6 PROP 0" 13 EX. 20" FORCE MAIN EX. 78" FORCE MAIN EX. 20" FORCEAIN EX. 78" FORCE MAIN PROP. 8 EX. 8" TO BE REPLACED PUJOL STREET EX. PUJOL LIFT STATION (UPGRADES BY EMWD) OLD TOWN FRONT STREET I- .0 SOUTH PHASE TR 36959-3 Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 7 CIVIC PHASE TR 36959 12 3 (2 20 2 25 25 4 5 PROP. 8" TRAIL 4 PU- JOL STREET EX 20" FORCE MAN £X 10" FORCE MAIN PUJOL STREET EX 8" £X 12" FORCE MAIN 1 EX. PUJOL LIFT STATION (UPGRADES BY EMWD) CENTRAL PHASE TR 36959-2 20 13 S RN ALTAI 6 VISTA PROP. 10" •POP. 10" 0 C 11 B STREET TJ I P. 12 £X 2• 0' FORCE 8518 £,Y 18" FORCE 8518 LEGEND MN M PROP. 10" 3 ▪ EX. 20" FORCE MAIN EX. 18" FORCE MAIN L EX. 20" FORCE MAIN EX. 18" FORCE MAIN EN 8" TO BE REPLACED PUJOL STREET PROP. 10 PROP. 12 EX. FRONT 5T. LIFT STATION PROP. 10" PROP. 12 EX. PUJOL LIFT STATION (UPGRADES BY EMWD) EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER LINE — EXISTING FORCE MAIN PROP. GRAVITY SEWER LINE PROP. 24" SEWER FORCE MAIN BY EMWD Afir OLD TOWN FRONT STREET EXHIBIT C-2 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 OCTOBER 2016 6-19 OPEN SPACE & RECREATION Al f"Ai r 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN The City of Temecula General Plan targets 5 acres of useable park land per 1,000 population in its Open Space and Conservation Element in order to ensure sufficient park land and recreation facilities. While the General Plan excludes natural open space and trails from its park standard, they are a substantial and integral part of the open space and recreation network at Altair. The large amount of natural and interstitial open space and usable cycling and running trails complements the available active open space. This inter -connected system is consistent with and contributes to the Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, discussed previously in Section 4. To meet the General Plan target, Altair would need between 9.6 and 19.3 acres of useable park land, based on an expected person per household factor of 2.2 and planned development intensity in the range of 870-1,750 dwelling units. The target factor of 5 acres per 1,000 persons is high for the region. The City of San Diego, for instance, requires only 2.8 acres per 1,000 population in its General Plan, while the City of Riverside requires 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Escondido recognizes the value of passive parks and habitat land by targeting passive and active open space in equal measure, with a combined total of 11.8 acres per 1,000 people. The combined passive and active open space area in the Altair Specific Plan totals approximately 135 acres. This equates to 35 acres per 1,000 residents at the maximum density of 1,750 dwelling units. A successful community has many different kinds of open space that offer a range of activities and varying levels of privacy and control. Open space is divided into four main categories in the Altair Specific Plan: natural open space, interstitial open space, active open space and private open space. A summary of open spaces are shown in Tables 8-1 and 8-2 and general locations are indicated in Figure 8-1. Draft : November 2016 OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 8 Use Acres % of Total Conservation Open Space Open Space Clubhouse and Recreation Center Parks, Trails & Bikeways Master Developer Guest Builders Elementary School 10.18 3.55 2.00 84.59 31.33 2.05 31.3% 11.6% 0.8% Total 15.73 15.73 5.8% Developed Area* (Residential, School + Civic Sites) Roadways 108.11 40.1% 28.09 10.4% Total 269.90 100.0% * Approximately 20% of the Village Lot Areas are 2:1 open space slopes to the east and/or west of each Village. The final buildable pad area is anticipated to be 60 - 65 acres (22%-24% of the total acreage). Table 8-1 Open Space Summary Location Use Responsibility TOTAL AREA (Acres) Portion of Park Area that is Open to the Public Master Developer / School District Guest Builder Active Open Space Master HOA Maintained Sub -HOA Maintained Village A Active Park Guest Builder 0.95 1 0.65 Village B Active Park Guest Builder 0.65 1 0.40 Village C Active Park Master Developer 5.04 0.75 2 5.04 Plaza Master Developer 0.37 0.37 Promenade Master Developer 0.59 0.59 Community Center Master Developer 2.05 2.05 Village D Active Park Master Developer 0.80 0.15 2 0.80 Village E Active Park Guest Builder 0.35 1 0.25 Between E+ F Active Park Master Developer 0.25 0.25 Village F Active Park Guest Builder 0.60 1 0.40 Village G Active Park Guest Builder 0.10 2 School Play Field School District 2.00 2.00 3 Trail South of 1st Street Class I Bikeway Master Developer 1.40 1.40 Trail North of 1st Street Jogging Path Master Developer 0.78 0.78 Western Bypass Class I Bikeway Master Developer 0.92 0.92 Active Subtotal: 14.19 3.55 15.89 Natural Open Space Upper Hillside MSHCP + Slopes Master Developer 68.80 Civic Site MSHCP + Slopes Master Developer 35.57 Interstitial Open Space Passive Ravines + Slopes Master Developer 21.49 21.49 Tach 140.65' 37.38 1. Includes Guest Builder constructed "String of Pearls" parks that are open to the public (1.7 acres). 2. Estimated Common Open Space parks (varies based on product type) which may be public or private. 3. Subject to joint use agreement with School District. Table 8-2 ' Park and Open Space Areas Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN Afir I PRESERVED / RESTORED OPEN SPACE 0-* !'-mow VILLAGE 'A PARK VILLAGE 'B' PARK OFF SIT OPEN SPA CLUBHOUSE UPPER STAIRCASE SEATING PLAZA PROMENADE CE SCHOOL RECREATION HOA RECREATION CENTER VILLAGE 'C' CORE PARK MAIN ST. PLAZA OLD TOWN GRAND STAIR VILLAGE `D' PARK Figure 8-1 Parks, Open Space and Amenities Plan SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 OPEN SPACE 8 & RECREATION OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 8 8.1 Natural Open Space Natural open space is basically left in its current state. While access is not prohibited, natural open space is not intended to be active or programmed for recreation. There are no trails or facilities for visitors. Natural open space in the Altair Specific Plan is primarily located in the MSHCP corridor west of the Western Bypass and at the southern tip of the site. It includes natural habitat, chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and oak woodland. This area is part of Proposed Linkage 10 in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and will provide both live-in habitat and a passageway for critical species including bobcat and mountain lion. The natural open space within the Specific Plan area is connected to the much larger MSHCP land that extends westward to the ridgeline, maximizing the value of each area as part of a greater conservation zone. The south 55 -acre parcel is mostly natural open space in orderto preserve a large stand of native oak and to be sensitive to adjacent uses. The south portion of this parcel is adjacent to the Temeku Village Site. Natural open space in this area provides an appropriate backdrop and helps to maintain the cultural significance of the neighboring historical site. Effective separation of natural habitat from development is critical to preserve the habitat and protect both native species and residents, including their pets, from predators. The Western Bypass Corridor divides most of the natural open space from new development. A wildlife fence will also be provided as shown in Figure 8-1 to keep animals out of the Bypass and to separate the natural open space from Villages A, G and the south parcel. Wildlife Fencing Standard: 1. 8.0' high vinyl coated chain link "Wildlife Fence" with gates included throughout. 2. Locate at the toe of slope along the entire Western Bypass Road as well as areas adjacent to Villages A, G & Civic Site (see Figure 8-1). Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE 8 & RECREATION 8.3 Active Open Space Active open space is developed for human recreation and gathering. These spaces are the focus of the individual neighborhoods of the Altair Specific Plan and give each village its unique character. Active spaces are closely tied to adjacent architecture, functioning as outdoor rooms. They often occupy important loci or scenic vantage points within the overall plan. Active open space falls into two general types at Altair: public open space and common open space. 8.3.1 Public Open Space Public Open Spaces are parks, playfields, and other spaces for public use that are typically established by the master developer and maintained by the Altair community as a whole. Public Open Spaces include the central park, the Community Center area, upper stair and plaza and the promenade, all at Village C; and the village parks. Guest builders can also install and maintain public open spaces as long as they are open to the general public, such as at the village parks. Active public open spaces also include circulation elements such as Class I bikeways and established paths that can be used for walking or jogging. The pedestrian link from Village C to Main Street is a series of connected urban spaces at the Grand Stair and Main Street plaza that encourages interaction between residents of Altair and Old Town. A Recreation Center and Clubhouse are provided to serve all residents of Altair. Both of these facilities are located in the Community Center at Village C and they define and punctuate the Plaza at the top of the Main Street axis. See the Village C description in Section 3 for more information on this area of the Plan and its adjacencies. The Recreation Center features an outdoor pool and spa framed by the recreation building and a pergola. Inside the recreation building are locker rooms, restrooms, spaces for fitness equipment and yoga or other exercise classes, a children's game room and offices and other support spaces. The Recreation Center edges grand steps at the peak of the Main Street axis, a prime gathering space and scenic viewpoint. 1_2/JLEZIAISPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1' 10-2 Description of Use Open Space Residential Mixed Use Public/Institutional SP -AO SP -NO SP -R SP -M SP -MR SP -E SP -I Residential 2 Single-family detached Duplex (two-family dwellings) Single-family attached (greater than two units) Multiple -family Manufactured Homes Mobilehome Park Efficiency / Micro- Units Transitional Housing Secondary Dwelling Unit 4 Group Homes Congregate care facilities (elderly or disabled) Residential care facilities (for elderly, disabled, mentally disordered, dependent or neglected children) Recovery or treatment facility Guest House 4 Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities Bed and breakfast establishment Family day care homes Live/ Work Home Occupation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - P C P C C C C C C C P P P P P P P - - P C P C C C - P P P P P P P P P P - - P C P C C C - P P P P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - - - Nonresidential Day care centers Educational, K -8th grade Educational, trade or vocational school Higher Education Conference facility Libraries Museums and galleries (nonprofit) Nonprofit clubs and lodge halls Religious Institutions Hospital and Ancillary Medical Office - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 P - - - - P 3 P 3 P 3 - - P - - - - P P P C - c - - - - P P P C - P P - - - P P - C - P C P P P P P - P P Commercial Retail Restaurant Offices - - - - - - P P P P P P P P P - - - - P C Open Space Community Gardens Athletic Field Bicycle Paths Communications and microwave installations Game courts, badminton,tennis, racqetball Golf course and clubhouse, driving range Naturecenters/exhibits Parking Areas Picnic group facilities Private parks and recreation facilities Public parks and recreation facilities Recreational vehicle park Riding stable, public or private Shooting galleries, ranges, archery courses P P P C P - P P 1 P P P - - - - - C - - - C - C - C - - - P - P C - - P P P P - - - - - - P C P - - P - P - - - - - - P C P - - P - P C - - - P P P C P - P P P P P - - - P P P C P - P P P P P - C - Legend P Use is permitted in subject zone C Use is conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Use is prohibited in subject zone Notes 1 Parking for park visitor use only. 2 Conform with Housing Type regulations per Sections 10.10-10.21. 3 A CUP is required if use is added after initial development. 4 Conform with "accessory dwelling" regulations per Sections 10.11-10.21. Table 10-1 ' Permitted Uses Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS Standards Village A Village B Village C Village D Village E kr "7".., a Village G Schaal 8 South Parcel min. i maxi min. i max? min. i max? min. € max.3 min. 1 max.3 min. max? min. maxi min. max.3 min. max? Lot Minimum Lot Area N/A Minimum Lot Frontage Determined by Building Type. See Sections 10.10-10.18 and Table 10-4 Setbacks (feet) 1'2 From Altair Vista Property Line 3 410 4 3 ': 10 3 5 5 0 5 5 0 l 5 5 3 - 3 - 5 From Western Bypass ROW 20 i 130 20 ': 100 10 i 10 From Ridge Park Drive ROW 20 ':. 160 From Levant Trail ROW 3 From "A" Street Property Line 0 5 From Camino Estribo ROW 10 All other Lot Lines 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 € 10 0 - 0 -leight Maximum Height (feet) 6'7 65 70 75 65 55 55 ' 55 50 85 Maximum Stories 5 5 5 4 4 4 i 4 2 5 Other Requirements Park Space Minimum total area 0.95 acre 0.60 acre 5.00 acres 0.87 acres 0.50 acres 1.00 acres 0.35 acre 2.00 Minimum contiguous area 0.65 acre 0.40 acre 5.00 acres 0.87 acres 0.25 acres 0.40 acres -- 1.50 Common Open Space (sq. ft. per unit) Determined by Building Type. See Section 10.10-10.18 and Table 10-4 Private Open Space (sq. ft. per unit) Determined by Building Type. See Sections 10.10-10.18 and Table 10-4 Allowable Building Types Detached Housing (Section 10.11) a • • • ■ • • • 8 Multiplex (Section 10.12) 1 • a ■ • E • 1 8 Rowhouse (Section 10.13) • ■ ■ ■ • • • El 8 Live / Work (Section 10.14) If ■ l r Ill . 8 Multifamily Walk -Up (Section 10.15) • ■ M • 1 ■ i E 8 Multifamily Podium (Section 10.16) A ■ * • ■ • • 8 Micro Unit (Section 10.17) ■ * M • ■ U a II 8 Mixed Use (Section 10.18) • • El$ Iconic Tower (Section 10.19) ■ Civic Buildings (Section 10.20) • ■ Community Buildings (Section 10.21) ■ - E • ■ ■ Notes: 1. Setbacks do not apply to interior lot lines. 2. See Section 10.5 for allowable encroachments into setback area. 3. At least 30% of the building frontage area must comply with the maximum setback. See Fig. 10.1 4. Measured from Boundary Road easement at Village A. 5. May be increased to 8 feet maximum where an arcade is provided per Section 9.4. 6. Structure height is measured as the vertical distance from the grade established by the Grading Plan exhibit referenced in this Specific Plan to the highest point of the parapet of a flat or mansard roof, or to the mid -point of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. Screened mechanical and electrical equipment, chimneys, towers, railings and other integral parts of a building or structure occupying no more than five percent of the roof area shall be excluded from this measurement. Photovoltaic panels and their support framework may be excluded from this measurement. 7. Buildings greater than 55 feet in height from the lowest floor of fire department access shall provide certain high-rise provisions in compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code and California Fire Code. 8. If the School District elects not to receive the land, the land may be developed with the indicated residential uses. Setback and height regulations will match Village B. The park space requirements remain. SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 El IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 PRESERVED / RESTORED OPEN SPACE Ra��h !` � �aiforna 1 VILLAGE `A' DARK VILLAGER' PARK OFF SITE OPEN SPACE CLUBHOUSE UPPER STAIRCASE SEATING SCHOOL RECREATION HOA RECREATION CENTER VILLAGE 'C' CORE PARK MAIN ST. PLAZA Main Street OLD TOWN PROMENADE GRAND STAIR VILLAGE 'D° PARK VILLAGE 'E' PARK VILLAGE 'F' PARK • inot WILDLIFE FENCE y I: l aa kar' !}S pp. lie i � .. , Figure 10-7 Conceptual Landscape Plan LEGEND: • NATIVE SHADE TREE • NATIVE ACCENT TREE • NATIVE RIPARIAN. TREE • PARK TREE • NATIVE OR LOW WATEI NATIVE. OR LOW WATEI USE VILLAGE TREE USE VILLAGE ACCENT TREE CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 • i NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD. HYOROSEED AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TYP, (PERMANENTLY IRRIGATED) TREES CLUSTERED FOR NATURAL WILDLIFE BUFFER PRESERVED OPEN SPACE PRESERVED OPEN SPACE • TREES CONCENTRATED AT TOE OF SLOPE FOR A NATURAL CHARACTER, TYP. Figure 10-11 Landscape Exhibit 4 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN A hr WESTERN BYPASS ALTAIR VISTA COROMELL TRA A STREET B STREET C STREET • ROUNDABOUT IL Refer to the Vehicular Circulation Plan for spacing and quantities per street. Refer to the plant list Appendix for tree species and species percentages per street. OLD TOWN co 0 i (7-2.,J MAIN STREET i IRST STREET Figure 10-12 Street Tree Plan Draft : November 2016 Description of Use Required Number of Spaces Additional Requirements Residential Uses Single-family residence Detached residence 2 enclosed spaces per residence - Guest or service parking shall be provided for all residential uses at a rate of one space for every 10 dwelling units, unless noted otherwise. See Note 1. Duplex (two-family dwellings) 2 enclosed spaces per residence Single-family attached (greater than two units) 1.5 enclosed spaces per unit plus 0.5 covered space per unit Multiple -family residential 1 bedroom or less 1 covered space per unit _ Guest or service parking shall be provided for all residential uses at a rate of one space for every 20 dwelling units, unless noted otherwise. See Note 1. _ Provide secured bicycle parking for multifamily residential uses at a rate of 0.5 spaces per unit. Units with individual enclosed garages are exempt from this requirement. 2 bedrooms 1.5 covered spaces per unit plus 0.5 uncovered spaces per unit 3 bedrooms or more 2 covered spaces per unit plus 0.25 uncovered spaces per unit Efficiency Units (micro -units) 0.5 covered spaces per unit Transitional Housing 0.5 covered spaces per unit Congregate care facilities (elderly or disabled) 0.5 covered spaces per unit plus 1 guest space for every 8 units Residential care facilities + group homes 1 covered space for every 3 residents Guest House Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities Bed and breakfast establishment 1 space per guest room or suite Family day care homes Same as for applicable residence plus 1 uncovered space for every 4 non-resident children Live/ Work 1.5 enclosed spaces per unit plus 0.5 uncovered space per unit Home Occupation Same as for applicable residence Nonresidential Uses Educational (trade or vocational school) Higher Education 1 space per 300 gross square feet (gsf) Bicycle Spaces: 1 space for every 10 vehicle spaces Conference facility Religious Institutions 1 space for every 3 seats or 1 space per 35 gross square feet (gsf) 1 space for every 20 vehicle spaces Libraries, museums, galleries 1 space per 500 gross square feet (gsf) 1 space for every 10 vehicle spaces Recreational facilities (including pools) 1 space per 1,000 sf gross of recreation area Office 1 space per 300 gross square feet (gsf) Retail 1 space per 400 gross square feet (gsf) 1 space for every 20 vehicle spaces Restaurant, lodge hall, club 1 space per 200 gross square feet (gsf) Notes: 1. Guest parking requirement may be satisfied by on -street parking on internal streets and on A Street. Street parking on Altair Vista may not be used to satisfy the residential guest parking requirement. Table 10-3 Parking Requirements Parking for the Recreation Center, Clubhouse and Park in Village C will be available to the public on a first come, first served basis. However, school parking will be prohibited in those lots. Parking on the school site will be for the exclusive use of the school on days when school is in session. On days when the school is closed, the school parking lot will be open to the public. d1IIK1I SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 10-23 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1C 10.10 Building Types A wide variety of building types are encouraged at Altair, to promote the social diversity of the community as well as serving the housing needs of the City of Temecula. A mix of building types also enhances visual interest and creates a vibrant urban fabric. The building types should support the goals of a compact and walkable com- munity with fairly high densities. Traditional, single-family houses on single lots are not included, as they are al- ready prevalent in the City. Large footprint multi -family housing encircling common garages, commonly referred to as "wraps", are also discouraged because they create uncomfortably large block lengths for pedestrians. Building types are listed below and are described in greater detail in the following pages. Table 10-4 as well as the Planning Area descriptions in Section 3 identify allowable building types for each village. section Building Type Lot Width (ft.) Lot Depth (ft.) Private Open Space Common Open Space Building Height min. max. min. max. 1 ratio 3,5 min. size area per d.u. (stories) 10.11 Detached Housing 25 45 60 -- 100% 4 100 s.f. 80 s.f. 2 - 4 10.12 Multiplex 24 -- 35 -- 100% 100 s.f4 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.13 Rowhouse 24 -- 35 -- 100% 100 s.f4 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.14 Live /Work 24 35 100% 100 s.f4 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.15 Multifamily Walk -Up -- -- -- -- 100% 80 s.f. 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.16 Multifamily Podium -- -- -- -- 100% 60 s.f. 50 s.f. 4 - 5 10.17 Micro Unit -- 2 -- 2 -- 2 -- 2 75% 50 s.f. 45 s.f. -- 2 10.18 Mixed Use -- -- -- -- 100% 60 s.f. 50 s.f. 4 - 5 10.19 Iconic Tower -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 50-75 feet 10.20 Civic Buildings -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 - 5 10.21 Community Buildings -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1- 3 Notes: 1. Percentage of dwelling units that must provide a private exterior open space of the minimum size indicated. 2. As defined by the building type in which the micro -unit is located. 3. If project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit. 4. If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in the noted housing types, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. for that dwelling unit. 5. Reductions granted by notes 3 and 4 may not be used in combination. Table 10-4 Building Types Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN A tir DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1C 10.20 Civic Buildings Civic buildings may be located at the School Site (see Section 3.12) and at the South Parcel (see Section 3.13). This category does not include community buildings, such as recreation centers and club houses that are described in Section 10.21. A. Development Standards: 1. Both the School Site and the South Parcel should be planned as campuses, even if the use is not educational. There should be a clear integration of functional elements within each campus. 2. The relationship between buildings on a campus is as important as the buildings themselves. Buildings should be arranged to form outdoor rooms for shared use by occupants. B. Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. C. Access: 1. Building entries will typically be at the ground floor and should be apparent to visitors. 2. Pedestrian access must be provided from a public way, from public transportation, and from off-street parking. D. Parking: 1. Structured parking is preferred. 2. Surface parking must be landscaped per Section 10.6.11 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.050.H. Solar panels on canopy structures may be substituted for required trees in the same ratio. E. Services: 1. Loading zones shall be provided per Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.060. Delivery and loading areas shall be screened from view from the street. 2. A single area for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided for each campus and shall be screened by an opaque fence or wall and covered. 3. For office and commercial uses, space for two 3 -yard bins is required for the first 20,000 square feet plus one 3 -yard bin for each additional 20,000 square feet of floor area. Compactors are encouraged to reduce the quantity of bins and resultant space needed. 4. See Section 10.9 for enclosure and access requirements for trash collection. 5. Utilities shall be grouped and screened from view from the street or common areas. Draft : November 2016 PECIFIC PLAN F. Open Space: Common open space will be provided as described in Sections 3.12 (School Site) and 3.13 (South Parcel). Spaces should facilitate gatherings and the interaction of students and/or building occupants. G. Landscape Standards: See Sections 10.6.8 (School) and 10.6.10 (Civic / Community) as well as the corresponding plant lists in Appendix A. H. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Section 9.4 for applicable street frontage types. 2. Frontages for civic buildings should be of a larger scale than residential frontages to convey a greater sense of importance. 3. Architectural elements should characterize social institutions, rather than residences. Spaces that comprise civic frontages are public and should celebrate building entry. 4. Arcades, colonnades, entry courts and shopfronts are appropriate to civic buildings. They also provide shaded exterior public spaces to facilitate civic engagement. 5. Frontages should be designed to tie buildings together and create a single theme for each civic campus. For instance, buildings can be grouped around an entry court with an arcade tying them together Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two to five stories. 2. Floor plates of individual buildings should not exceed 40,000 sf. 3. Individual buildings should be well- proportioned. Massing that sprawls horizontally, as in a large 1 -story building, does not present the proper stature of a civic building. Avoid tower forms that compete with the Iconic Tower at Altair's core. J. Accessory Dwellings: Not applicable. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-64 10.21 Community Buildings The main community buildings at Altair are located in Village C around its central Plaza that anchors the western end of the Main Street axis to the Temecula Civic Center. These include a Recreation Center with pool to the west of Altair Vista and a Community Center/ club house east of Altair Vista at the high point of the Village C Park. Smaller community buildings may also occur in the other villages, such as at neighborhood pools and parks. A. Development Standards: 1. The combined community buildings at Village C should frame and define the central Plaza and promontory steps that anchor the Main Street axis. The two buildings should relate to each other to form a cohesive whole. 2. Community buildings should be four-sided, due to their prominent and central location. The Community Center, especially, must have facades addressing the Plaza and Altair Vista as well as the Park. The Park facade may be slightly different in character to engage terraces into the Park and to take advantage of the expanding views. 3. Community buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes, nestling into hillsides, with entries on multiple levels where possible. The Recreation Center, in particular, shall be a two-story structure forming the north edge of the promontory steps, with building entries at the top and bottom landings of these steps and a publicly accessible elevator. 4. Community Buildings should combine interior and exterior space through such design ele- ments as courtyards, terraces, colonnades, roof overhangs and permeable walls with large openings. B. Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. C. Access: 1. Building entries should occur on all at -grade levels and should be apparent to visitors. 2. Pedestrian access must be provided from the common circulation network and from off- street parking. D. Parking: 1. Per Table 10-3. This ratio assumes that most users of Community facilities will be residents who will walk or bike. 2. Surface parking must be landscaped per Section 10.6.11 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.050.H. Solar panels on canopy structures may be substituted for required trees in the same ratio. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLANrsf// E. 1. Services: Loading zones shall be provided per Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.060. Delivery and loading areas shall be screened from view from the street. 2. An area for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided and shall be screened by an opaque fence or wall and covered. 3. See Section 10.9 for enclosure and access requirements for trash collection. 4. Utilities shall be grouped and screened from view from the street or common areas. 5. Mechanical equipment such as cooling towers and water heaters should be located on the buildng roof and screened from view from the street or from above by parapets, equipment screens or trellises. F. Open Space: Open space requirements do not apply to this building type. However, community buildings are typically adjacent to or within shared open spaces and should be integrated into these lanscapes through steped massing, courtyards, arcades or low walls. G. Landscape Standards: See Sections 10.6.10 (Civic / Community) as well as the corresponding plant lists in Appendix A. H. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Section 9.4 for applicable street frontage types. 2. Frontages for community buildings should be of a larger scale than residential frontages to convey a greater sense of importance. 3. Architectural elements should characterize social institutions. Residential elements such as porches and pitched roofs may also be appropriate, but should be at a larger scale. 4. Arcades, colonnades, entry courts and are appropriate to community buildings and provide shaded indoor/outdoor space for passive recreation. 5. A community building sets the aesthetic tone for the village where it is located. The main Recreation Center and Club House, in particular, should be stylistically similar or of similar materials to establish Altair's architectural image. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be one to three stories tall. 2. Floor plates of individual buildings should not exceed 40,000 sf. 3. Individual buildings should be well-proportioned. Massing that sprawls horizontally, as in a large 1 -story building, does not present the proper stature of a civic building. Avoid tower forms that compete with the Iconic Tower at Altair's core. J_ Accessory Dwellings: Not applicable. Afir SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 10-65 IMPLEMENTATION 11 LEGEND PRIVATE STREETS PUBLIC STREETS OFF-SITE STREETS Figure 11-1 Public and Private Roads at Altair Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 11 PHASING SUMMARY PHASE TRACT NOP N0. NLL4OE AREA (CROSS AC.) TRACT ANP VILLAGE 'A' 15.80 NORTH N0. 36959-1 NIIAOE 11' 12.40 TRACT 4449 MULE '0' NORTH 7.74 CENINPL 410. 36956-2 411103E 'C' SOUTH 13.28 mutes TRACT ANP N0. 36959-3 NLLAGE'0' 8.98 NLLALE 'E' 7.84 NLLACE 'F 9.03 CMC TRACT NMP NLLACE'0' 7.30 CMC SR 18.78 NO. 38959 PHASING MAP TRACT MAP \ NO. 36959.1 NORTH PHASE TRACT MAP NO. 36959.2 1 CENTRAL PHASE 1 24 TRACT MAP 1 NO. 36959.3 1 20 SOUTH PHASE 20 1 I 12 I 1 12 TRACT MAP NO. 36959 CIVIC PHASE 4 J. GRAPHIC SCALE 400 0 200 400 800 1200 Figure 11-2 Altair Conceptual Phasing Plan oN Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 11 "t4 t1) $11_t ifer4 d h a iimItfoi/If 41 le ka Iv agj LEGEND 1 1 Master Developer Constructed, Master Developer Constructed, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Constructed, Sub HOA Maintained Master HOA Maintained Deeded to Guest Builder, Deeded to Guest Builder, Private Roads: Master Developer Responsible for Curb to Curb Street Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Public Roads: Master Developer Responsible for Curb to Curb Street Improvements, City of Temecula Maintained Master Developer Road Frontage Improvements, Deeded to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Constructed Pedestrian Corridor Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Park Improvements, Deeded to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Park Improvements, Easement Granted to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Park Improvements on Land Owned and Maintained by the City of Temecula Master Developer Park Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Recreation Center, Master HOA Maintained Guest Builder Constructed, Sub HOA Maintained Figure 11-3 Developer Responsibility Map Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC nitrah RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36959 TO SUBDIVIDE 270 ACRES INTO 63 NUMBERED LOTS TO DEFINE THE OPEN SPACE AND THE VILLAGE AREAS, AND 20 LETTERED LOTS TO DEFINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. D. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered a Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, Altair Specific Plan; PA14-0160, Tentative Tract Map 36959; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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. E. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "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 APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36959 TO SUBDIVIDE 270 ACRES INTO 63 NUMBERED LOTS TO DEFINE THE OPEN SPACE AND THE VILLAGE AREAS, AND 20 LETTERED LOTS TO DEFINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310- 016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320- 007).'" G. On December 12, 2017, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project and the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. H. Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK: AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. The City Council in approving the Tentative Tract Map hereby makes the following findings as required by Temecula Municipal Code Section 16.09.140: A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. As designed and conditioned, the proposed map is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, Temecula General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. The map has been reviewed by Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments and is consistent with size, setbacks, parking, water quality and other applicable standards. The proposed subdivision will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics which is consistent with the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The subdivision will allow for a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The subdivision will satisfy the following implementation measure listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "jp]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area." The proposed subdivision is also consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The proposed subdivision will create a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the proposed subdivision implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "je]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." it also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "frjequire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." B. The Tentative Map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use. The land identified in the proposed map is not subject to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Williamson Land Act. In addition, the land has not been used for agriculture in the recent past. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the Tentative Map. The subject site consists of 270 -acres of vacant land. The proposed map subdivides 270 acres to allow for residential, parks, mixed use, and civic/institutional uses. The proposed Tentative Tract Map design is consistent with the Temecula General Plan and the development standards for the Altair Specific Plan. D. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The proposed Project consists of a Tentative Tract Map on vacant property. An Environmental Impact Report (EiR) has been prepared for the proposed Project. Four impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable after all mitigation has been taken into account (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise and Vibration, and Traffic). A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed Project finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision and improvements have been reviewed and conditioned by the Fire, Public Works, Planning, and Building and Safety Departments. As a result, the proposed Project is consistent or has been conditioned to be consistent with Fire and Building Codes and the City's General Plan and Municipal Code which contain provisions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities to the extent feasible. All development must meet all appropriate Building and Fire Code requirements as they relate to passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. All acquired rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The City has reviewed these easements and has found no potential conflicts. H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby Act). The proposed Project involves the construction of a residential development. The proposed Project will meet all Quimby requirements through the provision of park improvements, and as outlined in the Development Agreement. Section 3. Conditions of Approval. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Planning Application No. PA14-0160, Tentative Tract Map 36959 to subdivide 270 acres into 63 numbered lots to define the open space and village areas, and 20 lettered lots to define public and private streets for the Altair Specific Plan generally located south and west of the intersection of Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga, west of Pujol Street and Murrieta Creek, and north of the Santa Margarita River (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007), subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Section 5. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of December, 2017. ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) Maryann Edwards, Mayor I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th ay of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA14-0160 Project Description: A proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36959, -1, -2, and -3) for "Altair." on 270 acres in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula west of Old Town Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310- 044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007 MSHCP Category: Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) DIF Category: Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) TUMF Category: Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) QUIMBY Category: Exempt per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of Approval 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,128.00) which includes the Three Thousand and Seventy Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,078,00) fee, required by Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Fifty Dollars ($50.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect. hold harmless, and defend the City and its attorneys from any and all claims. actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul. or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors. legal counsel. and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within twenty (20) years per the Development Agreement; otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. 5. Consistency with Specific Plans. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 15, Altair Specific Plan. 6. Consistency with Development Agreements. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to Development Agreement (PA14-0161). 7. Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the EIR for Altair (SCH No. 2014111029). 8. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 9. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 10. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers. equipment, walls. or other structures. 11. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 12. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 13. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 14. Subdivision Map Act. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. An Extension of Time may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 60 days prior to the expiration date. 15. Subdivision Phasing. If subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 16. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 17. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median, landscaping. walls, fencing, recreational facilities. and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. 18. Class I Multi -Use Trails. Class I multi -use trails shall be provided as per the City of Temecula's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan. The construction plans for the Class 1 trails shall be included on the perimeter landscape plans and constructed in concurrence with the installation of the landscaping. 19. Class II Bicycle Lanes. Class II bicycle lanes, as specified in the City of Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, , the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan, shall be identified on the street improvement plans, and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 20. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Altair project is required to comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 21. Maximum Number of Rental Units (Apartments). Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City for a residential community in the Project, the Guest Builder shall provide a letter to the City declaring whether the project will include residential units for sale to homeowners (a "For -Sale Community") or residential units for rent (Apartments) to tenants (a "For -Rent Community"), and if it is a For -Rent Community, the number of Rental Units being proposed for the For -Rent Community. Further, in conjunction with the overall development of the Project, the Guest Builder will also provide a list of all previously approved For -Sale and For -Rent Communities in the Project and the number of Rental Units for each For Rent Community. There shall be a maximum of 750 Rental Units within the Project. Notwithstanding the forgoing, homes that are in a For -Sale Community that are sold to individuals and then later rented to the public shall not count towards the 750 Rental Unit threshold. 22. Project Phasing. The project shall be built in four phases per the attached "Phasing Exhibit, 10D." Infrastructure shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits in each phase per the phasing plan. 23. Fiscal Impact Compliance. Any development within the Altair Specific Plan will be required to address impacts to the City's budget as a result of the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the Project area substantially exceeding the municipal revenue generated from the Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has a received a Fiscal Impact Analysis dated October, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the Project, and their successors of interest, at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for a residential dwelling, shall pay the City the sum of two - hundred thirty-seven ($237) per residential dwelling unit within the project each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit. Owner and its successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through a Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq., provided however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to the pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owner and its successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 24. Trail Siting and Location on the South Parcel/Civic Site. In addition to the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for cultural resources, MM -CUL -1 a through MM -CUL - 3, City Staff will work with the Pechanga Tribe to determine the final trail alignment for an out and back, or loop trail. Using trail siting guidance identified in the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Section 7.0, the trail will utilize existing dirt roads whenever possible. Portions of existing trail may be eliminated, and revegetated to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Any new trail segment will be designed to discourage and prevent intrusion into adjacent environmentally sensitive areas. 25. Direction Fencing_ Directional Fencing for wildlife shall be required as identified in the Specific Plan, EIR, and in conformance with the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). 26. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the RCA shall review and approve for conformance with the Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines the design of the applicant's Urban Wildlands Interface measures (fencing, lighting, access control, plant palette, drainage, etc.) for development adjacent to all conservation areas (Western Bypass, Villages A and G. and Nature Center). The Nature Center trails shall be reviewed and approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies for compliance with Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines and MSHCP Section 7.4.2. Conditionally Compatible Uses 27. Partial conservation lands totaling 65 acres (APNs 918-080-008 and 009) will be transferred to the RCA prior to any project grading. 28. Acquisition of an additional 100 acres of biologically equivalent or superior replacement lands by the RCA and funded by the proposed Altair Wildlife CFD. All CFD funding up to 6 million dollars will be directed to the RCA until the 100 acres is acquired. 29. The conservation easement over the ungraded of the South Parcel will be offered either to the RCA or an entity with a management agreement with the RCA. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 30. Central Park Design Meeting. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits associated with the Central park area. a pre -design meeting shall be held to include Planning, TCSD, and Public Works to complete a final design for the Central Park, The Altair Specific Plan includes a conceptual plan for the park, however, final arrangement and location of amenities shall be determined prior to any grading and/or construction. 31. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check valves prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 32. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way. subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 33. Pechanga Mitigation Measures. The Altair project is required to comply with Mitigation measures MM -CUL -la through MM -CUL -3. 34. Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 35. Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 36. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation." 37. Archaeological Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property." 38. Tribal Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer." 39. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." 40. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 41. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -la — Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. 42. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -lb - Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor. At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. 43. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -lc — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. The qualified archeologist, or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. 44. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 d — Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -la and 1 b. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City. Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. 45. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1e — Unanticipated Discovery. If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -1 b. 46. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f — Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP. The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. 47. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program jPRIMP). The applicant shall implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot- checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. 48. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2b - Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries. If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. 49. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains. If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. 50. MSHCP Pre -Construction Survey. A 30 -day preconstruction survey, in accordance with MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The results of the 30 -day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. 51. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30 -day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey. then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist." 52. Rough Grading Plans. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 53. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 54. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). 55. Quimby Requirements. Per the Development Agreement, the developer has satisfied the City's parkland dedication (Quimby) requirement through the provision of parks and open space identified in the Altair Specific Plan. These parks will be privately maintained, but open to the public. The Central Park in Village C will be dedicated to the City per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161), 56. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value. genus. species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 57. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, 'Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 58. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating. "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 59. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 60. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 61. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 62. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas. 63. Wall and Fence Plans. Wall and fence plans shall be reviewed with all landscape plans, and shall be consistent with the Altair Specific Plan, 64. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 65. Landscaping Requirement for Phased Development. If any phase or area of the project site is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of grading, the landscaping plans shall indicate it will be temporarily landscaped and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. 66. WQMP Landscape Compliance. The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with Appendix A. Table 31 of the Low Impact Development (LID) Manual for Southern California for plant materials and treatment facilities, and shall reference the approved precise grading plan for WQMP features. 67. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 68. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease. or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 69. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 70. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 71. Final Map. A copy of the Final Map for each phase shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division. 72. Environmental Constraint Sheet. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division with the following notes: a. This property is located within 30 miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the Califomia Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations. Ordinance No. 655. 73, Submittal of CC&Rs. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions. and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project or any phase thereof shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development. The CC&Rs shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space. recreation areas, parking areas, private roads. exterior of all buildings, and landscaped and open areas, including parkways. Applicants shall provide a deposit in the amount of $3,750 for the review of the CC&Rs. Amended CC&Rs will require a $2.000 deposit. The applicant shall be responsible for al costs incurred during review of the CC&Rs and additional fees may be required during the course of the review. 74. Form and Content of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and its residents. 75. Preparation of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. 76. Review of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owners Association are subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development, Public Works Director. and the City Attorney. 77. CC&Rs and Management and Maintenance of Common Areas. The CC&Rs shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use. repair, and maintenance of all common areas, drainage facilities, and pollution prevention devices outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan for the project or any phase thereof. 78. CC&Rs and Public Nuisance. The CC&Rs shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated, and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. 79. Termination of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall provide that the association may not be terminated without prior City approval. 80. CC&Rs and Maintenance of Property. The CC&Rs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&Rs, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&Rs or the City Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. 81. Interest in Association. Every owner of a suite or lot governed by CC&Rs shall own as an appurtenance to such suite or lot, either: (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. 82. Maintenance of Open Areas. All open areas and landscaping governed by CC&R shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning Divisions and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 83. Reciprocal Easements, Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives. parking areas, drainage facilities. and water quality features, shall be provided by the CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 84. Consent of City of Temecula. An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs. following the Declarant's signature, to read as follows: CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 36959. -1, -2, and -3. require the City of Temecula to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolutions of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs. Luke Watson Director Community Development Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 85. Operation of Association. No lot or suite in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owners group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development. such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&Rs, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of Tots and/or suites and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&Rs shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 86. Recordation of CC&Rs. CC&Rs shall be finalized and recorded at the time of Final Map Recordation. 87. Copies of CC&Rs. Three copies of the final recorded CC&Rs shall be provided to the Planning Division. 88. General. The CC&Rs shall contain a provision requiring the HOA to perform yearly inspections of garages to ensure adequate parking. 89. General. The CC&Rs shall contain a list of all disclosures (tax rate — Mello Roos, wildlife, noise, etc.) as required by the City of Temecula and State of California. OUTSIDE AGENCY LETTERS 90. Rancho Water. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water transmittal dated August 26, 2014, a copy of which is attached. 91. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the RCFCWD transmittal dated March 5, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 92. Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the MWD transmittal dated April 14, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 93. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOEZ. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the ACOE transmittal dated May 18, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 94. Southern California Edison (SCE). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the SCE transmittal dated September 17, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 95. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the EMWD transmittal dated September 21, 2016, a copy of which is attached. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 96. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2.000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure for a 2 -hour duration for this projects. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 97. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x (2) 2'/z" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent public streets. For all multi -family projects hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant for all and for single family dwellings and tract homes hydrants shall be 500 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 98. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 99. Water Maintenance Agreement. An agreement for the maintenance and repair of any and all existing underground Fire Department water systems, including all fire sprinkler supplies. and all fire hydrants and supplies. will be in place as a condition of this division to maintain available water in perpetuity Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 100. Turning Radius (Culdesac). Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 37 -feet for single family dwelling tracts and 45 feet for multi -family dwelling tracts. (CFC Chapter 5 along with the Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 101. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction. all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 102, Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 103. Gradient Of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 104. Knox Box. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5) 105. File Format Requirements. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format, must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of altemative file formats which may be acceptable PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 106. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses. and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. 107. Developer shall execute a City Standard Subdivision Improvement Agreements for the applicable phase of the development to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law. public improvements shown on the tentative map. These improvements include, but are not limited to paving, base. signing & striping, sidewalks. curbs and gutters, grading, clearing and grubbing. undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, pedestrian ramps, drainage structures, and best management practices for stormwater treatment, reconstruction, replacement and repair of adjacent improvements where the subdivision transitions and connects to existing improvements as applicable. Said improvements shall be installed to City Standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 108. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map for each phase, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the Water District Engineer. 109. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase. Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along and within the subdivision boundary. 110. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots abutting the Western Bypass Corridor Road. 111. Developer shall cause Owner to make an offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for the Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. 112. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the Director of Public Works. prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. 113. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights -of -ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 114. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Works, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 115. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 116. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with all street improvements on and off-site grading. Perimeter walls, where required, shall be treated with graffiti -resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 117. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06, unless otherwise provided for by a written agreement between the City and the Developer. 118. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein or by development agreement, and State laws, and shall conform to the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. 119. Approval of this Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are certified by the City Council. 120. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Temecula Valley Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to comply with all school district requirements. 121. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans for each phase shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans. 122. A detailed noise attenuation evaluation shall be conducted in a supplemental acoustical study to be submitted when the tract map is filed with the appropriate agency. 123. Prior to the approval of a development plan or tentative map for individual planning areas, the developer and City staff will review plans, especially for multi -family housing areas, commercial uses, and parks for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 124. Prior to approval of any development projects, appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review shall be obtained by the developer. These agencies shall be determined by the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works. 125. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the Director of Public Works for recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. 126. The developer or the developer's successor -in -interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement. litter removal and erosion control as applicable. 127. Prior to approval of any development projects, the developer shall investigate the feasibility of a reclaimed water system, to irrigate landscaping within the roadway medians, parkways. drainage channel, schools, the community park, the paseo park, neighborhood parks, and other common open space areas. The developer shall provide evidence that compliance with this condition is in accordance with Senate Bill 2095. 128. Developer shall provide to the Director of Public Works. an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements (e.g. roads, driveways, sidewalks, utilities, water quality treatment facilities and private storm drain improvements, etc.) located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. 129. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 130. All lighting shall be reviewed by the City to assure compliance with the Ordinance No. 655. 131. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs consistent with the Specific Plan. Grading 132. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 133. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards. the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 134. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, erosion control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements as applicable. 135. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: a) Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. b) Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. c) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. d) Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. e) Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. f) Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 136. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible. or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 137. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of completion of grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 138. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 139. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 140. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 141. Prior to issuance of any grading permit. a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 142. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 143. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 144. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Drainage 145. Floodolain/Floodway Development. If applicable, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, which requires a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. A FEMA -approved CLOMR shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The developer shall pay all fees required by FEMA (and City) for processing of the FEMA reviews. 146. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100 -year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site as required by the City. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 147. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 148. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 149. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 150. All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100 -year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 151. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the interim detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 152. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 153. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site as required by the Director of Public works. 154. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities. including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements as necessary. 155. During review of any future tentative map, an updated geotechnical/geologic report shall be prepared to include any necessary revisions to earthwork, foundation, design. and construction recommendations. 156. Soils Report. A soils report. prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 157. Geological Report. The developer shall complete any outstanding County geologist's requirements, recommendations and/or proposed Conditions of Approval as identified during entitlement. 158. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. WQMP / SWPPP 159. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works. the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; or other affected agencies 160. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal for any phase approval by Public Works. A copy of the final project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: http://www.cityoftemecula,org(Temecula/Government/PublicW orksANQMPand NPDES/W QMP.htm 161. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http://www.cityoftemecula.orq/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/e ng i neeri ngconstma n ual.htm 162. 0 & M Agreement: The developer shall submit a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement for review and approval 163. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 164. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name. contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml Circulation 165. Prior to Final Map recordation for each phase, the Developer is responsible to bond for or construct the traffic signals at the project's accesses, as required, including the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications. 166. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to and from developments areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual tentative maps and/or development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works. consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 167. The exact location and number of access points shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works upon future tentative map and/or development plan approvals consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 168. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards or as approved with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Map. 169. All intersection intervals shall comply with City standards and requirements. 170. Developer, at its sole cost, shall design and improve Vincent Moraga Road to ensure that all driveways providing access from to adjoining properties shall be allowed for safe ingress and/or egress. Improvements may include, but not be limited to, truck deceleration, acceleration and turn -in lanes. The improvements shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for public roadway and rights of way consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 171. Developer, at its sole cost. shall fund the acquisition and installation of traffic signals and related roadway and right of way improvements, when warranted. The design and installation shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula. consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 172. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in accordance with City Engineering Standards. The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on all improvement, grading, or landscape plans prepared in association with the development. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor as defined by City of Temecula Engineering Standards. 173. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). Additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. 174. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Temecula Standards based on R -value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. 175. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown in the Altair Specific Plan. Any substantive re -phasing of the development must be approved by the Planning and Public Works Director through a re -phasing application. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. 176. Ensuing Traffic Reports. analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program 177. The Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be established in compliance with the approved mitigation measures identified in the approved Traffic Impact Analysis and shall be completed prior to issuance of first occupancy permit in each additional phases of the development as required by the Director of Public Works. Water and Sewer 178. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho Califomia Water District (RCWD), and Eastem Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applicable thru completion of this development. 179. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase as subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 180. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 181. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at locations approved by the Water District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 182. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean -outs at locations approved by the Sewer District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. Final Map Notes 183. Add the following notes to the final map as non -mapping data: "All improvements within private Streets are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with including but not limited to: Curbs, gutter, A.C. paving, street lights, storm drains. All Storm Water treatment control facilities are considered private requiring private maintenance." Master HOA 184. Developer shall establish a Master homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a phase, the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: d. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. e. Notice and Amendment, A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to reasonably disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. f. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the "Common Area Lots and/or the Association's Easements," the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association. with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements within the period specified by the City's notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. g. Special Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association's Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association, If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal pro rata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. h. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth on the "Developer Responsibility Map" of the Specific Plan. Lighting Restrictions on Private Residential Lots: Restrictions on lighting within residential lots adjacent to open space conservation areas shall be as set forth in the Specific Plan and Final EIR. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 185. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance when applicable, from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; e. Riverside County Health Department; f. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau; g. Planning Department; h. Department of Public Works; i. Community Services District; j. Caltrans; k. Rancho California Water District; I. Eastern Municipal Water District; m. Verizon; n. Telephone Company; o. Southern California Edison Company; p. The Gas Company; and q. Metropolitan Water District or other affected agencies 186. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid or fee credits have been provided. 187. Securities. For each of the phases, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the grading and erosion & sediment control improvements. 188. Area Drainage Plan (ADP) Fee to RCFC&WCD. For each phase, the developer shall demonstrate to the City that the flood mitigation charge (ADP fee) has been paid to RCFC&WCD. If the full ADP fee has already been credited to this property, no new charge will be required. 189. The developer shall provide proof to the Department of Public Works and Planning that the conditions of any Wildlife Agency or Army Corps permits if necessary for any restoration have been bonded for and shall be implemented consistent with the timing requirements of the permits. 190. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided in Altair Specific Plan and the Development Agreement. 191. The project shall comply with the latest disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the California Building Code. 192. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for each phase of this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the Director of Public Works. 193. This project requires off site grading. No grading for any improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records, and submits a recorded copy to the Director of Public Works a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the Director of Public Works and Planning Director. 194. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained: a. from Public Works for public offsite improvements; b. from the California Department of Transportation if encroaching within their right- of-way: and c. from Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) if encroaching within their right-of-way. 195. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the Director of Public Works for the proposed haul route. 196. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an "as -graded" geologic plan with the Director of Public Works. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation. all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. and shall be submitted on a 24"x 36" mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 197. Final Map. Final Map shall be approved and recorded for the applicable phase. 198. The developer shall provide proof to the Director of Public Works that the has contributed its fair share towards regional traffic improvements systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area the area through a Development Agreement. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development of each phase. 199. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. Phasing 200. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 201. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. 202. The Developer shall be permitted to seek a reimbursement agreement for qualifying facilities and improvements. The City and the Developer shall proceed in good faith to allocate appropriate reimbursements to the Developer pursuant to the City's then enforceable ordinance applicable to such reimbursement pursuant to Development Agreement. Tract Map 36959-1 (North Phase) In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of North Phase and prior to 151 building permit in North Phase: 203. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side of Vincent Moraga between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor northbound right turn lane improvements within this road segment. 204. Acquisition of right-of-way on the south side of Rancho California Road between Vincent Moraga Drive and the Murrieta Creek Bridge and construction of all intersection improvements within this road segment including an additional westbound left turn lane on Rancho California Road to Vincent Moraga Drive. 205. Traffic signal and utility relocation where needed and construction of the ultimate build -out of the Rancho California Road, Diaz Road and Vincent Moraga Drive intersection. 206. Construction of the designed onsite Western Bypass Corridor Phase 1 improvements from the project's northern property line to the future Altair Vista intersection. 207. Construction of the Ridge Park Drive and Western Bypass Corridor intersection improvements to provide left -turn ingress and right-in/right-out to Ridge Park Drive. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 208. Install Multi -Way Stop Controls at the First Street & Pujol Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 209. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the North Phase and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 350th building permit in North Phase, or ii) the 1st building permit in the Central Phase: 210. Acquisition of right-of-way on the west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Rancho Califomia Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 211. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side and west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Ridge Park Drive and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 212. Following the occupancy of both villages within this North Phase (Village A and Village B), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road; (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-2 (Central Phase) In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Central Phase and prior to 151 building permit in Central Phase: 213. Construction of the designed Coromell Trail road segment between Altair Vista and First Street. 214. Installation of one (1) new left tum lane (re -stripe only), and modify signal operation, install signal indications and necessary equipment at Ynez Road and Santiago Road. 215. Construction of traffic signals at the Pujol Street and First Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 216. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase and completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on pads south of the Village C Park: a. Construction of the "A" Street vehicular bridge that crosses over the Village C Park. 217. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase, shall commence before the 700th building permit is issued in the project and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 950th building permit in the project, or ii) the 151 building permit in the South Phase: a. Construction of either the Western Bypass Bridge or construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Civic Phase. 218. Following the construction of the Westem Bypass Bridge and Phase 2 Road, optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-3 (South Phasel 219. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of South Phase and prior to 1St building permit in South Phase: a. Construction of both the Western Bypass Bridge and construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Nature Center Phase. b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass Corridor and Altair Vista intersection. c. Construction of the designed "B" Street North road segment between Altair Vista and the Western Bypass Corridor. 220. Following the completion of the villages in this South Phase (Village D. Village E and Village F), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959 (Civic Phase) 221. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Civic Phase and prior to 1s' building permit in Civic Phase: a. Construction of all remaining Western Bypass Corridor improvements (Phase 3 which includes 2 western lanes: southbound). b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass and "B" Street intersection. 222. Following completion of both villages in this Civic Phase (Village G and Nature Center). optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road. (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (d) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road: (e) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road: (f) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 223. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 224. The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the 5 acre community park, the proposed private Parks that are HOA owned and maintained including recreational areas identified in the Altair Specific Plan. 225. The actual design of the 5 acre community park in Central Phase shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. Construction plans and specifications must be approved by the Director of Community Services. 226. All park plans submitted for consideration shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process. 227. The design of the community park in Central Phase shall provide for pedestrian circulation and access for the disabled throughout the park. 228. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, or Master HOA shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites and slopes/landscaping areas except as defined in the Development Agreement. on Developer Responsibility Map. 229. The 5 acre community park shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens. assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 230. The developer may receive a credit against the park component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) based upon the actual cost of improving the community park in Central Phase. The fee/credit issue shall be addressed pursuant to the execution of a Development Agreement or a Park Improvement Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. Board of Directors Stephen. J, Corona Presider& John E. Hoagland Sr. Vice President. Ben R. Drake Lisa D, Herman William E, Plurrimer James "Stew" Stewart Roger C. Ziemer Officers Matthew G. Stone General Manager •Richard S. Williamson, P.E. Assistant General Manager Jeffrey I/ Armstrong CFOITreasurer Fred F. Edgeeomb, NIPA Director of Operations & Maintenance Andrew L. Webster, PAX Chief Engineer Kern E, Garcia District Seuetary James asilpin Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel August 26, 2014 Matthew Peters Project Planner City of Temecula Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN, PA14-0159 APN 922-210-049; APN 940-310-013; APN 940-310-015; APN 940-310-016; APN 940-310-044; APN 940-310-045; APN 940-310-046; APN 940-310-047; APN 940-310-048; APN 940-320-001; APN 940-320-002; APN 940-320-003; APN 940-320-004; APN 940-320-005; APN 940-320-006; AND APN 940-320-007 [AMBIENT COMMUNITIES] Dear Mr. Peters: Please be advised that the above -referenced project/property is located within the service boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District). Existing water service is provided to portions of the subject project/property under District Account No. 01-06-95321-0 for APNs 940-310-045, 940-310-046, 940-310-047, and 940-310-048. Additions or modifications to water service arrangements are subject to the Rules and Regulations (governing) Water System Facilities and Service, as well as the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water service to individual lots will require the extension of water facilities within dedicated public and/or private right-of-ways. Individual water meters will be required for each lot and/or project unit, including separate water meters for landscape irrigation, as applicable. Section 9.4 of the Altair Specific Plan should state that utility placement of District utilities for both water and recycled water systems (including related advanced metering infrastructure antenna) is required to comply with RCWD standards and requirements for proper District operations. North of the subject project/property fronts an existing 12 -inch diameter water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within Ridge Park Drive. East of the subject project/property fronts an existing 8 -inch diameter water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within 6th Street. East of the subject project/property also fronts existing 22 -inch diameter and 36 -inch diameter water pipelines (both 1305 Pressure Zone) at the intersection of Calle Cerrillo and Pujol Street. Existing 30 -inch diameter and 42 -inch diameter water pipelines (both 1305 Pressure Zone) bisect the property at APN 922-210-049 and continue to Pujol Street. Section 6.2.1 of the Altair Specific Plan should be corrected to reference service from the 1305 Pressure Zone, as well as the 22 -inch and 36 -inch diameter parallel water pipelines within Pujol Street. Rancho California Water District 12135 Winchester Read Post Office Bax 3517 ( Temecula, California 92589-9017 ( (951) 296-6905 ) FAX (951) 296.61160 Letter to Matthew Peters/City of Temecula August 26, 2014 Page 2 An existing 24 -inch diameter recycled water pipeline (1381 Pressure Zone) exists east of the subject project/property within 6th Street, which continues along Pujol Street with a 20 -inch diameter recycled water pipeline (1381 Pressure Zone). An existing 20 -inch diameter recycled water pipeline exists east of the subject project/property within Temecula Parkway (1381 Pressure Zone). Section 6.2.1 of the Altair Specific Plan should be corrected to reference service from the Rancho California Water District via the 1381 Pressure Zone. Water availability is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. In addition, water availability is contingent upon the timing of the subject project/property development relative to water supply shortage contingency measures (pursuant to RCWD's Water Shortage Contingency Plan or other applicable ordinances), and/or the adoption of a required Water Supply Assessment for the development, as determined by the Lead Agency. In accordance with Resolution 2007-10-5, the project/property will be required to use recycled water for all landscape irrigation. Recycled water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site recycled water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Requirements for the use of recycled water are available from RCWD. Section 8.5 of the Altair Specific Plan should indicate that the landscape palette should conform to the State's Model Landscape Ordinance, and that the landscaping shall be compatible with recycled water use. Section 5.1.2 of the Altair Specific Plan should indicate that recycled water will be utilized for all grading activities. As soon as feasible, and prior to the preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, the project proponent should contact RCWD for a determination of existing water and recycled water system capability, based upon project -specific demands and fire flow requirements. The project proponent shall provide project area layouts, with roadways, to determine required connections and pipeline sizing. District review will consider necessary system looping of water and recycled water systems, considering the project phasing and other capital improvements identified within Section 11.2 of the Altair Specific Plan. The District will also require fire flow and estimated daily demands for hydraulic review for both systems. The project proponent should contact RCWD for an assessment of project -specific deposits for plan review, fees, and other requirements. Sewer service to the subject project/property would be provided by Eastern Municipal Water District. I 4\CS:11027\F450\FEG Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road Post Office U 9017 Temecula, California 92589-9017 (951) 296-6)00 P66 lhll 296-6860 Letter to Matthew Peters/City of Temecula August 26, 2014 Page 3 If you should have any questions or need additional information, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at the District office at (951) 296-6900. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Corry mit Engineering Services Supervisor cc: Corey Wallace, Engineering Manager -Design Warren Back, Engineering Manager -Planning Heath McMahon, Construction Contracts Manager Jeff Kirshberg, Principal Engineer Ambient Communities 14\CS:Im027\F450\FFG Rancho California 43135 Winchester Road Post Office Box 9017 ° Temecula, Cal www. ra nchowate a Di c 51) 296 69))0 • FAX (951) 296-9560 WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager -Chief Engineer 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 FAX 951.788.9965 www.rcflood.org RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: Matt Peters Ladies and Gentlemen: ` ' 9 2015 Re: Tract 30129 and PA 14-0160 168587 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use eases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District cornmentsfrecomiriendations for such cases are nonnally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: No comment. This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. X This project may involve, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. X This project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid by cashier's check or money order only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities. For further information, contact the District's encroachment permit section at 951.955.1266. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, c: Riverside County Planning Department Attn: Kristi Lovelady SKM:blm N Engineering Project Manager Date: March 5, 2015 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Office of the General Manager April 14, 2015 Mr. Matt Peters City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Peters: Tentative Tract No. 30129 Your Case No. PA14-0160 MWD San Diego Pipelines Nos. 4 and 5 Sta. 1587+00 to 1604+00 R/W Parcels 142-4-1 (Fee) Substr. Job No. 4046-15-001 ,4p j8 Thank you for your transmittal letter dated February 19, 2015, submitting prints of the Tentative Tract Map No. 30129 (Sheets 1 through 6 of 6) and conceptual grading plans (Sheets 1 through 12 of 12) for the proposed development located in the vicinity of Pujol Street and Murrieta Creek, in the city of Temecula. Please note that we have granted the City of Temecula's proposed future Highway 79 extension "Western Bypass" bridge and widening the west side of "Pujol Street". Enclosed is a copy of the Metropolitan's road and utility easement dedication to the City of Temecula, Instrument No. 2013-0183349 recorded on April 18, 2013, Official Records of Riverside County. However, this tract development is introducing a private "Altair Vista" road and realigning "Pujol Street" which does not match the City's recently granted easement. Please clarify how this development fits in with.the City's master improvement plans. 700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 • Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054-0153 • Telephone (213) 217-6000 Mr. Matt Peters Page 2 April 14, 2015 We have reviewed the submitted plans and our comments and requirements are as follows: 1. The locations of Metropolitan's 97 -inch -inside -diameter San Diego Pipeline No. 5, accompanying varied width fee right-of-way and portions of our 20 -foot -wide road easement, as shown on Sheets 8 and 9 of 12 of the conceptual grading plans and on Sheets 5 and 6 of 6 of the Tentative Tract Map No. 30129, appears to be in general agreement with our records. However, please note that our San Diego Pipeline No. 4 transitions from a 99 -inch -inside -diameter prestressed concrete pipeline into a 89 - inch -inside -diameter welded steel pipeline located approximately on the east edge of the existing Pujol Street. In addition, we request that our Service Connection WR -34 facilities and accompanying fee right-of-way also be shown and identified as Metro- politan's on all pertinent sheets of the plans. Enclosed for your information and use are prints our Drawings B-50431, B-50454, B-56204, B-56205, B-66612, B-66613 and B-48578 and Right -of -Way Map 142-4-1 (Sheet 4 of 6). Metropolitan has no records for the extension of `Pujol Road' located just south of the future "Western Bypass" bridge, as shown on Sheet 8 of 12 of the conceptual grading plans. Please submit evidence to indicate that `Pujol Road' is a dedicated public street at this location; otherwise, this road should not be reflected on the plans. 2. Since ingress/egress and utility rights across our property were reserved per the grant deed for our fee right-of-way (Instrument No. 109720, recorded on December 13, 1967, Official Records of Riverside County), Metropolitan has no general objections to granting public road and utility easement to the City of Temecula. Therefore, the concept of the proposed location of the "Camino Estribo" road across our property, as shown on Sheet 8 of 12 of the conceptual grading plans and on Sheet 5 of your 6 of your Tentative Tract Map No. 30129, is acceptable to Metropolitan. Please note that granting of the "Camino Estribo" road easement will serve as Metropolitan's obligat- ion for the reserved ingress/egress and utility rights in this area on our original grant deed. Metropolitan will subsequently process a quitclaim deed for this obligation in exchange for the "Camino Estribo" public road and utility easement, as this develop- ment moves forward. Appropriate right must be obtained from Metropolitan for the proposed 'E Street' public road and utility crossing portion of Metropolitan's property. Please contact Jeffrey Wynn of our Real Property Development and Management Unit, telephone (213) 217-7659, regarding the requirements and procedures for obtaining temporary Mr. Matt Peters Page 3 April 14, 2015 and/or permanent easement documentations prior to any construction including potholing and exploratory borings within our fee right-of-way. The proposed grading for any proposed roads should not result into a retention basin within the limits of our fee property. Please revise the plans accordingly. 3. The proposed grade for the vertical alignment of the `Camino Estribo' and 'E Street' roads crossing over our San Diego Pipeline Nos. 4 and 5 within our fee right-of-way, as shown on Sheets 8 and 9 of 12 of the conceptual grading plans, are unacceptable to Metropolitan. The proposal indicates the placement of substantial fill that would exceed the 10 -feet -maximum allowable cover for our San Diego Pipeline No. 4; 11 -feet -maximum allowable cover between Station 1595+00 and 1597+70 and 16 - feet -maximum allowable cover between Station 1597+70 and 1602+00 for our San Diego Pipeline No. 5 in this area. Please revise your grading plans accordingly. The actual cover over the San Diego Pipeline Nos. 4 and 5 must be determined by pot- holing or other means acceptable to Metropolitan and must be done under Metro- politan's supervision. Access to Metropolitan's adjacent properties must be main- tained across any proposed road crossings. The submitted conceptual grading plans did not provide enough information to deem the project acceptable. The project proponent must submit detailed grading plans and sections of the proposed road crossings including fill slope adjacent to Metropolitan's fee right-of-way. Please note that any additional fill of 2 feet and above our pipeline and fee right-of- way, a soils report and/or settlement analysis showing the predicted settlement of the pipeline at 10 -foot intervals along with the method of settlement analysis, laboratory testing results and any other supporting documents must be submitted for our review. We are transmitting a copy of our geotechnical guidelines for your information and use. 4. To accommodate our access, 16 -foot -wide driveway approaches must be provided on both sides of the proposed roads along our existing access road within our fee right- of-way. Access ramps, where necessary, must be provided from the drive -way approaches. The grades of these ramps must not exceed 10 percent unless the ramps are paved, then the grades may be a maximum of 20 percent. Gates or re -movable bollards, capable of accommodating Metropolitan's locks, must be in -stalled at these Mr. Matt Peters Page 4 April 14, 2015 politan. We require that the storm drain line be extended across our pipe -lines and that the rip -rap maintains a minimum of 20 feet beyond the edge of our San Diego Pipeline No. 4. We have no objections with the proposed storm drain line and rip -rap along the future "Western Bypass" corridor over our San Diego Pipeline Nos. 4 and 5 within our fee right-of-way and discharges at the bottom edge of the embankment, as shown on Sheet 8 of 12 of your conceptual grading plans, is acceptable to Metropolitan. How- ever, we request that storm drain lines crossing must maintain a minimum of 1 foot of vertical clearances over the top of our pipelines. In addition, the storm drain lines must include secondary containment which consists of a continuous steel sleeve or HDPE pipe with fusion -welded joints, extending 10 feet beyond the edges of our pipelines. 6. Our comments and requirements regarding the tentative tract map are as follows: a. Monumentation for the boundary of Metropolitan's fee right-of-way should be described, shown, and referenced with the proper mathematical ties along measured and record lines, so that their correct location may be determined. Copies of calculations prepared should also be submitted. Any monument recovered from Record of Survey 127/80-93, indicating Metropolitan's location, should also be shown and referenced on the submitted map. b. The entire boundary of Metropolitan's fee property must be defined with bearing and distances for reference on the final map. c. Prior to construction of any improvements for this tract, the developer's engineer and/or land surveyor must prepare and file corner records for the preservation of Metropolitan's monuments within the areas of the proposed improvement or grading. Any monuments that may have been destroyed by impending work done to date must be replaced accordingly. 7. We request a stipulation be added to all pertinent plans or specifications to notify Darwin Potter or Gerri Michael of our Water System Operations Group, telephone Mr. Matt Peters Page 5 April 14, 2015 (951) 926-5853, at least two working days prior to starting any work in the vicinity of our facilities and right-of-way. We are returning prints of Sheets 1, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 12 of the conceptual grading plans and Sheets 1 through 6 of 6 of the Tentative Tract Map No. 30129, stamped "REVIEWED — CORRECTIONS NOTED — RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED." Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee property shall be subject to the paramount right of Metropolitan to use the fee property for the purpose for which it was acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary to remove any of the facilities from the fee property, such removal and replacement shall be at the expense of the owner of the facility. For any further correspondence with Metropolitan relating to this project, please make reference to the Substructures Job Number shown in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this letter. Should you require any additional information, please contact Ken Chung, telephone (213) 217-7670. Very truly yours, Kieran M. Callanan, P.E. Manager, Substructures Team KC/km DOC#: 4046-15-001 Enclosures (21) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division -Carlsbad Field Office 5900 La Place Court, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 May 18, 2015 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Office of the Chief Regulatory Division Mr. Matthew Peters Project Planner P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 SUBJECT: Information regarding requirement for Department of the Army Permit Dear Mr. Peters: This is in response to information received regarding Altair Specific Plan. Based on the information you have provided, we are unable to determine if the proposed work would be regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Please review your project and determine if you need a permit. Applications and additional information are available on our website http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/PermitProcess.aspx. If you have any questions, please contact Shari Johnson of my staff at 760-602-4829 or via e-mail at Shari.Johnson@usace.army.mil. Therese O. Bradford Chief, South Coast Branch J SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON' An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Planning Department Subject: Tract Map No. 36959 September 17, 2015 Please be advised that the division of the property shown on Tract Map No. 36959 will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any facilities and/or easements held by Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said map. This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the Company's rights, title and interest in and to said easement(s), nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of costs for relocation of any affected facilities. In the event that the development requires relocation of facilities, on the subject property, which facilities exist by right of easement or otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested to bear the cost of such relocation and provide Edison with suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights are required prior to the performance of the relocation. If you have any questions, or need additional information in connection with the subject subdivision, please contact me at (626) 302-4473. F cc: Butsko Utility Design, Inc. 2131 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Steven D. Lowry Title and Real Estate Services Corporate Real Estate Department emw September 21, 2016 Altair Development dEASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Re: Conceptual Approval to grant utility crossings within Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Easements Altair TTM 36959, City Of Temecula This letter is to grant conceptual approval for the utility crossings across existing EMWD easements shown on the Tentative Tract Map 36959 (attached) for the proposed storm drains, water and dry utilities. The location of these utilities will be generally in the same vicinity as shown (attached) and shall be exactly determined and established during final engineering phase. These crossings shall conform to all of EMWD Standards and Specifications as well as the requirements described in the existing easements. At final engineering all designs of these utility crossings shall be reviewed and approved by EMWD. EMWD has had the opportunity to review the conceptual grading plan. In order to accommodate access to gravity mains, where EMWD sewers are proposed outside of roadways, access shall be provided through the construction of a minimum 20 -foot wide Decomposed Granite surface capable of sustaining HS -20 vehicle loading. Sufficient ingress and egress shall be provided, including turn- arounds. Sincerely, Maria E. Sambito Director of New Business Cc: John Ward, Director of Engineering Services Armando Arroyo, Senior Civil Engineer Attachments MES 2270 Trumble Road • P.O. Box 8300 • Perris, CA 92572-8300 T 951.928.3777 • F 951.928.6177 emwd.org ATTACHMENT 10B TTM 36959 CDS COM PAN I ES TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959-3 AND 36959 CITY OF TEMECULA 3„0.%2,E3 93149# 3.2 '29.12" WATER S. RECYCLED WATER WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR (P- UBLIC) V.1272'7.ro TT 127:2 242.29.k. 19,K,WAY 42 22 12 7 OPENAPACE 97922E14E21r 11 "2- Is. sea, KBA, 2-19 249 WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR (PUBL- IC) STA IBC% 990292274 50 'RR; 9al EXIST PROP PROP BD. R. RIZYI 2' EXISTING B/YI - 64' 1 I 1 °9229 LANE LANE 2 Ve9.919eK .9.2E9.........."521 0- EX. WATER " DA -0 1 '2,2e. 20 FM 0' RECYCLED W9.9ER 8• SEW. VINCENT MORAGA (PUBLIC) S1fl18S+5OI?7+56 7.5 91BM9rP120.229' 49" PUBLIC OIL. & ACCESS EASEMENT WA9ER 3 COROMELL TRAIL (PRIVATE) STA 1,00 - 1,25 COROMELL TRAIL (PRIVATE) 51c PUBLIC UTILITY de ACCESS EASEMENT 1 39' I 22" 92S222 SE'R ALTAIR VISTA & "ASTREET (PRIVATE) ALTAIR 227199N111:9=-°2 To; nTIZE5NO 334 55 22922R 99°92"9A.9•2 MS91112°9042g90 •7909•79°B91° °"" 2 46. piele. UTL. & ACCESS EP.MENT PUBIC UT LT9 ACCESS '''•2.'49 -1 2% 828 2,7, 9 "m'CS RIDGE PARK DRIVE (PUBLIC) GT/ STO 1031. V RA, x9,22 9se _ sEEREE-r= "B" STREET N. (PRIVATE) LAND"APEUTriov;Zar OGONDARY EXHIBIT ". FaA, 36":' „PLL 2/20,9s, 92;FL•912:Ns "B" STREET N. (PRIVATE) 2999°S°9925°,7=0299929'923° 9'992° 19 222 " 1 PUBLIC UTILITY dr99AIOCESS EASEMENT "2 °B92:122+9 C PUBLIC 11111 29.9.CESS EASEMENT 11 PA PKNC LANE PK LANE PKNG STORAI DR. -.2:3° 8 SEWER .3, 1 ALTAIR VISTA (PUBLIC) 38M:Itg:r. n ;tr. ctr, 60 P/V, °229 2' 2 22 2 22 99N° 2299209E1 9'Nd 49 1°6 ANE s, jr 84- S• RECYCLED 2,,2 (12Sr; l' "C9 STREET & "13" STREET 5E.E (PUBLIC) LOCAL ST,R,EEXErDIFIEN) '2 S7S199"49 96°9959 0!01;°".992-9L•°939.:°909490°0 TO °;4900999 99 R. P. 1 1 1 22 1 2. 29 ,222,2 . PKWY1 LANE LANE ,,3,73t:131 -Lt. 1 .1.70A 192°9 r" '9' "13" STREET N. (PUBLIC) 92254°299 LANDSCAPED 2 WATER f PARKWAYS ION NO PAFK NG s wyEK ALTAIR VISTA • ONE•WAY (PRIVATE) ONE WAY STFEET NTH PARKNG ONE SIX STA 3.93 (NOR. 90 9490 (SOL. PRGP 32. R/YI EXIS9 R/YI 2 PUBLIC UTILITY Lc ACCESS EASEMENT "2 LANE 9V93'.2:3 VE--- 12" W@TER EX, 13" 222 EX,„12" SEWER xf LTRN"22° "999 DRAIN 9"29 '2292° FIRST STREET (PUBLIC) 71. 9229 1 VARIES : (110207919091N9990.219. =MIME= ALK LANE LANE WALK 12 YYPTES ALTAIR VISTA • CLI1LVERT (PRIVATE) "A" STREET • BRIDGE (PRIVATE) CONTIGUOUS SIDEWALKS Y. NO P.NING (13.0...EPT LOCATIONS) , •A STREE9 S, .80 TO 9490 , PUBLIC „,17-7, ‘X2E:a9S°S EASEMENT sx23,,•E3 YOPIE: VARIES AY RIES VARIES 1,;(E,'231. 2992;2 1.991. 9313219K,E9' 29;09 9 2 2/1 I 991 97.1 21- 12,2ATER 99299 9"' COROMELL TRAIL (PUBLIC) LANDSCAPED PARKWAYS WITH NO PARKING MARK DATE REVISIONS / TRACT MAP 1 NO. 36959-1 1 \ (SHEET 4) \ 8 TRACT MAP NO. 36959-2 (SHEET 5) 882 24 TRAC MAP NS 959-3 (SHEET 6) I 4 TRACT MAP NO. 36959 (SHEET 7) GRAPHIC SCALE 0 BOO 400 BOO I200 BY APPROVED/ROE No. PROJECT SUMMARY PHASE 1: TR 36569.1 2.°. S9922 '222 (09g0) 2222 1 2 RESIDENTIAL FIESIDENTWL 4 17 3 4 F2SMENTWL RESIDENTIPL 2 36 - 5 9 FIESIDENTWL RESMENTWL 7.24 HOA BOA 7 8 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 903 29 37 HOP CONSERVAT.N A B RIDGE PARK 1.2 WE.. BYPASS 0 09 2 37 PUBLIC R. PUBLIC R. C D ADAIR VISTA RIDGE PARK BR. 0 72 204 PUBLIC R. PUBL:C K5W PHASE 2: TR 36569.2 21°02, S9M2 222 (09R9059•S) 2222 2 RESIDEN.L 2,55 2,32 3 9 RESIDEN.L RESIDEN.L 16.13 - 5 6 RESIDEN.L.11. ILSE RESIDEN.L 0.90 HOA BOA 7 S RESIDEN.L RESIDENTIPL 221 HOP HOA 9 10 RESIDEN.L RESIDEN.L 1,53 1.30 CONSERVATON CC:SSE...ION 11 12 RESIDEN.L RESIDEN.L 1.80 HOA , 14 COMMUN. CEINER RECREATION CENTER 0.30 1.75 HOA HOP 15 16 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 4.54 0.78 HOP HOA , IS OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 0.52 9 60 HOA HOP 20 PARK OPEN SPACE 5.04 0.59 PUBLIC PARK HOA 21 22 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 0.83 125 HOP HOP 23 24 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 1.39 1.80 HOA HOA 25 A OPEN SPACE YIESIERN 812ASS 8 09 5.13 CONSERVATION PUBLIC R5W B C 0.L.IR VISTA PLIPIP VISTA 0 87 2., PUBLIC R. PRI. R/YI S E CORNELL TRAIL COROMELL TR. 2 73 0.90 PRI. 19/Ye PUBLIC R. F ..• STREET 0.91 PRI. R/YI TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUMMARY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 922 210 049.0 310 013, 940 310 015. 940-310-016. 940-310-044, 940-310-095, 940-310-045. 940-310-047. 940-310-048, M.E.02022 Z1E1%2 =Ell 940-320-.7 TO. PRES CROSS: 269 91 KRES 91M2 99,2 220P9 LE.. LOTS: Nsr.z,gr BP,P-80,5 SP (SPEC. PLAN) EX°99a994°D"Lite 1°I71:1119L92NS°229°2: MINIMUM LO9 SIZE AVERAGE LOI Si. 1,1p11,4331.112„0,9s:DIMENBONS: NO OF LE9TERED LOTS: PROPOSED DENSTY (CROSS% 191RO°907P°1ZENS9999 (NEI r.mngFre..„.^N' PER SPECIFIC PLAN ")EE';LVEn 'Fr,11 19 PER SPECifiC PIPS PER SPECIFIC PLAN PHASE 3: TR 36569.3 2.:202 LAND USE (09,74, NOTE 1 2 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 2,55 2,32 3 4 RESIDENTIAL PESICENTIPL 16.13 - 5 6 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 1.23 HOA BOA 7 B RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 221 HOP HOA 9 10 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 1.92 CONSERVATON CC:SSE...ION . 12 RESISENTPL OPEN SPACE 4.52 5,40 HOA 13 CP. SPACE PARK 9.88 OM HOA H. 15 15 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 0,74 0,52 HOA HOA 18 PARK OPEN SPACE 025 0... BOA HOP 19 20 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 2,64 8%0 HOA CONSERV.. A B WESTERN BYPASS ALTAIR VS, 4.70 2. PUBLIC P/VI PRIX. R. C D "B" STREET N. •B• STREET N. 1, 0.36 PRIX. R. PUBLIC P/VI PHASE 4: TR 36569 21°09 2922 '222 (GM'. 2222 1 RESIDENTIAL 2.90 2 RESIDENTIAL CINC 16.13 - 9 5 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 0,31 0.12 HOA BOA 6 7 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 0.42 9,26 HOP HOA S 9 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 923 34.3 CONSERVATON CC:SSE...ION 10 A OPEN SPACE WESTERN BYPASS 2,61 2, CONSERVATON PUBLIC P/VI B C "8" STREET . "C. STREET 0.31 0,70 PUBLIC P/VI PUBLIC R. 'TOTAL (GROSS ACRE./ 1 Y22. 1 ITOTAL (21.1 ACRE.) I 236.95 I NO, AREA CALC.TIONS NOT 90 INCLUDE LOTS D AND L (TR. IMP 39959) PROPOSED LEMATE°N-"="2 =EL. BUILDABLE LOT TOTAL OPEN SPACE 90. CIRCULATION TOTAL MWD EASEMENT AREAS LO1 .ND USE "C" STREET 0 29 PUBLIC 19. 0.48 PUBLIC R. LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE SHEET 2 1, 9„Hg3TEENT/EXLEMIEELfLUBS,1,9214DEZ ,FIZEZNERSHIP OF THE 9E... WEST ..E. LLC. AND 2 PLL ENSTil. STRUCTURES Cle 1HE SUBJECT PROPER, SHALL SE P.O. ,21 19.1229.9rD °99019"92490r091=29.121PIAZI9A911222029211°9HE=EEOVETS;10.N. 'IF F. THOSE MIN SIDE YARD SE913. = 5 Vile PE. SETBACK 5 MIN FRONT SETBACK = 5 2E20222°0111991199°R°19C2992120999.1242VBIANE°N21°.1°N°°,902C°02R°D92.°91942H°91192900°DE292°Z.Z AND 8 snycrgnzs, LO.TED IN 914E PUBLIC STREET RIGHT -0.. SHALL PE PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CiTY IRPIE. AND ISPNSPC.19,20% C.SELiNES f019 BONUS. PLACEMENT 9 THE SUBDINDER RESERVES THE RIGHT 90 FILL MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS PER SEC 66456 1 OF 9. STA, MAP 10 92E19 ONSITE PRIVA, STD. DRAIN AND WATER 011ALITY FACILITIES SHALL BE PRIVATELY MAIMAINED NA.12.20°9=90222.9.°1°9.1.n17191NH0‘99997°Z./91E N1959SN20091,27.21°929&2°12119°.20.2P1 999 12 E9=R19M 1221.19.°93.229229320991X912192.g12°M9B7921996909n50999991°9A1920tS1 28. 2. • THIS TEN.. MAP INCLUDES THE ENTIRE C.91CUOUS OF OWNERSHIP ELSINORE FAULT ZONE 19. 141ES, ly3121.x.320:ExE.EREEr2=1INIERN,IXINDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION BASIS OF BEARINGS 9HE BASIS OF BEARINGS HEREON ARE BASED ON GPS STATIC OBSERVAlIONS AND ARE . THE STAlE PLANE x0ORDINA, SYS... CA 1^E'n nEncuHNDT4ngl.rs?„,EN'tz^gnnssurryD,F=strDN-a°,EBEE:nrg2Fwn.npern".. LEGEND CENTER LINE SITE VICINITY MAP PROPOSED PROPER, LINE de F. LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE @ LINE - ULTIMATE ROW LINE EXISTING EASEMENT PROP....NT TRACT BOUNDARY PHASING BOUNDARY LOT NUMBER STREET LOT .L MODIFICATION ZONE A EXISTING EASEMENT SNEE1 PROPOSED EASEMENT 1 7 VILLAGE MAP I • • TRACT MAP \ NO. 36959.1 ` "141 IIIIII1111 OPEN SPACE LEGEND ■ ML� E BOUNDARIES PHASE BOUNDARY TRACT MAP NO. 36959-2 TRACT MAP NO. 36959-3 TRACT MAP NO. 36959 1 1� �1 9 OPEN SPACE 1 PHASING SUMMARY VLLACE (moss .,.) NORTH VILLAGE A' 15.5.0 VLLACE 12 46 CENTRAL C• NORTH VILLAGE •O' SOUTH SOUTH MACE 7.134 VILLAGE F' 9 03 CIVIC TM, MAP NO 36959 VLLACE .0. 7.05 CIVC SITE 1617 GRAPHIC SCALE 100 0 200 100 BOO 1200 (arrnl n. PHASING MAP 1 I TRACT MAP\ NO. 36959-1 NORTH PHASE L \ 1` TRACT MAP NO. 36959-2 1 CENTRAL PHASE Ih 24 TRACT MAP 1 NO. 36959-3 120 SOUTH PHASE 1 1 1_ 9 1 / TRACT MAP NO. 36959 CIVIC PHASE 100 1„U"7e])X. GRAPHIC SCALE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 4 Of PARCEL MAP 10814. AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 78 PAGES 5 THROUGH 5 Of SAJD COUNTY ALSO OLIN° A PORTION OF THE RANCHO SANTA ROSA AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND PARCELS 1 THROUGH 9 INCLUSNE OF SAID DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED JUNE 2 2015 IN BOON 149 PAGES -IHROUCH 16 ON FILE AT THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY REORDER OF RNERSIDE COUNTY. STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROPOSED EASEMENTS on EZr,-, ON,NE nN� �OgB T9 BE EPRIVATE EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS PURPOSES. ER AR.n„ER PxRPO TO BE EZIVaLEXENT FOR wale PURPOSES To BE RESERVED lUEL ATION 0 PUBLIC E EASEMENT CCESS PURPOSES ACRE AND EXISTING EASEMENTS PUREMENT TO EASTERN MUNICIPAL WIER DITIRICT FOR SEWER POSES. PER INST NO 1990-01810 PEC SEFIEMBER 27.190 ALASEMENT FOR PUBLIC,ROAD,AND UTE!, PURPOSES PLR A,`S,TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OAS COMPANY PER NO. 1981-1,4969. KC..uxs 19.1951 AEA NO ,987-,24941. ACNO AS5MENT FOR SEWER PIPELINES PER DEED. INST 1987-324947, OEC NOVEMBER 12. 1987 ALASEMENT FOR SEMR PIPELINES PER DEED. INST. NS.,987-724951. REO NOVEMBER 12.,987 �EN NO. ,987-324955. OEC. NOVEMBER 1 1987 o PURPOSES. PER NST. NO. ,990-188789. REC. MAY 990 ALASEMENT TO EASTERN MUNICIPAL WA-IER DITIRICT FOR SEWER Pus OSE£ PER NST. x0. 1990-1B8790, REC. MAY 3. 990 ALA OPUMPURPOSES. PER NST. x0. 2001-508014, REC. OCTOBER01 ER �'N'u N0 2001sOs01s. TRE2 OCTOBER 2001 TER AmSNTNS, NO 1977-113E39. REC. JUNE 20. 1977 EXISTING EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED DE< P.CEL MnP NO 23969 BOOK 16 PACES - 13 A nBus0 uT�Lm P „'E PER v w,B2s4 Ei 6851 e�r7e m ALASEMENT FOR SD. PIPELINES PLR DEED. INST co ,987-324959 RE NOVEMBER 1 1987 AJASEMENT FOR SD. PIPELINES PLR DEED. INST O AEPPRSTNOVEMBER ESPER V xOi 4",777'2. PEC If, 71. APUNN. PENIRS x0. 197o -16b7. PEC FEB=1. 20. 1976 200 100 BOO 1200 REVBONS MARE DATE APPROVED. ROE No. BENCH MASK No.C54 ^ruuc ox5304 ELEVATION. 1155.16 NATIONAL GEODETIcsuRVEt BENCa11ATrc LOCATED IN SEN DIEGO LOU.. 0.2 LILES SOU, OF iHE ITERSECION OF EiE 15 40 ENE MERE. SAN DIEANN BREINDER VH AND 29 FEET NORTFAEST OF AN EL=_CNE. LOCATED 11‘. ENE NOIELLNELLST QUADRANT OF raOLEER1$STEEL RON SET FLESH. C `fa7 2020 Camino Del Ro North, Bute 1000 San Dego, California 92108 Phone619-296-9373 Fax 619-296-5683 57014 CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959-3 & 36959 SNEEE 2 7 - NOT FDR CONSTRUCTION P4 ,O RIDGE AV 155 12' PARCEL 1,APP RIB /84-89 PCL PCL 11 122 02. NZ 96 8 PARCEL 20 PARCEL I 6 06 89 98.E pARCEL 4 MAP PARCEL 21 PARCEL 2 18254 w x 2 32/46 wu9 15/726 BLK 37 BLK 36 N45.31,021_863 78 w w 1 1 Ln PUJOL STREET LK 35 Iry� �I I� ml 23869 PARCEL 23 PUB 116/18 PARCEL 24 PI ZI '41'W 1325.52 N4Jg4 32535 1 N3\ -9e5\ 52 EXISTING EASEMENTS AEAs QcUPOses. PE6Ius*. No. 199o-5ne1o. 6Ec SEPT ueE6 z11s90 QPLLR INET. NO. 1988-99905. REC. APRIL IS. 1988 PER �I ST. No. 1991-114969. REC JUNE 19. 1981 N0. 196/-924941. ACAS 1962-124941. PEC NDAEMBER 12.1 MENT FOR SD. PIPELINES PER DEED. INS9. NO 1987-324942. REC. NOVEMBER U. 1962 A NO. 1987-324951, PEC. NOVEMBER 12. 1989 ALASEMENT lOR SEWER PIPELINES PER DEED, INST NO 19B7-324955. REC. 987 URNOVEMBER POSES, PER IxNO.1 90 INST.188189, REC. MAY 21. 1990 mP"oE"°� EASTERN MT `u SU. .Nso-aS1 AS URPOSES. PER INST. N0. 2099-505019. REC.OCTOBER n. 2001 ATPEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA WAlER DISTRICT. R 2001-505018. REo OCTOBER 11. 2001 AINST. NO. 1997-113639. REC. JUNE 20. 1997LASEMENT TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON PER EXISTING EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED ,L4A,4,4N4NO 23969. PnRCEL MOP AE ,IFFsO1:,41%CRAD AND uilury PURPOSES PER P 18254 AEAs ALASEMENT FOR SD. PIPELINES PER DEED IN, 4AEAS NT 1. . 1.1 1 TO METROPOLI9AN WATER DISTRIC9 FOR ROAD PURPOSES PLR INST NO 1968-65729 REC. JULY 11 1968 AP IVA.. PER INn. N0. r91a1E561. PEC EE 27=20.1,4 53 PARCEL MAP 6835 PARCEL 25 4 FSR 156 PMB 02/21-41 PARCEL PUJOL STELE El OFFSI1E R/,' D'DICAeION PER TR 5656 PARCEL 26 IY LL RF << MAP SEE DETAIL "A" DETAIL "A" N T.S. GRAPHIC SCALE 0 IGO NO 100 BOO PARCEL MAP 18254 PMB 118/69-18 18254PARCEL 21 PUB 116/6¢26 PARCEL MAP 2B627-1 PMe 200/10,102 PEKOE/ER PARCEL Ng4s4o-9o9.>s PARCEL MAP 10814 18/5-8 RR, PARCEL 28 A2214 PORTION PARCEL 4 PA CEL MAP 6815 106 Pue 29/21-41 1,5 REVBONS DATE APPROVEPRCE No. BENCH MARK No.cew ^r.c.0x5804 ELEVATION. 116.5.16 NATION, GEODETIC SURVEY BENa111AT14 LOCATE>INseN DIEGO COUNT' 0.2 LILES 500110F 711E ITERSECION OF TIE 1540 RIVERSIDE ' SAN DIE O CBB,' LINE. LOCATED IA THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OE THE PTE GAINBCAT CA ANo 29 FEET NORT-NVEET DE AN EL_:MILlER.S AND STEEL ROD SET FLUSH. P C 1S 2020 Camino Del RI0 North, Suite 1000 San Diego, Calltornla 92108 Phone'. 618-296-9373 Fa.vr619-29.663 57010 ARNOLD L. ,117E RCE No. CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959-3, 36959 SHEEA 3 7 -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION '.1 940-310-014 8 29.37 AC CONSERVATION AREA °4700o 00 PUN, 940-310-040 940-330-008 940-310-030 940-310-031 940-310-059 940-310-060 1 6.18 AC 940-310-056 5 7.24 AC 5.1 AC TRACT MAP NO. 36959-2 (SEE SHEET 5) 0 (SEE EXHIBIT "G `3- 60 uJ ft*mil 48q4140 0- 411„ ,A,„ 921-020-055 ,pv- \V121-020- 0„ 77 / 9-029 / 429- 740 1 621-2 1-427 929 81-016 10 "A PROPOSED EASEMENTS E nffez,m2TarmarnEv.1".5. EMARTUArrTYLr'"/"`"ER "RP"' " " EXISTING EASEMENTS PHASE 1: TR 36569.1 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 200 380 1 iin"5700) REVI3ONS BENCH MARK 520.8223.3848. 005204 ELEVATION. .35.13 C arS 2020 Cam no Del Ro North, Sulte 1000 San Dego, California 92108 Phone 619-296-9373 Fax 619-296-5683 CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959-1 4 7 - NOT FDR CONSTRUCTION A a RIDGE PA. DPIPP WESTERN BYPASS 0.09 2.37 pus. P. PUB. P.2 P RIDGE PA. DPIPP 0.04 PUB. P. GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 200 380 1 iin"5700) REVI3ONS BENCH MARK 520.8223.3848. 005204 ELEVATION. .35.13 C arS 2020 Cam no Del Ro North, Sulte 1000 San Dego, California 92108 Phone 619-296-9373 Fax 619-296-5683 CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959-1 4 7 - NOT FDR CONSTRUCTION 5'48080-001 TRACT TRACT MAP NO. 36959-1 (SEE SHEET 4) 940-088002 N. A. P 940.310-049 00 0 3 3.74 AC 922-054.009 922-052010 948090.007 948098005 0 I J5.1 _ VaT 922-058011 081 01 9 2- 54-02 MAIN STREET 922-062.001 08 922-062-002 101 922-062-006 1 922.062-007 922.062-008 20 0.59 AC OPEN SPACE 922-062.010 940-090-006 21 0.83 AC OPEN SPACE, 92206202 922-062.024 iGRAPHIC SCALE go o so ILO 200 300 TRACT MAP NO. 36959-3 (SEE SHEET 6) 17 0.52 AC OPEN SPACE SEE DETAIL "B" FIRST STREET LOT "D" COROMELL TRAIL (PRIVATE) LOT "E" COROMELL TRAIL (PUBLIC) FIRST STREET LIC) / / 4 DETAIL "B" NOTE: OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR FIRST STREET AND CDROM. TR,11. WILL BE CONSTRUCTED PER TR 36959-2 GRAPHIC SCALE 40 0 20 40 00 120 PROPOSED EASEMENTS E''..,=EINt",=TZVE-InTEE,„MnEM'IL Ez,,,,EAR-rogm_rE,NE,FTRALTZ DRAIN PURPOSES. TO DE EPRIVATE EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS PURPOSES. ErEARTOAZZLF,O,VANITARY SENER PURFOSES. TO BE EMIVaLE.VAVENT FOR WATER PURPOSES TD BE RESERVED EPUBLIC EASEMENT FOR ACCESS PURPOSES. EXISTING EASEMENTS A,LASEMENT TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY PE INS, NO, 1981-114969 REC JAE 19.1981 AEPSEniElfr FOIR SEMIR PH:TUNES PER DEEP MST NO 1987-324955, REC NOVEMBER 12, 198.7 A EF..=1.E4T„ T.FpErZlarruiCiPPL,..17 DiSTR, !CP SE MR REC. MAY 23.1990 PHASE 2: TR 36569.2 1 SCHOOL/RESIDENTIAL 7.07 2 3 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENT. 4 5 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL/MINED USE 0.90 6 7 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 8 9 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 1.53 10 11 RESIDENT. RESIDENTIAL -REE, 12 13 RESIDENTIAL COMAIUNTY CENTER 2.28 0.30 HOP 14 15 RECREATION CENTER OPEN SPACE 1.75 4, HOA HOA 16 , OPEN SPACE OVEN SI,Pa 0.78 0 52 HOP HOP 18 OPEN SPACE P. 4.60 5,04 HOA PUBLIC PARK 20 21 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 0.59 0.83 HOP HOA 22 23 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 1.63 1,39 HOA HOP 24 25 OVEN SI,Pa OPEN SPACE 1.. 8.06 HOP CONSERVATION A B WESTERN B,ASS ALTAIR VISTA 5.13 0.87 PUBLIC R.,,,, PUBLIC RA, C D ALTAIR VISTA CORNELL TRAIL 2.17 2.73 PRNATE RPII PRNATE RPM E f [OIRCVELL TR., -A- STREET OA 0.91 PUBLIC R.,,,, PIRNA, IR/VI REVGONS APPRO....OE No. BENCH MASK No.cew ^ru.. on. ELEVATION. 1155.16 NATIONAL GEODELLIN SILINVEY BENCHLIFEtt LCINATED SNN DIEGO NOUN, 0.2 LILES SON, OF LIHE ITERSECION OF EiE 15.40 LIHE WENS. SAN DIEGO COLIN,' LINE. LOCATED 11‘. THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE NNE, AND 12PINKR VALLE, PELT,. 29 FEELL NONE -HEST OF AN ELENTROLER. STEEL RON SET FLUSH. C 2020 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 1000 San Diego, California 92108 Phone: 619-296-9373 Fax: 619-296-5683 vonv cscos.com N.RNOLD :MILT JR. RCE CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959-2 5 7 - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TRACT MAP NO. 36959-2 A, (SEE SHEET 5) Q,R" PHASE 3: TR 36569.3 PROPOSED EASEMENTS uxS un ^�" N. o �° 55 PA N E TO R" E �" ON "� EIN°� MAP. 1 940-090-006 112: s9 `" s 21 0.83 AC OPEN SPACE . -. . 22 7.6 REQ. 3AC OP�cN E SPgC RESIDE.. 5 �82ATE EA=LM"NTE"R MONTENANTE AND ACCE„ P"RPO=EL 0 R AR, "„"R ""E.TOR" ©°ry�A<,E EAs�MEe, """ 0-.E" °"tea "s ," "" ��" " �N n E rag: __,1- � PUBLIC EASiMEM FOR ACCESS PURPOSES 2 RESIDENT. OPEN SPACE 4.52 5.40 H0.3 s l� -32.00 2.55AC I 1.96 OT E„\ ��P. ",uoO OPEN SPACE 4.88 H EASEMENTS Ts SPACE 0 30.3 QEXISTING EASEMENT . SOUTHERN CAL.., OAS CCAIPANY P" P. -OPEN l� o-� � 1 -.. 2. A.SEMENT FOR SE9E8 OWE.. PEP DEED. iNST 0 am I 1 .. � s \ 2 <,,,iii w ¢ 2.32 AC 2.15 AC !, � 1 v o I Q z , ,'°' LT, m1 0 ¢'= nlp.' N O 5191.A 2:2 4 zl ai w zs 16 >, i 949-994979 '• OAF CONSERVATION PUBLIC AsaNT FOR SE ERPIPELINES PER c NOVEMBER 1zDEED. MATCH -NE 0-,E ww A," RAW A, EASEMENT FOR SEWER PIPELINES PER SEES. ixsr. NO 1PeT_EL.Ps. �S N"uEMS"H,z „S, - SEE jjAInn L� 111116 LEFT m c--, � w3 AS y \ ‘-:;.(5' 'y� !W. °'P,p\ .t6\'''" ,,0o\ TRACT NO. 36959 (SEE SHEET " -- MAP E STREET N MAT 11 A C .RS 0-B ,,, %. 7) O. CHLINE : a " �� - PUBLIC ROA - SEE \ r 9,� ` � 0"nsMEN EOR SEWER PIPELINES PER "EE". CRs ND. OR 32,9. NOVEMBER ,9a LEFT �� Q- c y �� J�� aSaE STEL RS.. OEOICA➢ON PER P 36.8 LOT"y"B 'ETN. 'IBLIC) 18 0.3; • - \ \ \'\� GRAPHIC SCALE 100 o b no 3to p z m' N1:2129 /9a.�p� P 15 0 � CF074AC96'''''2? I° E4l$PACE az s0- 0 1 c7 1 ^0-w i 940-140-009 NI "' 0-i U ¢ ¢ CL a _ ¢ ��F- J� a m•, wl am � .. e 8 ' 5 11 2.51 AC 1.51 AC r; y� ,//�� Q 1( C/�°��;'\� 5 ol �� 16. \ SOI 1.23AC %i 1 1 949-149-010 I 17 - 1 0.25 AC 1 PARK ,OO 1° 9 vi QI rni �o 9 m / 9Zz a �, 1.42 AC zsa �� i °p tee- V;t; 7 QQ! ; 1.17AC , SU; i o 949449-911 j Ikrp„' 1 949-149-012 MATCHLINE • SEE RIGHT /if I � �e �Q �� 4 10 Z x'4.51 ACz �' m T710 Qm ��4 ??'a I eW ,,; ,, g''''770,0„ Cis ' T .9,9,7,62.07, r - 1 I ATCHLINE -SEE RIGHT nn nn ) KEY MAP REVEIONS BENCH MARK No.ceN ^ruuc 005304 ELEVATION. 115.5.18 2020 Camino Cel Rio North, Suite 1000 CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959-3 9'LQ�gv 2 a , HEE 6 OF 7 C `IS San Diego, California 92108 Phone: 619-2969373 F�61e9-596-o5rfi83 NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1ENCHIIJA. Eav,TE> IM SAN"I"eu CO.. - 0.2 ERRS SOU.HOF.HE IN.ERSECnON of ..E l[h�o.1L-RNERsIOE� oRAIII°OaaA""°"EEti`ao"°'ozs FEE°Na":"�,'� °;"oE"A"OEE°;AOUER'N` STEEL O"sETEw . W3. 88i2002ADJ. MARK DATE sv hPPaovEaacE NO. ARNOLDL.VHF<�R. RCE1O. 4A.E - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED PROPOSED EASEMENTS PHASE 4: TR 36569 OA 1 P oiA 1 ,� \, �. MAT 1 A, L/NE. S .ol C STREET RC R (PUBLIC) — — — 94o-z4o-oo5 1 2 \ 1 4 \ PI 0.31 AC ' ��_• �L- , w 9 \ . i 34.63 AC I 5 I� `\ L I CONSERVATION AREA I 0.12AC 44 s I OPEN SPACE o 6 / �. ❑ ' EEASEMEN ` x r°NA°M`AP LOR ° us eR m sr LOT „D„ B. STREET N. i =— 1 4'i (<P (PUBLIC) D T DRE RESIDENRIAL op�e 0.36 AC 01, ei �. EIBLIW irva cE"PURTPMFILEL MODIFICATION ACCESS ANDOPEN 6 OPEN SPACE 0212 H ��JS "/ SPACE c D" oF EXISTING EASEMENTSor,EN 110N\ OEXISTmEo�aE CALIFORNIANE `�a T gDA98�MPA".PIRINS AEASEMENT U PUBLIC LOT RA�� \ � �i FOR SENER PIPELINES PER DEL, IN, NO. 0 FOR IT PER NT NO. RU RD RIR. NAT TT DRC QPURPOSES. PIR "s. "a zoai-sesm 4. REC. °CtaRIR iT. eDm TEre MWD TO RANCHO EASEMENT AREAS V \ T .-27-------2N----40925STERN BVPAss CORRIDOR Orr -SITE R/w DEDICATION o QT° Z 91O o1 X66 I 1 \ 940250-073 Al w 1 1 W „1 1 m,FT\f f Z U1 1 1 ! rv46D5DOD'� 1 1 01 \ i 1 1� 1 1 \ (PUBLIC) v / _ 16.13AC SEE DETAIL "D" ZS 7 a; ,.. 10 / 9 Q 34.63AC i CONSERVATION AREA 22 m6 e't �/ A �u,- -/' AT Q'�U ;;' � GRAPHIC Do B 1 I 0.42 AC OPEN SPACE 1 1 1 �o m uA '' 1 1 SCALE 50 100 200 WO NTS. PER INSR. NO PDDR-eDeD,e. RIO aTDRER ,T. EDD,g TO SOURRERN �IINS, CD T a LOT "B" 1 PER PW D a4 � NO. I,n-��Ts39. RIO JUNE 20. 1977 e5RREER.N O. R/A PUBLIC RWP v / r i r \ K GRAPHIC SCALE m(. "C" o) DETAIL n. NTy g 5 LOT "E• 0.12 AC �hk ' ..s, OPEN OPEN SPACE �W (PUBLIC) / - v, _Rc`, / LOT3 GRAPHIC SCALE va 2 G�. o 4.55AC % "° 2.50AC A ja ��`, LOT„B„ N.A.pQJ mss» Lor„D„ Lor.,E,. MAIC N.A.P. ti<INF Q7u ; %� SRF UPs GRAPHIC SCALE pFR R/c DETAIL"D" IHrm) Iry. II. n I / ,1 �1.64 SEE DETAIL "C” Q KEY MAP- 100 0� I.rcIMRGn=1m) A \ ineH•Imr61) II. REVRONB BENCH MARK No.ceN rvuuc. on. ELEVATION. I166.16 2020 Camino Cel Ro North, Suite 1000 CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959 tpoeQ�g 2 a REE 7 °F 7 C `.IS T IEs San Diego, California 92108 Phone: 619-2969373 Fax: NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY eENCR�:wTrc LOCATED IN SAN DIEGO COUNTS ALD - SOUTH OE. LOCATED OAD I,HEDEERSKIN Or TIE QUADRANT OF THE STE AND STEELRODSET°"(S`a ,D'"TRE"ORT"E NORTHEAST uER'N` °DeETII NA�DRR29 �RUDADET J. '"ERTDEANEI�TRo I.wRrc DATE Dv TIPPR°vEa RCE No. ARNOLD E.IR�TETR. RCE Mo. DTE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ATTACHMENT 10C TTM 36959 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN ° r... 1rMIMED *PTO � WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR (PUBLIC) STT. 0000 6 Dnz.i.0 orin Vr CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A r TR 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959-3 & 36959i ---f' CITY 6959,--- CITY OF TEMECULA I SHEET31L r1 I\ I 2,54 16 or Go. OR. rREMO.5*-' WESTERN ETPAS&CORRIDOR PUB1j -.,SURE aerl.-w q= -"E' L I Q k_E. WNW ar T. 1 r WO i r DDrRD V I11C EM MORADA IPUIIl61 GA GM' IrAl• Yrn M Y 1 -- 10r eUerr. RIDGE PARK DRIVE (PUBLIC) m: ST) NO. IOU :NO t7 -1r (re ( -)r 1 r ,: r} I 8989..' 1:slaw. 01089-_ I s•avt Ia -.,m- ALTAIRyyAIVISTA (P UILIC) N. 1 5 YY IITREET f4 -I" 1TREE1f S. 3PUBLI01 =6.4.00yy .cl r D,xm ,D x«De 4V00-17:71.1101+.1t Ts g 'i 58989 :Nu a. 10('01 y. Yfmxnm l.M0 7T V. w1tLI: 1 . 1SIR 1189. ■ AHF.. lu Y I ` nn H.S. r MT N 01x, + 1 *itt$1� TRACT MAP 1, INO.36959-1;,7..x09 �1 COROMELLTRAIL(PRIVATEI 115 - .. `1 SHEET 51 I`�A r,. -. r..":I D,L.xe 1 I11 i 1 ,I. •,i1891 ,1 r n \ 41 .11 IL f'1j -- I .f y17RACTMAP �• i NO 36959-2 ...... .~ SHEET BI 1 r. !• I COROMELL TRAIL (PRIVATE) NO PARKING I N � a 1 i [ yi� E SPLIT LANES. ST. I.wo To u«oo f 4 f I i�a��-`� n„1.,�. 0 &SO.H.C.l 1 „.fi . 51 SP 1 f., ;I 1 �1rrl,�r.�a'' %, .K i ".r ,D.t.. SHEET 71 1"j4 "��r D I ALTAIR VRaTA-CULVERT IPSIVATE1` r ALTANf VISTA ■ b-8TREET [PRIVATE? -A- BTREET BRIDGE (PRNATEIr..5890 r M. ur ne 01.00 a 01.61 ASH -,v w G�"r= Ir44S ..tt. M1fl-1 STA Y 1 0./ ea -a 1 r •A• p.Gl 1. � 8989 � r 1 a. t ShfEE7B1 1 1I / r 1. - 7890 f 8989 1 1HII� GU r• ( RS": I : 1 .; . G 1 L - -' 7- STREET N. IPRIVATEI "B' ;;;;;;;LN. (PRIVATE) 1 I . :r ,00...5. o-z7e :Ln I.uoDr,.m s". i,oii e� vA°"1X0 SHEET 9f 11 1 P ,, /-S 1• 1 f 1 F f �e w.. FLrDW' Ilu. n. iu00,0* T -.8989. 11 t •y� �-.a ..,1.T Y LEGEND ---.SNP. .G-- 1.10 10101 CON101.0 CAM. LORIPE P.ITPOSED KM Dr .A: mew om 100£17 VICINITY MAP y. PF TT TR/ITS Cr AOC 5*1150L D.T OR RAC noL ACK ...PPE • Ms.. - - MVO 9..R CP -o PRAM TORS D... PM WET G ❑ vPRO.0550UT MTN DUN 41.17i I�Dnuvv.°ua101 CTIRE f ® FROM.. MAL OUDRAW = PROPOSED VOTER W.P,Y DAWN i..a•.DDmI9PR..PAD • 1 rJ 1F .; 89,89 1 - TRACT MAP 1 1 36959.3 � 8989 16 9r f•-ssa---P 00! rHe 1 0,-0-0006 "I" STREET N. (PUBLIC' iuE mzs;m wat 0 10 Drs- 0 '. Tr Y4 FIRST STREET (PUBLIC' EE' -E -=---A-[1.. 1T Sl. ALTAIR VISTA - ONE-WAY (PRIVATE' 0101490°(Noxa Ta";:m (00150) SHEET 10' 1 N sPA1 OPECE 1 PE.. 110-0 117 yil• 171"W r f / S I f Eaf i SHEET 1 I f / l CCROMELL TRAIL IPUILICI 1 / L--- -- TRACT MAP NO 36959 f GRAPHIC SCALE UTILITIES G. � Cwsam. EL''' L'' mMI�ud xix o] FEL WIR CA 92582 CA 9.5 FM, (e0el (fwv)ase mT "'STRICT NM D CA maa 'ST. MPORI) 128-3777 " (fie`! ;s 0891 - w.,u TPJEGM � I 's,RIc ROO WATER 611-1101 12155 VOLDIMIR APPLICANT OWNER LIME. CCULIONITES MAW, T MUSE LLG (mp xe STREET ° (01e10sD�MCA uie E CPI COLIPLIOL, NTNG WORT( E 92109 2020 CALM DO. RIO 5L1T5 1000 SAN 17250. ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 9,2-210.01.9. 9.001D011 90,1,5-01,110-310-D1, 940-OINON. 91001D0t, 940-310-0.1, 840010-0, NO -37,00, 910-120-039, 910 -32D -0a, 90-320-007 SOURCE OF AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT ,461,004 CT RE`I,I 1• n 1010!20!. MGR MAW 2.10.03N72x0' 065300 ELEVATON. 115110 NAVE, DR 2000 .4 C S ADE ORrY 015 Rq Nan). Sidle 1000 CPA CT'.sf C..[un..92508 Plws--11- /aa6 513 FkIF• M71cf CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959-3 & 36959 EM1 T Of 13 -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE MAP LEGEND �__� TRACT MAP • N0. 36959.1 \ OPEN SPACE -a VOW. TRACT MAP NO. 36959.2 TRACT MAP NO. 36959 LEGEND PHASING SUMMARY OXISI Pn wE XIII MP, AAA! t MGR ELI GOSH GIFS GEA Gwo 1G )b50(.C1a SCALE GO ma so MOO I. rar l PHASING MAP TRACT MAP NO. 36959.1 NORTH PHASE TRACT MAP 110.36959.2 CENTRAL PHASE tlil) Abe 1 S >� vT ,it- i I , ,1-i. a gitigkt _. 1 vic.- vikiw! �F r�t1.. .94 TRACTMAPNO.36559.3 I SOUTH PHASE L 1 TRACT MAP N0. 36959 CIVIC PHASE GRAPHIC SCALE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Laioo n - .r.aia+ear BENCH MARK Nace0'IUNA.08sam ELEVATION 1155.18 0110E4 SEODETIC SURVEY BENCHNAPH LOCA7E0 1p SAN DIEGO wuun aEDomUNTY UNE LOCATED IN NORTHEAST OWDRANTOFATHE Rif sPNEPAINOOVI VALLEY BLVD ENO n FEU UORTIMEST OF AN ELECTPOLIERSTEEL ROO SET ELFISH.NAVE, Be 20110 C S SCO C1G.w On Ra North, Sou. 10W SAADA.0.CIAGAA4 ITS921 OB e8, 4111496.160 57011 CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959.3 & 36959 SHEET 2 OF 13 - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PQ . •`- ilia: -?:A 4G' j `�+ T iU Zig OPEN sF CE �° " .` Ij (CONSERv4flON7 z4 � ` -`. '4° s r 94.0..110 JFJS� L,J:. BP BP 94r.110) 05F ORAPMIC SCALE NOTE: SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 12 AND 13 ilia N74 BENCH MARK Nn08u'reu0t 0x010 ELEVATION, 1166.16 0 NILES SOUTH OF THE ISTESSECTION OS STE 15 AC TIE MEAS./ SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE LOCA -ES IN TYE NORTHEAST WASPS, OF THE STE 15 ASO KOOS VALLEY tilta AND MEE, NORTHWEST OF AN EL:MOUES SITE SOO SET SUE, HAVO SO 2000 0,111 C MHO CD.. bI Rv Neon. Suite 1000 fin0,9 ,a 92108 .9.51P• ,e.:xu , F6.. 0994 90 i] CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING • EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959-1 SHEET OE 13 •NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION• OPEN SPACE 8 OPENSPACE N. he'68 Rc 10 W6H.a • \ LOT "A' SEE SHEET 3 c.3 D MAK ones IMS r,. Rao IRV. LE A.\ INV. or ca. a.. !•J .r 17 �f ter. S.rrA�.rrF: . w s 8 0. a N STREET NOTE: SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 12 SEE SHEET 5 ORARHIC SCALE PFT NH vma rd •• . o. BENCH MARK No.ceN NUM. 025.302 ELEVATION 115515 NoTIONAL GEODETO SAVE,' BENOHNAIVI LOCKIEO 541, DIEGO COO, 0.2 NILES SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF STE 6,10 1HE n/EPSIDE / SAN COVNTY LINE LOWED IN NE NORTHEAST 011.40RANTEOrE01,115 C R7 :9010CS5 E.N.BORe Nonn. SIIi1C 1000 'wnC'hco Orfhm. 92108 EftF..45•V•64,4, 11 waRf: "ERE. CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING • EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959-1 SHEET 4 OF 13 • NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEE SHEET4 25 OPEN SPACE {CONSERVATION) i IS G 11+ r tar. gr tAln 16 0,78 AC Iri Y�nwa lrW�' ewEC M..• Atm OIYAIRMI: SOALa Ino-*00 NOTE: SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 12 AND 13 SEE SHEET 6 w w O 0- 1 • MAIN STRE yr, 00 , .,waerai. BENCH MARK No ,Fir, 1l.10 Dn. ELE0AT ON 1,5 18 5 EEL ROO SET ,SH 11,0111IDDDa0J. C 5 200 S..D,.CY 92105smie 1000 Pw .117,7K-91,3 Mvli CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959-2 SHEET 5 13 -NOT AA CCHITRUC ZR ;llh e1LS 11111 SEE SHEET 5 5.6,6., #:o-fl�i it MAN vi 0.40 At 8 its" w 1 fi;� I w 1 1.64AC! / r 'OtLS Haw TARP �L '291 t vi‘a0A, 1^ Sa9A-.;; 17- - 0 2 AC 922-062`013 922462.024 f& - 052 AC n -b62-025 S. GRAPHIC SCALE DETAIL "A"' i SEE S H£ET 7 NOTE: SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 12 AND 13. •SEE DsTT41L 4 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 d Ha 1 • MARX lal.niq BENCH MARK No CMN 1UNG' 0%SJO ELEVATION, 1155,16 14.10,AL GEODUL SURVEY ...ARK LOCATED WAN DIEGO COUNTY 0 MILES SOUTH 0,HE IN-ER.710N OF RTE 151., THE WERSIDE,SAN DIEGO COUNTY LINE LOWED IN riE NORPEAST 011ADRANT OF THE Rif. 15 AO RAMO,' VALLEY BLVD FEE1 A.D.. OF AN ELELTPOLIER Mt ,U51.1 NAVO BB 2000 A0.1 2020 Camino Dcl Rio North, Suite 1000 Sao 018ppa 0298115 9216 Phone. 619-2969373 Fax 619-2965663 11 Am4PPIR-VE s4-». CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959-2 IY 6 oF 13 • IOT FYI ONATR1S TnNi ONAPHIC SCxi! NOTE: SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 13. SEE SHEET 8 BENCH MARK No. cou'lUNG. 005300 ELEVATON. 1155.1, GE00011C5.000Ev BENCKIARK LOCATED IN 5/00 DIEGO MUNN 2 US SOUTH OF THE FFERSEGTION OF P°E 15 MO 70E ANE1050.1. DIEGO CM, LINE LO.TED iNE OliiMEAS0 00.90.1, 04111E litE 15 .440 RAINBOW VALLEY BLVD .0 20 FEET NO10,01E51 OF AN ELECTROLI0P STEEL 000 SET 0.0.0 PAO 08 MOO 00.1 OM C. -.-a L.I Rm North. 5uile 1000 Pan [4r. CaFTynx 92109 Rpy4 F19•:94•03i0 Far 995001949 Um:, Li .n; CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959-3 7 OF 13 • NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r' GRAPHIC iC6ll SEE SHEET 7 20 OPEN SPACE {CONSERVATION; ^^ b !4� MATCHLINE- SEE LEFT wtG,4 orf sPe��Atr 10 =�51r10 'STI jY;:..., `f NOTE: SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 13 MATCHLINE - SEE RIGHT SEE SHEET 9 � 29888101 M Jb.'Int1s X2M1SCI8 BENCH MARK Ne.c5u'UNG' 0x5004 ELEVATION 115516 °EMUS MIMI OF THE INTERSECTION OF P'E !SAND -01E lirvERSIDE /SAN 0 RA NBOYY VALLEY B.M.D. FEET NO,LIWEST OF AU ELEMOLIER STEEL ii00 SET ,1151.1, NAVO e0.12000 AO, C 5 2989 owDNA" Nor,, Su. 1000 'Ayilp��92109 FA611/62)6,103iF�1]96',p}1 CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959-3 8 OF 13 - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION GT/PHI@ •CALE \, o Fa"'. a DETAIL "B" GRAPHIC MC11.0 FR 4E ,may, MRA' NOTE: SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 13, SEE SHEET 10 FLEVGX615 1 BENCH MARK No.cB" v"uc 000004 ELEVATION 02 0 2101LES SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF RTE 15 AND NNE RNERSIDE SAN MEG COD L NE OCATED TE STEEL NOD BB,aLI:x rwpim:100riy1 C 5 2020 Camino Dol Rio North. S 1000 san Do9-C2a6mnm 3ID Fa. 6104965615 m CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959 OF 13 - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION COUNTY OF RLVEKSLDE BRARNic scALE 1 SEE SHEET 9 9 OPEN SPACE is J;n;=o;1.0 No ro NOTE: SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 13 • '• s rus I LIN rsHr:4's .• ••e• .17-1 n SABArKs ra LOCK, 9 10 34.63 AC 2.61 AC OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE• (CONSERVATION) fCONSEWATION) SEE SHEET 11 9 OPEN SPACE 447-9‘...gktNN. LoF STREET S (PUBLIC) ,, DETAIL "C" lararkle relLi BENCH MARK No,CNI YU...0.3Oa ELEVATION. NATIONAL GEOCETIC SURVEY BENGIMAPI, LOCATED IN SAN DIE..., 0.2 IA, SOUTH 0, THE NTERSECION OF PIE 15 AND PIE RIVERSIDE S. • errsrMAPP-rr KCAMIN naserrHAVO.ABAss-VSYMI .111BOW VALLEY MD.. FEET NORTMESI OF PA E_ECITZOLIER STE_ RO SE F sAidaNBAN•tu C 2020 Camino .1 Rio North, Sullo 1000 g'OrZW2916'-'9373'.1" Fax 619-Z96-5683 mew erXr err Award t. r. CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959 13 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3 } l A.xte MAE.. Nit t 9 4 9 34.63 AC OPEN SPACE (C©NSERWAYION _ !elbONs 1 BENCH MARK Na caN -RAH. oxslw E EVAl10N 1155.16 F e 1�XwNA ONAL JETK SURVEY BENCHMARK LOUTH/ N SAN DECO c0LNn 012E: / B 29 EETNN S� 0AANE ECTEoL`ERSTEEL POD SET FLUSH ,6 NANo6612000Ae, C S ]07SC.oN CMR* North, Suite 1000 9.n pypp 92106 AlsraNAIRallAt CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING • EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959 SHEET 11 13 TR 36939, LOT slew Saha SECTION A.A Wel 1 LOT 41'iH1 V'AS-R BYa I IS RAP -NO 1 OPEN HOa� CE srga MRS ,RCnw a 9:_l¢ NAP I00. PK PRT TR ads9-1 LOT SECTION 111.13 w �a=Pa_� 2'4 2 7P,1?; 5.55.5 28A°I I 28 SO SECTION C.0 xrz SECTION Da a LOT 8 9955+ (CONSEN�MTgHI II PSN SPACE +:,1s i place PPM _taJ. f 451 .i2R 111 E1 8008 0..5 SECTION E -E MTS +`r a Vpial FEF SECTION F.F 2LLx1SYTIAf *TRW 1 -- Li Wan 1111S.,0 NAN801,5AS . OPEN SPACE a 1 f e 0 �~ I RgNnITIAL pow( • i ��—sKl r 2520x2 i xo .r raap.n m s s. nan 2e 20- ewel52 L R. WO Ixi ENel5 TR 38855-2 0,4CP 1.5 1.2C1 =LAW 24 SECTION He I rus;27-2 .9111 2445 SECTION 1.1 TR 3e9S9.2 y m j SxPsn�O rump NIL PEr pp.- IClNeem6l Non. 9551 C 2. e' T 5.� ROM 1715,52-2 Ir___Agthrkpr_i OPENSPACE N jULri 1 `;'PENi SPACE TRWWI LOT 30 R t j 10gN=EA0A. 02 ; R n559_2 LOT 12 o EN SPACE RIERSNOR ROY NV. SECTION .1..1 TS IL. RN PER 404.4 MOM TR 36559, LOT 2,1 TR 38998-3 LOT 19 BENCH PARK Nac5N 0UNG' MS., ELEVATKIN. 1155.18 NATIONAL 2EDDETC SUPVE. REN241ARx LOCATED IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY oonN9F THE INTERSECTION NEErtccw CA I TO 7PIE1 E AND RAINBOW VALLEY 8:1/0 INNS FEET NOWNWEST NAN ELECTROLIESTEEL GOOSETNAVII 2000 AO, C 34290424.2204 Ra North, SUP. 1000 !an 04,14S.V..s 92108 424r. te22414479 F�41T944-9 0 ,055 N11 51014 024406 C...4 CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A • -, . • TTM NO. 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959-3 & 36959 12 13 • OMT FCR ClNSISI 01E54 1 TR 3E1958-3 LOT 3 I OPEN SPACE LOT1..16,14•1•T ea N65 e n.. &=1c2 •T • " If r mPar ..�, SECTION L.I. TR 3895,3 ; R 3595,2 Lor 3 .r OPENSPACE r8. PRIVATE 1110_EA9N SECTION M -M PARN SECTION N.N TR LOT T5 ! -3 OPEN SPACE alrf=—'�� O""sE'us.1 Yw. ttE W•149-2 LOT 10 • Clitr SECTION 0.0 TR 3595,3 .?" LOT 'Fr yt.s L11T via OVA.` r. 31w¢ , I TR 38959-3 I LOT4 SECTION 0.0 NTS w t 1}* SOY] 1R 3e95s3 LOT 8 1=hull ,,.... a REsloo:lw 1 A¢LY! G CON. Y ti ".¢¢¢��ff RR ¢ sr IX TRH � DowI-Mon 18.11.81 Is w•wr n.H'Er. SECTIONNP-P O TR 3.14.114 RETAIN!. WEL foe , PER :EP..A,E x) TRLSEI7r 579-3 PAO ori (CONSERVATION) sr pi nyisort *wosKOri TR MN* * 0 P T WCL E.+ wr, _ 15551 WC.. 11 f Nn 11, MOtt ROI SECTION U.0 N A P TI'Ri4T ENO. e,1a.WA. Lor, �� v.v I+ -i)> SECTION V.V NTS Ex MOM E. •T 1.1P, I ..uvA ..uyus..E E.raw pCC,Y� uE,i":$ 7N 916_9 .wEi •• •las.E II °e g rum., E* LOT 13 OPEN SPACE SECTION S -S IS f I.el f • St Y RP+! anw SECTION T.T NIT SECTION W -W 5 r.ue.P° TRACT 35558 6.38 POO WDEn i •Ta V° CONCRETE M.O. TYPICAL BIORETENTION BASIN ON N •E rno pwrAe <P {w*SACE ' - P'CONTR ,svncE iNt1 t p,`}L 1 I 8 SECTION X -X TS :`. Y.r .q CrlY l.M 44 NL.058' .qGl • µ4. ati� • rWn+ J k�ro.ixul a. SECTION Y.Y rs Masala CREEK oreMURFBIETA VIZ" IF- RAPE enIE,P.N. e4 rn IT ad* ix•r. ..a, TERW PERFONA TED a14E2 PPR %+a*. ORLIN PE (SCE .x ELEvxTIONE PER PLAN) TYPICAL DESILTING BASIN .14 PMS BENCH MASK NoCeN w5NO- 0x5504 ELEVATOR 1155.1E NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY BENCHMARK LOCATEDIN.NOIEGOCON. .2 ILE 505 HOF EINTERS,10 OF PTE E IVE SAN� EL9005. E x5N .F_Ei OP WE. °FANELCTROLIEP SAVO Ba I E000 ADJ. 2020 Camino 0.1 Rio Noun, Suite 1000 Son 0:1:81996193A 1,y5 C.@omw 92109 PR•n.'619-29693]3 FF. 8�.3 COP1 3INT '01 -4.551 CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959.1, 36959-2, 36959-3 & 36959 SHEET 13 OF 13 - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ATTACHMENT 10D CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT ALTAIR PROJECT PHASING - EXHIBIT B FIVE PRIMARY PHASES - BASED ON GRADING Updated: 03/15/2016 TOTAL PROJECT Civic Phase Units/Village Cumulative Units G 130 Units 1,750 Units 130 Units South Phase Units/Village Cumulative Units D 160 Units E 115 Units F 180 Units 455 Units 1,325 Units 1,440 Units 1,620 Units Central Phase Units/Village Cumulative Units C -N 225 Units 725 Units C -S 440 Units 1,165 Units 665 Units North Units/Village A 280 Units B 220 Units 500 Units Phase Cumulative Units 280 Units 500 Units NORTH PHASE — Prior to 1st Building Permit North Phase rough graded Ridge Park Drive improvements including "T" intersection. Altair Vista phase 1 Western Bypass phase 1 Vincent Moraga widening from Ridge Park Dr to Rancho Calif Rd (except east lanes between Felix Valdez & Rancho Calif Rd)* kik 16 East Lanes to build -out width between Felix Valdez & Rancho Calif Road Left turn lane on Rancho Cal Four-way stop at First Street and Pujol Street North Phase Offsite Sewer * Master Developer shall put forth a good faith effort to acquire the ROW needed along Vincent Moraga. If unsuccessful in the ROW acquisition after several attempts, then the City shall initiate eminent domain proceedings as necessary. These improvements shall be complete prior to the earlier of, i) issuance of the 350th building permit for the project, or ii) issuance of the 1st building permit for the Central Phase. All intersection improvements and signal relocations are complete.* • Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. CENTRAL PHASE — Prior to 1st Building Permit ICentral Phase rough graded "A" Street phase 1 (secondary access provided by neighborhood internal streets) Levant Trail connects Altair Vista to First Street DG trail at Village B toe of slope Signal Improvements at First Street and Pujol Street Yellow Arrows : Interim pedestrian access to Old Town will occur from the east side of the Western Bypass, along the base of the Village B pad, to Pujol St. and across the Main St. Bridge. Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. CENTRAL PHASE — Prior to Building Permits in Village C, south of the park Village C Park phase 2 —'Soft' Landscape. Altair Vista phase 3 "A" Street phase 2 and vehicular bridge Western Bypass phase 2 (2 lanes constructed; ultimate NB), parallel Class 1 Bikeway* Western Bypass Bridge* Recreation Center (west building) or Community Center (east building) — C of 0 to be obtained prior to the earlier of, i) 950th building permit for the project, or ii) 1st building permit for the South Phase. • ♦ 1' 4 Main Street transition, grand stairway and Village C Park PH 1 (ADA access provided to 'A' Street) * Start: Construction of the WBC Bridge or grading of the South Phase to complete the WBC connection shall start prior to the 700th building permit (40%) for the project. Complete: The WBC Road and Bridge improvements shall be constructed prior to the earlier of, i) issuance of the 950th building permit for the project (54%), or ii) issuance of the 1st building permit for the South Phase. If the Civic Phase grading has not yet commenced, the City shall provide the Master Developer with the ability to stock pile dirt onto the Civic Site. Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. SOUTH PHASE — Prior to 1st Building Permit Village C Park phase 2 —'Hard' Landscape. South Phase rough graded Altair Vista phase 4 Zeif "B" Street North connects to Western Bypass and Pujol Street Western Bypass phase 2 (2 lanes constructed; ultimate NB) and parallel Class 1 Bikeway* Western Bypass Bridge* Signal improvements at Western Bypass and Altair Vista * s 1 A ,w r11 A t * Start: Construction of the WBC Bridge or grading of the South Phase to complete the WBC connection shall start prior to the 700th building permit (40%) for the project. Complete: The WBC Road and Bridge improvements shall be constructed prior to the earlier of, i) issuance of the 950th building permit for the project (54%), or ii) issuance of the 1st building permit for the South Phase. If the Civic Phase grading has not yet commenced, the City shall provide the Master Developer with the ability to stock pile dirt onto the Civic Site. -1 • JO Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. SOUTH PHASE — Prior to 300th Building Permit Village D Park Village E/F Park Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. CIVIC PHASE — Prior to 1st Building Permit Civic Phase rough graded Signal improvements at Western Bypass and "B" Street "B" Street South "C" Street Western Bypass phase 3, 2 SB lanes constructed Civic Phase Offsite Sewer Recreation Center (west building) or Community Center (east building), C of 0 for whichever building has not yet been constructed • «2w .44 Ok -211 .LL? or- Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. TOTAL PROJECT TIMING OF CIVIC PHASE DELIVERY & WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE -.IP • .1 - Due to traffic volumes, the Western Bypass Bridge will need to be installed prior to a building permit being issued for the Civic Site. If the Civic Phase is accelerated then so will construction of the Western Bypass Bridge as well as the connection to Pujol Street. Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. ATTACHMENT 10E DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY MAP TR 36959 TR 36959-1 SLOPES: MASTER DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTED, MASTER HOA MAINTAINED MASTER DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTED, DEEDED TO GUEST BUILDER, MASTER HOA MAINTAINED MASTER DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTED, DEEDED TO GUEST BUILDER, SUB HOA MAINTAINED ROADS: PRIVATE ROADS: MASTER DEVELOPER RESPONSIBLE FOR CURB TO CURB STREET IMPROVEMENTS, MASTER HOA MAINTAINED PUBLIC ROADS: MASTER DEVELOPER RESPONSIBLE FOR CURB TO CURB STREET IMPROVEMENTS, CITY OF TEMECULA MAINTAINED COMPLETELY TEMECULA. MASTER DEVELOPER ROAD FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS, DEEDED TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR MAINTENANCE MASTER DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTED PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, MASTER HOA MAINTAINED MASTER DEVELOPER PARK IMPROVEMENTS, DEEDED TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR MAINTENANCE MASTER DEVELOPER PARK IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR MAINTENANCE MASTER DEVELOPER PARK IMPROVEMENTS ON LAND OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA MASTER DEVELOPER PARK IMPROVEMENTS, MASTER HOA MAINTAINED MASTER DEVELOPER RECREATION CENTER, MASTER HOA MAINTAINED GUEST BUILDER CONSTRUCTED, SUB HOA -MAINTAINED DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY MAP carrierjohnson + CULTUR3 ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA")_ Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ron H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." G. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." H. On , the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. I. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17 - and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Development Agreement with Ambient Communities for the Altair Specific Plan hereby makes the following findings: A. The Development Agreement complies with the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65865 through 65869.5 in that the Development Agreement specifies in detail and contains the following: 1. Provisions in Section 9.1 requiring periodic review at least every twelve months, at which time the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement (California Government Code Section 65865.1). Duration of the Development Agreement, as specified in Section 2.3 of the Agreement as being twenty (20) years (Government Code Section 65865,2). 3. The permitted uses of the property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes in Sections 2, 3, and 7-10 of the Specific Plan (which is incorporated into the Development Agreement and herein by this reference) and in Section 4 of the Development Agreement (Government Code Section 65865,2). 4. Terms and conditions in Section 11 of the Specific Plan (which is incorporated into the Development Agreement by reference), and in Sections 2-4 of the Development Agreement, that require the developer to construct all necessary public improvements necessary to access and improve the property for the proposed use (Government Code Section 65865.2), B. Pursuant to Section 65867.5, the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the City's General Plan and the following goals and policies: The Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended. The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Land Use Element identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Development Agreement will satisfy two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area," and "[I]ocating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The Development Agreement is also consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which is to create a "regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." The Development Agreement will require the developer to construct a significant portion of the Western Bypass Corridor project connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. The Development Agreement is also consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the Development Agreement implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." The Development Agreement will allow development predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the property as natural open space, thus consistent with Policy 1.5 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles." Further findings of consistency between the Specific Plan, which the Development Agreement implements, and the General Plan can be found in Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan by providing extraordinary public benefits in the form of public infrastructure, parks, trails, and a 55 -acre civic site for public use to justify the increased density associated with the Altair Specific Plan and Development Agreement. C. Pursuant to Section 65867.5(c), a Development Agreement that includes a subdivision shall not be approved unless the agreement provides that any tentative map prepared for the subdivision will comply with the provisions of Government Code section 66473.7. Section 3.7.5 of the Development Agreement provides that any tentative map prepared for the proposed Project shall comply with California Government Code Section 66473.7. Section 3. Consistency with General Plan. On , the City Council adopted Resolution No. , which amended the Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan, in conformity with Government Code section 65300,5. Therefore, the foregoing amendments outlined in this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula. Section 4. Approval of the Development Agreement. The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Temecula West Village, LLC, in substantially the form presented to the City Council and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the City. Upon execution by all parties, an original shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk, Section 5. Severability. If any portion, provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 7. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law_ PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , 2018. 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. 18- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12th day of December, 2017, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adapted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF TEMECULA AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street. Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: City Clerk Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Govt. Code Sections 6103 and 27383 Development Agreement between City of Temecula and Temecula West Village, LLC City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into as of , 2017 ("Agreement Date"), by and between TEMECULA WEST VILLAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter "OWNER"), and the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation. organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter "CITY"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code (the "Development Agreement Legislation") and Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Agreement. The parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use thereof in these Recitals. B. The Development Agreement Legislation authorizes the CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other matters: ensure high quality development in accordance with comprehensive plans; provide certainty in the approval of development projects so as to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in the cost of housing and other development to the consumer; provide assurance to the applicants for development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and subj ect to conditions of approval, in order to strengthen the public planning process and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development; and provide for economic assistance to OWNER for the entitlements authorizing development related improvements. C. OWNER is the owner of certain real property within the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside, State of California (the "Property"), as more particularly described in Attachment 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof. OWNER desires to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the applicable regulations of the City of Temecula and those regulations of other agencies exercising jurisdiction upon the project. The Scope of Development of the Property as contemplated by this Agreement is described in the Agreement in Section 1.4. D. OWNER has applied for, and the CITY has approved, the Development Plan Approval(s) and OWNER and CITY have entered into this Agreement in order to create a beneficial project and a physical environment that will conform to and complement the goals of the CITY, create a development project sensitive to human needs and values, facilitate efficient traffic circulation and develop the Property. As part of the process of granting this Entitlement, the City Council of the CITY (hereinafter the "City 2 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 Council") has required the preparation of an environmental review and has certified the Specific Plan EIR as regards any significant effects arising from the Development and has otherwise carried out all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of 1970, as amended. E. The following actions were taken with respect to this Agreement and the Proj ect: 1. On , following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Development Plan Approvals and this Agreement; 2. On , after a duly noticed public hearing and pursuant to CEQA, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17- certifying the Altair Specific Plan EIR for this Agreement and the Project and approving a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 3. On , after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 17- approving Altair Specific Plan No. 4. On , after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 17- approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement and on , the City Council adopted the Ordinance, the original of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. F. The CITY has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Project as well as the various potential benefits to the CITY by the development of the Project and concluded that the Project is in the best interests of the CITY and that its provisions are consistent with the City's General Plan and each component thereof. G. In consideration of the substantial public improvements and benefits to be provided by OWNER and the Project, in further consideration of the implementation of the Altair Specific Plan and in order to strengthen the public financing and planning process and reduce the economic costs of development, by this Agreement, the CITY intends to give OWNER assurance that OWNER can proceed with the development of the Project for the Term of this Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and in accordance with the CITY's General Plan, ordinances, policies, rules and regulations existing as of the Effective Date as described in the Agreement. In reliance on the CITY's covenants in this Agreement concerning the Development of the Property, OWNER has and will in the future incur substantial costs in site preparation and the construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities in order to make the Project feasible. H. Pursuant to Section 65867.5 of the. Development Agreement Legislation, the City Council has found and determined that: (i) this Agreement and the Development Plan Approvals implement the goals and policies of the CITY's General Plan, and the 3 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 Altair Specific Plan provides balanced and diversified land uses and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the CITY, (ii) this Agreement is in the best interests of and not detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the CITY and its residents; (iii) adopting this Agreement is consistent with the CITY's General Plan and each element thereof; (iv) constitutes a present exercise of the CITY's police power; and (v) this Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Legislation. I. The CITY and OWNER agree that it may be beneficial to enter into additional agreements or to modify this Agreement with respect to the implementation of the separate components of the Project when more information concerning the details of each component is available, and that this Agreement should expressly allow for such contemplated additional agreements or modifications to this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Legislation, as it applies to the CITY, pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution, and in consideration of the foregoing recitals of fact, all of which are expressly incorporated into this Agreement, the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and for the further consideration described in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. The following words and phrases are used as defined terms throughout this Development Agreement and each defined term shall have the meaning set forth below. 1.1. Acquisition Price. "Acquisition Price" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.3. of this Agreement. 1.2. Authorizing Ordinance. The "Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. approving this Agreement. 1.3. Central Phase. "Central Phase" refers to the Central Phase of the Project as defined in the Development Plan. 1.4. CEQA. "CEQA" refers to the California Environmental Quality Act as referenced in Recital D of this Agreement. 1.5. CITY. The "CITY" means the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and all of its officials, employees, agencies and departments. 4 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 1.6. CITY Property. "CITY Property" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1. of this Agreement. 1.7. City Council. "City Council" means the duly elected and constituted city council of the CITY. 1.8. Contributions. "Contributions" means City capital improvement and development impact fees and other cash contributions by Owner for City capital improvements required pursuant to the Project's conditions of approval or this Agreement. 1.9. Development. "Development" or "Develop" or "Developing" means the improvement of the Property for purposes consistent with the Project's land use authorization as set forth in the Development Plan, including, without limitation: grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Off-site Improvements and On-site Improvements, the construction of structures and buildings and the installation of landscaping. 1.10. Development Agreement Legislation. The "Development Agreement Legislation" means Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Effective Date. 1.11. Development Fees. "Development Fees" means Development Impact Fees as defined hereunder imposed on the Development as conditions of development as more particularly set forth in Section 4.2. 1.12. Development Impact Fees. Except as set forth herein and for purposes of this Agreement, Development Impact Fees (sometimes referred to in this Agreement as "DIF") shall mean individually and in the aggregate, the City's currently adopted DIF as established in Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code at the rate then in effect at the time required for payment, subject to the provisions of Section 4. 1.13. Development Plan. The "Development Plan" consists of this Agreement, the Development Plan Approval(s), the Existing Regulations, and those Future Development Approvals, if any, contemplated, necessary, and requested by OWNER and approved by the City to implement the land uses authorized by the Project. 1.14. Development Plan Approval(s). "Development Plan Approval(s)" means the approvals of the City Council and other governmental agencies and other actions and agreements described in Attachment 6 hereto, including those amendments to this Agreement made in accordance with Section 3.9., those amendments to the Development Plan Approvals made in accordance with Section 3.8. and those Future Development Approvals made in accordance with Section 10. 5 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 1.15. Development Transferee. "Development Transferee" means a person or entity that expressly assumes the obligations of a Master Developer under this Agreement pursuant to Section 2.5. hereof. 1.16. Effective Date. "'Effective Date" means the date the Authorizing Ordinance becomes effective. 1.17. Eligible Public Facilit(y)(ies). "Eligible Public Facilit(y)(ies)" means those facilities of the City and other public agencies that are eligible to be financed through the CFD as described in Section 4.5.2. 1.18. End User. "End User" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.2. of this Agreement. 1.19. Escrow Holder. "Escrow Holder" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1.(iv) of this Agreement. 1.20. Estoppel Certificate. "Estoppel Certificate" has the meaning set forth in Section 10.5. of this Agreement. 1.21. Existing Regulations. "Existing Regulations" means those written ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, or other written actions of the CITY, other than the Development Plan Approval(s) in effect on the Effective Date, which govern the permitted uses of the Property, building heights, the size of structures, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the timing, fees, and conditions to Development, exactions, assessments, the procedures for, and types of, permits required for the Development, the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Property and the infrastructure required for the Development. By way of enumeration, and not limitation, the Existing Regulations include those portions of the items identified on Attachment 5 which apply to the Property. The CITY has certified two (2) copies of each of the documents listed on Attachment 5. The CITY has retained one (1) set of the certified documents and has provided OWNER with the second (2nd) set. 1.22. Future Development Approvals. "Future Development Approvals" means those entitlements and approvals that are made in accordance with Section 3.10. By way of enumeration, and not limitation, the Future Development Approvals include actions such as development plan review, tentative maps, final maps, use permits, variances, grading permits, occupancy permits and building permits. 1.23. Habitat Restoration Property. "Habitat Restoration Property" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1. of this Agreement. 1.24. Habitat Restoration Property Option. "Habitat Restoration Property Option" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1. of this Agreement. 6 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 1.25. Habitat Restoration Property Option Notice. "Habitat Restoration Property Option Notice" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1.(iv) of this Agreement. 1.26. Habitat Restoration Purchase Price. "Habitat Restoration Property Option Purchase Price" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1.(v) of this Agreement. 1.27. Habitat Restoration Property Option Term. "Habitat Restoration Property Option Term" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1.(ii) of this Agreement. 1.28. Hillside Escarpment PSA. "Hillside Escarpment PSA" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.5.(iii) of this Agreement. 1.29. Improved Portion. "Improved Portion" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.3 of this Agreement. 1.30. Indemnified Party(ies). "Indemnified Party(ies)" has the meaning set forth in Section 6. of this Agreement. 1.31. Indemnifying Party(ies). "Indemnifying Party(ies)" has the meaning set forth in Section 6 of this Agreement. 1.32. Lender. "Lender" has the meaning set forth in Section 15.2. of this Agreement. 1.33. Master HOA. "Master HOA" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.4.(ii) of this Agreement. 1.34. Mello -Roos Act. "Mello -Roos Act" means the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being California Government Code Section 53311 et seq. 1.35. Merchant Builder. "Merchant Builder" means a buyer, assignee, or transferee of one or more individual lots or tracts of the Project, acquiring such lots or tracts with the intention of developing, improving, or using such lots or tracts for development and/or resale. 1.36. MSHCP. "MSHCP" means the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 1.37. Nature Center Conservation Easement Parcel. "Nature Center Conservation Easement Parcel" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.3.(ii) of this Agreement. 1.38. Nature Center Open Space Parcel. "Nature Center Open Space Parcel" is depicted on Attachment 4 of this Agreement. 7 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 1.39. Nature Center Parcel. "Nature Center Parcel" is depicted on Attachment 4 of this Agreement. 1.40. Nature Center Phase. "Nature Center Phase" refers to the Nature Center Phase of the Project as defined in the Development Plan and will consist of the Nature Center Road Parcel, the Nature Center Parcel, the Nature Center Open Space Parcel and the Nature Center Conservation Easement Parcel, all as depicted on Attachment 4 hereto. 1.41. Nature Center Road Parcel. "Nature Center Road Parcel" is depicted on Attachment 4 of this Agreement. 1.42. North Phase. "North Phase" refers to the North Phase of the Project as defined in the Development Plan. 1.43. Occupied Residential Property. "Occupied Residential Property" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.2.(ii) of this Agreement. 1.44. Off-site Improvements. "Off-site Improvements" means the improvements set forth on Attachment 2 and as more specifically described in the Development Plan. 1.45. On-site Improvements. "On-site Improvements" means physical infrastructure improvements or facilities that are or will be located on the Property as described in the Development Plan. Certain On-site Improvements may be specifically addressed in this Agreement, which are identified on Attachment 3. All other On-site Improvements will be dependent upon the Development and the required Future Development Approvals. 1.46. Operating Memorand(a)(um). "Operating Memorand(a)(um)" has the meaning set forth in Section 3.9.5. of this Agreement. 1.47. OWNER. "OWNER" is initially TEMECULA WEST VILLAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company registered to do business in California, and others who subsequently are assigned the rights and obligations of OWNER as Master Developer(s) pursuant to Section 2.5. hereof. 1.48. Planning Commission. "Planning Commission," means the duly appointed and constituted planning commission of the CITY. 1.49. Project. "Project" means the development of the Property as set forth in the Development Plan Approval(s). 1.50. Proiect EIR. "Project EIR" means that final environmental impact report prepared for the Project and this Development Agreement, as certified on , 2017 by Resolution No. 17- 8 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 1.51. Property. "Property" means that certain real property described in Attachment 1 hereof. 1.52. RCA. "RCA" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.3.(i)(a) of this Agreement. 1.53. Reserved Authority. "Reserved Authority has the meaning set forth in Section 5.2. of this Agreement. 1.54. Second Default Notice. "Second Default Notice" has the meaning set forth in Section 15.3. of this Agreement. 1.55. Services Deficit. "Services Deficit" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.7.(i) of this Agreement. 1.56. South Phase. "South Phase" means the South Phase of the Project as defined in the Development Plan. 1.57. Special Tax A. "Special Tax A" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.2. of this Agreement. 1.58. Special Tax B. "Special Tax B" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.2. of this Agreement. 1.59. Special Tax C. "Special Tax C" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.2. of this Agreement. 1.60. Specific Plan. "Specific Plan" means the Altair Specific Plan, approved by Ordinance No. 17- adopted by the City Council on , 2017, and as thereafter amended from time to time in accordance with Section 3.8 of this Agreement. Any reference in this Agreement to a Planning Area shall mean the Planning Areas set forth in the Specific Plan as adopted or as amended. 1.61. Superpad Improvements. "Superpad Improvements" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.3.(ii) of this Agreement. 1.62. SWPPP Costs. "SWPPP Costs" shall mean the costs required to comply with the Chapter 18.18 of the Temecula Municipal Code, as currently exists or may hereafter be amended, and the applicable permits issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board with jurisdiction over the City, as currently exists or may hereafter be amended or approved, including without limitation, the "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan," erosion and sediment control measures, and NPDES mitigation measures. 9 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 1.63. Transferred Property. "Transferred Property" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.3. of this Agreement. 1.64. TUMF. "TUMF" means the Transporation Uniform Mitigation Fee established pursuant to Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the Council resolutions adopted pursuant thereto. 1.65. Unimproved Portion. "Unimproved Portion" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.3.(ii) of this Agreement. 1.66. Western Bypass Bridge. "Western Bypass Bridge" has the meaning set forth in the Development Plan. 1.67. Western Bypass Bridge Phase. "Western Bypass Bridge Phase" means the Western Bypass Bridge Phase of the Project as defined in the Development Plan. 1.68. Western Bypass Road. "Western Bypass Road" has the meaning set forth in the Development Plan. 1.69. Wildlife Conservation Costs. "Wildlife Conservation Costs" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.5.(iv)(a) of this Agreement. 1.70. WRCOG. "WRCOG" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.2.1. of this Agreement. 2. General Provisions. 2.1. Binding Covenants. The provisions of this Agreement to the extent permitted by law, constitute covenants which shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. 2.2. Interest of OWNER. OWNER represents that OWNER has a legal interest in the Property that satisfies California Government Code Section 65865(b). 2.3. Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date, and shall have a term (the "Term") of twenty (20) consecutive calendar years. The Term shall terminate at 11:59 p.m. of the day preceding the twentieth (20th) anniversary of the Effective Date, subject to specific extensions, revisions, and termination provisions of this Agreement. The Term shall be extended by the mutual agreement of the Parties for one (1) period of ten (10) years subject to the Western Bypass Road and Western Bypass Bridge being constructed and fully dedicated to the City within the initial twenty (20) year Term. The final day of this Agreement's regulation of the Property shall change subject to and upon the facts and terms relating to a specific extension(s), force majeure, revision(s), and termination provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that a court of competent jurisdiction takes any action that stays or delays the Effective Date, 10 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 and subsequently enters after all appeals or time to appeal have been exhausted, a final judgment or issuance of a final order directed to the CITY to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Agreement, then this Agreement shall be deemed to have no force or effect upon either party. 2.4. Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 2.4.1. Termination occurring pursuant to any specific provision of this Agreement, including, without limitation, a termination in the event of default; 2.4.2. The completion of the total build -out of the Development pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the CITY's issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance of all dedications and improvements required to complete Development; or 2.4.3. The lapse of the Term as set forth in Section 2.3. The termination of this Agreement shall not affect any right or duty arising independently from entitlements issued by the CITY or other land use approvals approved prior to, concurrently or subsequent to the approval of this Agreement, except as may be provided in this Agreement. To provide notice to all, and not as a condition of the effectiveness of a termination of the Agreement, the parties agree to execute and record terminations of or releases of this Agreement as may be requested by either party. 2.5. Transfers and Assignments. 2.5.1. Restrictions on Transfers of OWNER's Rights and Obligations as Master Developer. OWNER acknowledges and agrees that there are very significant public improvements required for the Project and that the completion of those public improvements will require coordination of CITY, OWNER and any Development Transferees of the Property or any portion thereof. It is essential that any transfer of the Property or a portion of the Property to Development Transferees be completed in such a way that the public improvements will be completed as provided in the Development Plan Approvals and this Agreement. OWNER shall not sell, assign, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of its interests in the Property together with all its right, title and interest in this Agreement, or the portion thereof which is subject to the transferred portion of the Property, to any Development Transferee until such time as the public and private improvements required by the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement have been accepted by the City unless the City has approved the transfer pursuant to this Section. City shall not unreasonably withhold, condition or delay consent to the transfer provided that: (1) the Development Transferee has specifically assumed in writing the obligations, or a portion of the obligations of the OWNER, to design, construct, install and finally complete the public and private improvements required by the Development Plan Approvals and this Agreement; (2) the Development Transferee has substantially equivalent experience and financial capacity as OWNER to complete the public and private improvements required by the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement; 11 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 and (3) the Development Transferee has obtained replacement bonds, accepted by the City for the public and private improvements required by the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement (in which event, the City shall release the OWNER's corresponding Public Improvement bonds). In the event of any sale, assignment, or other transfer to a Development Transferee pursuant to this Section, (i) OWNER shall notify the City at least sixty (60) days prior to the transfer of the name of the Development Transferee, together with the corresponding entitlements being transferred to such Development Transferee; (ii) submit to the CITY for review the agreement between OWNER and Development Transferee pertaining to such transfer shall provide that the Development Transferee shall be liable for the performance of those obligations of OWNER under this Agreement which relate to the Transferred Property, if any, or shall confirm that the OWNER and all Development Transferees shall remain jointly liable for the design and construction of public and private improvements required by the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement; and (iii) submit to the CITY such further information as the CITY may reasonably need to complete its review and consent to the transfer. 2.5.2. Right to Transfer or Assign to End User. OWNER and any Merchant Builder, shall, without the consent of the CITY or any other party, have the right from time to time and on such number of occasions as it chooses, to sell, assign or otherwise transfer individual lots on final maps approved on the Property or any portion thereof, to any retail purchaser intending to occupy the unit as his or her principal residence ("End User") at any time during the Term of this Agreement. Absent an express written assumption of the obligations or rights hereunder as reasonably approved by the CITY, upon the sale, assignment, or other transfer to an End User of one or more individual lots, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to such lots without the execution or recordation of any further documentation. For purposes of documentation only, the transferor/assignor shall provide CITY with written notice of the name of the End User, that assumed rights or obligations hereunder, together with a description of the assumed rights and obligations. 2.5.3. Right to Assign to Merchant Builder. OWNER shall, without the consent of the CITY or any other party, have the right from time to time and on such number of occasions as it chooses to sell, assign or otherwise transfer its interest in a portion of the Property together with some or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement with respect to the portion of the Property which is subject to transfer (the "Transferred Property"), to any Merchant Builder at any time during the Term of this Agreement. Any transfer or assignment must be pursuant to a sale, assignment or other transfer of an interest of such OWNER in a portion of the Property and shall be subject to the following criteria and conditions: (i) the transferor/assignor shall notify the CITY at least twenty (20) days prior to the transfer of the name of the Merchant Builder, together with the corresponding rights and obligations, if any, being transferred to such Merchant Builder; (ii) all Off -Site and On -Site Improvements required for the issuance of building permits for the property being conveyed to the Merchant Builder, other than specific tract improvements, pursuant to the Development Approvals, shall have been completed (or shall be expressly assumed in writing by such Merchant Builder and such assumption is approved in writing by the CITY, pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 2.5.1.); and (iii) the agreement between the transferor/assignor and Merchant Builder pertaining to 12 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 such transfer shall provide, and OWNER shall give CITY notice of such provision, which obligations of OWNER under this Agreement the Merchant Builder shall be liable to perform, and acknowledging those obligations OWNER retains. 2.5.4. Rights and Duties of Successors and Assigns. Any, each and all of the lawful successors and assigns of OWNER, except for End Users, shall have all of the same rights, benefits, duties and obligations of OWNER under this Agreement. All entities holding title to a portion of the Property, except for End Users, shall be jointly liable for the design and construction of the Public Improvements for that portion of the Property as set forth in this Agreement, except as may be approved by Section 2.5.1. of this Agreement or as may be modified in an Operating Memorandum pursuant to Section 3.9.5. 3. Development and Control of Development. 3.1. Project. While this Agreement is in effect, OWNER shall have the vested right to implement the Development authorized by the Development Plan Approval(s) for the Development and the CITY shall have the right to control the Development in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, the Existing Regulations shall control the Future Development Approvals and all On-site Improvements and Off -site Improvements and appurtenances in connection therewith to the extent not specifically controlled by the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement. 3.2. Timing of Development. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement or in the Development Plan, regardless of any future enactment, by initiative, or otherwise, OWNER shall have the discretion to develop the Development in one phase or in multiple phases at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment and as the same is in accordance with the Development Plan. Specifically, the CITY agrees that OWNER shall be entitled to apply for and receive permits, maps, occupancy certificates and other entitlements to develop and use the Property at any time, provided that such application is made in accordance with this Agreement and the Existing Regulations. The parties hereto expressly reject the holding of Pardee Construction Company v. City of Camarillo, 37 Ca1.3d 465 (1984), as regards any authority regulating the phasing of the Development and authorize the phasing of the construction on the Property to be consistent with the Development Plan. 3.3. Restrictions on Timing of Development. OWNER responsibility for the construction of the Off -Site Improvements and the On -Site Improvements contemplated by the Development Plan is more particularly described below and set forth in Attachments 2 and 3 attached hereto. Such On -Site Improvements and Off -Site Improvements required by the Development Plan shall be constructed in the following five (5) phases: (i) North Phase; (ii) Central Phase; (iii) South Phase; (iv) Nature Center Phase; and (v) Western Bypass Bridge Phase. 13 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 On -Site Improvements and Off -Site Improvements within the North Phase of the Development shall be the first On -Site Improvements and Off -Site Improvements constructed by OWNER. Development of the Property generally shall be constructed sequentially from north to south. Any modifications to such general sequence of Development of the Property shall be established pursuant to one or more Operating Memoranda pursuant to Section 3.9.5. of this Agreement. 3.4. Entitlements. Permits and Approvals - Cooperation. 3.4.1. Processing. CITY agrees that it shall accept and expeditiously process, pursuant to CITY's regular procedures, OWNER's applications for amendments to this Agreement, amendments to the Development Plan Approval(s) and the Future Development Approvals. 3.4.2. Further Mitigation. In connection with the completion of the Proj ect, OWNER shall be responsible for the satisfaction of any mitigation measures required by the Specific Plan EIR and the Development Plan Approvals. In the event that OWNER files an application for a Future Development Approval, CITY will review that application in accordance with the Existing Regulations and CEQA (if and only to the extent required by CEQA). 3.4.3. Other Permits. The CITY further agrees to reasonably cooperate with OWNER, at no cost to the CITY, in securing any County, State and Federal permits or authorizations which may be required in connection with development contemplated by the Development Plan. This cooperation shall not entail any economic contribution by the CITY. 3.4.4. Litigation. (i) The CITY agrees to reasonably cooperate with OWNER in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Agreement in full force and effect. If any legal action is instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the Development Plan Approval(s) or Future Development Approvals, the parties agree to cooperate in the defense of the action. CITY shall defend its interests under this Agreement using attorneys of its own sole selection and OWNER agrees that OWNER shall be responsible for all of CITY's costs, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, costs, expert witnesses, travel, exhibits, displays and the like. Within thirty (30) days of the filing of such litigation OWNER shall deposit with the CITY the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) as security for the reimbursement of CITY's legal fees. OWNER shall reimburse CITY its costs within thirty (30) calendar days' of receipt of any invoice(s) requesting payment for such costs. OWNER shall replenish the deposit should CITY draw upon it within thirty (30) days of written notice from the CITY supported by detailed backup documentation showing how such deposit has been utilized. (ii) The MSHCP is overseen by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, a Joint Powers Agency formed under Government Code 14 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 section 6500 et seq. ("RCA"). The RCA has not, to date, granted any approval of the Project. The City and Applicant have consulted with the RCA regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP. While that consultation would not constitute an approval of the Project and thus should not subject RCA to any legal action, the Applicant or any successor -in -interest shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the RCA or its Board, agents, officers, officials, and employees from any petition for writ of mandate, or other claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval of the Project or related to the approval of the Project, that names the RCA, including, but not limited to, any associated costs, damages, attorney fees awards and administrative and legal expenses incurred by the RCA related to such actions, including but not limited to costs associated with California Public Records Act requests submitted to the RCA related to the Project and for the purposes of the action. The RCA shall promptly notify the Applicant and City of any such claim, action, or proceeding and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the RCA fails to promptly notify the Applicant and City of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold harmless the RCA. The obligations imposed by this condition include, but are not limited to, the following: the Applicant shall pay all reasonable legal services expenses the RCA incurs in connection with any such claim, action or proceeding, whether it incurs such expenses directly, whether it is ordered by a court to pay such expenses, or whether it incurs such expenses by providing legal services through RCA legal counsel. The Applicant and City agree that all litigation pleadings in the action filed jointly with or on behalf of the RCA will be subject to review, revision, and approval by RCA legal counsel. 3.4.5. Acquisition of Off -Site Property for Public Improvements. (i) To the extent the OWNER or a Development Transferee does not have sufficient title or interest in the real property to be improved to permit an Off -Site Improvement to be made, the OWNER or Development Transferee shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required property in a timeframe calculated to allow for the orderly development of the Project. If the OWNER or Development Transferee is unable to acquire the required property, the CITY shall consider in good faith the acquisition of the required property in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 66462.5. Both parties acknowledge and agree that the acquisition of real property in accordance with the California Eminent Domain law requires more time than the suggested timeframes of Section 66462.5 allow and, therefore, the parties hereby waive these time constraints. The parties further acknowledge and agree that that the City cannot exercise its power of eminent domain unless and until a Resolution of Necessity has been duly adopted by the City Council pursuant to law. This Agreement is neither a commitment nor an announcement of an intent by the City to acquire any or all of the property required for Off -Site Improvements. (ii) OWNER and CITY shall develop: (1) a list of rights of way that will be needed for the Public Improvements required by the Development Plan 15 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 Approvals and this Agreement; (2) the then current ownership of such rights of way; (3) the time required for possession of the rights of way for the completion of the Public Improvement; and (4) the time by which OWNER shall have completed its good faith effort to acquire the right of way. OWNER and CITY shall cooperate so as to maximize the ability to construct the Public Improvements in a timely manner. (iii) OWNER and CITY shall enter into an agreement contemplated by Government Code Section 66462.5 for each Public Improvement in substantially the form of Attachment 7. OWNER shall deposit with the CITY the actual costs reasonably estimated by the CITY for initiating such proceedings and each stage thereof. To the extent that funds from the Community Facilities District financing as described in Section 4.5.3. are designated for and available for the acquisition of right of way, OWNER shall provide the City with written authorization pursuant to the Acquisition Agreement between the CITY and OWNER entered into as part of the Financing to use the CFD funds in this manner. (iv) Subject to the following, if the CITY is unable to acquire the required right of way property by negotiation or condemnation within the timeframe provided for in this Agreement, the CITY shall not use such failure as grounds to deny Future Development Approvals, except for building permits for the Project, to the extent that the Future Development Approval is conditioned upon completion of that Public Improvement despite the fact that the Off -Site Improvement has not been completed, subject to OWNER compliance with the terms of this Agreement, including, without limitation, Section 3.4.5. Further, the CITY's obligation to continue to issue Future Development Approvals as provided for in this Section is contingent upon: (i) the applicable OWNER or Development Transferee having made a timely submittal of the improvement plans required for the respective Off -Site Improvement to the CITY; and (ii) consistent with Government Code Section 66462.5, the OWNER or Development Transferee entering into an agreement with the CITY to reimburse the CITY for costs incurred by the CITY in acquiring the required property; and (iii) so long as OWNER or Development Transferee has deposited with CITY an amount equal to the CITY's calculation of the costs reasonably necessary to acquire the real property, and (iv) Owner or Development Transferee has entered into an Operating Memorandum with CITY for such public work subject to all legal requirements and to construct the Off -Site Improvement(s) which are uncompleted within a time period reasonably approved by the CITY and OWNER. 3.5. Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. The Existing Regulations, as defined in Section 1.26 of this Agreement, shall govern the Development and Future Development Approvals except as otherwise specified in the Development Plan, the Development Plan Approvals, or in Section 3.6. of this Agreement. 3.6. Reserved Authority of the CITY. 16 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 3.6.1. Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, and specifically Section 3.5., the following land use regulations shall apply to the Development: (i) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature adopted by the CITY pursuant to state law for the costs related to processing applications City-wide or such fees and charges as may be agreed to by the parties for Future Development Approvals. (ii) Procedural regulations consistent with this Agreement relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matters of procedure. (iii) Changes adopted by the City Council in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, or National Electrical Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Administrative Code and Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and similar uniform codes as required by and in accordance with the authority granted to the City under State law. (iv) Regulations that are not in conflict with the Development Plan Approvals and this Agreement. (v) Regulations that are in conflict with the Development Plan Approval(s) provided OWNER has given written consent to the application of such regulations to the Development. (vi) Federal, State, County, and multi jurisdictional laws and regulations which preempt local regulations, or mandate the adoption of local regulations, and are in conflict with the Development Plan Approvals. (vii) Land use regulations adopted by the City after the Effective Date, in connection with any Future Development Approvals, necessary to protect the safety, or health, or both, of the residents or occupants of the Property, or the residents or people in the CITY, or both. 3.6.2. Future Discretion of CITY. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, this Agreement shall not prevent CITY, in acting on Future Development Approvals, from applying land use regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan Approvals and the intent of this Agreement, nor shall this Agreement prevent CITY from denying or conditionally approving any Future Development Approval on the basis of the land use regulation not in conflict with the Development Plan Approval(s) and the intent of this Agreement. 3.6.3. Modification or Suspension by Federal, State, County, or Multi -Jurisdictional Law. In the event that Federal, State, County, or multi jurisdictional laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such Federal, State, County, 17 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 or multi jurisdictional laws or regulations; provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions reasonably impractical to enforce. 3.6.4. Intent. CITY acknowledges that OWNER has reasonably entered into this Agreement and will proceed with the Development of the Property on the assumption that CITY has adequately provided for the public health, safety and welfare through the Land Use Regulations. In the event that any future, unforeseen public health or safety emergency arises, CITY agrees that it shall attempt to address such emergency in such a way as not to impact the Development in accordance with the Development Plan Approval(s), and if that is not possible, to select that option for addressing the emergency which has the least adverse impact on the Development in accordance with the Development Plan Approval(s). 3.6.5. Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the Parties that other public agencies not subject to control by CITY may possess authority to regulate aspects of the Development, and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. 3.7. Vested Right. By entering into this Agreement and relying thereupon, OWNER is obtaining the vested rights to proceed with the Development anticipated by the Proj ect in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development Plan Approval(s). By entering into this Agreement and relying thereupon, the CITY is securing certain public benefits which enhance the public health, safety and welfare, a partial listing of which benefits is set forth in Section 4.1. The CITY therefore agrees to the following: 3.7.1. No Conflicting Enactments. Except as provided in this Section 3, the CITY shall not enact a rule, regulation, ordinance, policy, permit or other measure, nor take any action applicable to the Project or the Property, which governs the rate, timing, scope intensity, use, density, manner, or sequencing of the Development, or any part thereof and which is inconsistent or in conflict with the Development Plan Approval(s). By way of enumeration, and not limitation, any law, action or inaction, whether by specific reference to the Project, this Agreement or otherwise, shall be considered to conflict if it: (i) Restricts the Vested Rights described in the Agreement or in any way limits or reduces the rate, timing, scope, intensity use, density, manner, or sequencing of the Development or otherwise requires any reduction or increase in the number, size, height or square footage of lot(s), structures, buildings or other improvements, modifies the standards and specifications applicable to the infrastructure required for the Development or requires additional dedications, exactions, fees or mitigation other than that provided for in the Agreement; (ii) Is consistent with Section 3.7.1.(i) hereof, but is not uniformly applied by the CITY to all substantially similar development within the CITY; or 18 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 (iii) Imposes a new permit requirement or procedure not already part of the Existing Regulations. 3.7.2. Consistent Enactments. By way of enumeration and not limitation, the following types of enactments shall be considered consistent with this Agreement and Existing Regulations and not in conflict: (i) Transfers of units or permitted uses pursuant to an Operating Memorandum pursuant to Section 3.9.5. hereof; (ii) Changes in the phasing of the development pursuant to an Operating Memorandum pursuant to Section 3.9.5. hereof; and (iii) Any enactment authorized by this Agreement. 3.7.3. Initiative Measures. It is the intent of OWNER and the CITY that no moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the development of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by initiative or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), site development permits, precise plans, site development plans, building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements to use approved, issued or granted within the CITY, or portions of the CITY, shall apply to the Project to the extent such moratorium or other limitation would restrict OWNER's right to develop the Development authorized by the Development Plan in such order and at such rate as OWNER deems appropriate as limited or regulated by this Agreement. The CITY agrees to cooperate with OWNER in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Agreement in full force and effect. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, the parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. In the event of any litigation challenging the effectiveness of this Agreement, or any portion hereof, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while such litigation, including any appellate review, is pending. 3.7.4. Consistency Between This Agreement, the Development Plan Approval(s) and Existing Regulations. To the extent a conflict exists or develops between the Existing Regulations and the Development Plan Approval(s), the Development Plan Approval(s) shall be controlling. To the extent a conflict exists or develops between this Agreement and any other Development Plan Approval(s), this Agreement shall be controlling. 3.7.5. Map Act Consistency. As required by California Government Code Section 65867.5, any tentative map prepared for the Project shall comply with California Government Code Section 66473.7. 19 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 3.8. Future Amendments to Development Plan Approval(s). The following rules apply to future amendments to the Development Plan Approval(s), except that Section 3.9.5. shall control with respect to a non -substantive adjustment of this Agreement and Section 3.10. shall control with respect to Future Development Approvals: 3.8.1. Owner's Written Consent. Except as expressly set forth within this Agreement, a Development Plan amendment will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Agreement unless the OWNER has consented in writing to the Development Plan amendment. If the OWNER consents to the Development Plan amendment, the consent shall be documented in an Operating Memorandum. 3.8.2. Concurrent Development Agreement Amendment. Any Development Plan amendment requiring amendment of this Agreement shall be processed concurrently with an amendment to this Agreement. 3.8.3. Effect of Amendment. To the extent an amendment to the Development Plan Approval(s) is approved in accordance with Section 3.8.1., the amendment shall constitute for all purposes a Development Plan Approval and shall be treated as if it were in existence on the Effective Date. 3.9. Amendment of Development Agreement. 3.9.1. Initiation of Amendment. Either CITY or OWNER may propose an amendment to this Agreement. An operating memorandum, as defined below, is not an amendment of this Agreement. 3.9.2. Changes Requiring an Amendment. Unless otherwise required by law, neither an amendment to the Development Plan Approval(s) nor the approval of a Future Development Approval shall require an amendment of this Agreement unless the amendment: (i) Materially alters the permitted uses of the Property as a whole in a manner inconsistent with the procedures established in the Specific Plan; whole; buildings. (ii) Increases the density or intensity of use of the Property as a (iii) Increases the maximum height and size of permitted Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, an amendment of this Agreement is not required if OWNER pursues entitlements, permits or approvals pursuant to a waiver of vested rights. 20 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 3.9.3. Procedure. The procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Agreement in the first instance, including without limitation compliance with CEQA and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council pursuant to the Development Agreement Legislation. 3.9.4. Consent. Any amendment to this Agreement shall require the written consent of both the CITY and the OWNER whose portion of the Property would be materially affected by the amendment. No amendment to all or any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless set forth in writing, signed by duly authorized representatives of the CITY and the applicable OWNER, and adopted pursuant to legal requirements imposed on CITY. An amendment of this Agreement does not require the consent of a Development Transferee unless the rights, duties, or obligations of the Development Transferee are affected. To the extent the consent of an OWNER that did not initiate the amendment is necessary, the OWNER shall consent to the amendment if, as determined in that OWNER's reasonable business judgment, that proposed amendment will not have a material adverse impact on the Development of that OWNER's portion of the Property. 3.9.5. Operating Memoranda. The parties acknowledge that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the parties under this Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Development Plan and with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Agreement. If and when the parties and, if applicable, a Development Transferee, mutually find that non -substantive changes, adjustments, or clarifications are appropriate to further the intended purposes of this Agreement, and such are not materially inconsistent with the Development Plan Approval(s), they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes, adjustments, or clarifications without amendment to this Agreement through one or more operating memoranda ("Operating Memorand(a)(um)") mutually approved by the City Manager, or designee, on behalf of the CITY and by any corporate officer or other person designated for such purpose in a writing signed by a corporate officer on behalf of OWNER, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof. Unless otherwise required by law or by the Development Plan Approval(s), no such changes, adjustments, or clarifications shall require prior notice or hearing, public or otherwise. Nothing herein shall authorize the delegation of authority to the City Manager, or designee, contrary to California or Federal Law. CITY shall record all Operating Memoranda and thereafter shall attach the recorded instrument to the CITY's original Agreement and shall provide OWNER a duplicate copy. 3.10. Future Development Approvals. 3.10.1. Exercise of CITY Discretion. In connection with Future Development Approvals or any other actions which the CITY is expressly permitted to make under this Agreement relating to the Project, the CITY shall exercise its discretion or 21 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 take action in a manner which complies and is consistent with the Development Plan Approval(s) and the Existing Regulations. 3.10.2. Concurrent Development Agreement Amendment. Any Future Development Approval requiring amendment of this Agreement, as provided for in Section 3.9. hereof, shall be processed concurrently with an amendment to this Agreement. 3.10.3. Effect of Future Development Approvals. Except as expressly set forth within this Section 3.10., a Future Development Approval will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Agreement. To the extent a Future Development Approval is approved in accordance with Section 3.10.1. and 3.10.2., the Future Development Approval shall constitute for all purposes a Development Plan Approval and shall be treated as if it were in existence on the Effective Date. 4. Obligations of the Parties. 4.1. Benefits to CITY. The direct and indirect benefits the CITY (including, without limitation the existing and future residents of the CITY) will receive pursuant to the implementation of the Agreement generally include, but are not limited to, the following: 4.1.1. Growth Management. The Project conforms to the CITY's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the CITY's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. In addition, the Project is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well-designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preserve open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. 4.1.2. Traffic and Circulation. Traffic and Circulation elements of the Project conform to the proposed regional plan under consideration by the County of Riverside and to the CITY's General Plan, and are designed to reduce the impact of the average daily trips generated by the Project on arterial roads and thoroughfares by, among other things, encouraging the use of streets internal to the Project for school related trips. The Project is located within close proximity of the CITY's employment centers as well as nearby regional transportation infrastructure including the Interstate 15 freeway and regional bus routes. Traffic and circulation elements of the Specific Plan also provide for the following regional facilities needed by the CITY to reduce traffic impacts: (a) Western Bypass Road (a regional, four -lane arterial roadway); (b) Western Bypass Bridge (which connects the Western Bypass Road to Temecula Parkway and the Interstate 15 freeway); and (c) Coromell Trail, formerly known as First Street (a secondary arterial roadway that 22 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 provides vehicular access between Old Town Temecula, the Proj ect' s proposed elementary school, and the Western Bypass Road). 4.1.3. Schools. The provision of sites for new schools and the construction of such schools on an "up front" basis rather than "as needed" and phased to coincide with the build out of the Project, which early provision and construction will assist local school districts in meeting current area needs as well as creating adequate capacity for future needs. Specifically, approximately seven (7) acres has been set aside to be dedicated to the Temecula Valley Unified School District for a new elementary school to serve the Project and adjacent neighborhoods. The school site is ideally located to provide convenient access for all attendees and will accommodate up to approximately seven hundred thirty (730) students. 4.1.4. Parks and Recreation. The public parks and other recreational facilities to be dedicated, conveyed and/or constructed as provided for herein exceed the CITY's requirements for open space and parks, and contribute to meeting the need for open space and parks in the area, parking for existing CITY facilities, a potential for joint -use facilities with adjacent schools, and lighted parks and recreational facilities. In this regard, the Specific Plan is designed not only to serve its residents, but also to contribute to the parks and recreational amenities of Old Town Temecula and the entire Temecula community. These amenities include: (a) approximately three (3) miles of paved bike routes, and two (2) miles of walking trails, all onsite and interwoven through all villages and opens spaces in the Project, and which connect to adj acent communities and regional trail systems; (b) eighteen (18) acres of parks, trails and community spaces; (c) two (2) community centers including a recreation center with outdoor pool and spa, and fitness and exercise rooms, and a two-tiered clubhouse with a multi-purpose room with kitchen and rest rooms; and (d) up to fifty-five (55) acres from the Nature Center Phase. 4.1.5. Conservation Efforts. Recognizing the significance of land conservation, the Specific Plan will conserve approximately eighty-seven (87) acres onsite. OWNER will conserve eight (8) acres off site, for a total of ninety-six (96) acres conserved. In addition, and as more specifically described below in this Agreement, Development of the Project has no presently known adverse impact on area habitat in light of the prior long-term use of the Property as open space. 4.1.6. Cultural Impacts. The Project site's cultural, historical significance has been analyzed, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians have been consulted and, presently, implementation of the Specific Plan does not impact any known significant cultural resources. 4.2. Development Impact Fees. The presently adopted Development Impact Fees ("DIF"), as defined in Section 1.7 herein, and currently charged by the CITY shall be imposed upon Development within the jurisdiction of this Agreement. The CITY hereby agrees that neither the Property nor the Development shall be subject to any new or expanded fees or charges applicable to development, provided however, that the City shall be entitled to revise the actual Development Impact Fee rates, and OWNER shall pay the DIF 23 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 at the rate then in effect at the time required for payment of DIF. The DIF is comprised of several components, each corresponding to different elements of the On -Site Improvements and Off -Site Improvements. The individual component and the credit, if any, is set forth hereunder. 4.2.1. Street Improvement DIF Component. OWNER shall pay the street component of DIF at such time as payment of DIF is required by Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code as it now exists or may hereafter be amended. The OWNER is obligated to construct certain On -Site Improvements and Off -Site Improvements pursuant to the Development Approval(s) and this Agreement. Certain of these On -Site Improvements and Off -Site Improvements are for street improvements that are listed in the DIF Nexus Study, approved by the City Council as described in Resolution No. 97-94 and Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code ("DIF Eligible Street Improvements"). In consideration of the OWNER's completion of construction of DIF Eligible Street Improvements pursuant to the Development Plan Approval(s), CITY shall reimburse OWNER such DIF Eligible Street Improvements in an amount equal to the actual costs of design, property acquisition and construction costs insured by the OWNER in completing the DIF Eligible Street Improvements minus the OWNER's fair share contribution for the On -Site and Off -Site Public Improvements for street improvements that serve the Project and mitigate its impacts. OWNER may apply to the Director of Public Works for reimbursement of these costs and provide such information and documentation requested by the Director of Public Works as necessary to establish the amount of such reimbursement. The Director of Public Works shall determine the amount of reimbursement pursuant to this subsection and CITY shall pay to OWNER the reimbursement required by this subsection within thirty (30) days following OWNER's submission of OWNER's application or notify the OWNER's application or notify the OWNER of any objections to the information provided or amount of reimbursement requested. There shall be no credit to OWNER for the Street Improvement component of DIF. OWNER shall not be eligible for any DIF reimbursement for any On -Site and Off -Site Public Improvements for which OWNER has also received credit or reimbursement from TUMF. CITY and OWNER understand and agree that the Off -Site Improvements to Vincent Moraga Drive, between Rancho California Road and the Western Bypass Road, as contemplated by the Specific Plan qualifies for credit toward satisfying the Street Improvement Component of the DIF or for credit or reimbursement pursuant to TUMF, but not both. CITY and OWNER understand and agree that the decision to pursue credit for such improvements from either DIF or TUMF shall be at the sole discretion of the OWNER following final design approval of such improvements. In the event OWNER determines to pursue credit from TUMF, OWNER and the CITY agree to work together and cooperate in good faith to insure that OWNER and CITY receive the appropriate credit toward, and/or reimbursement from TUMF, provided, however, OWNER understands and acknowledges that while the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG") in its capacity as the local government agency responsible for TUMF currently designates Vincent Moraga Drive as an improvement eligible for TUMF credits or reimbursement, in the future may not have sufficient funds for such 24 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 reimbursement or may assign one of the facilities a low priority for reimbursement, all actions outside the actual control of the CITY. 4.2.2. Traffic Signal DIF Component. OWNER shall pay the traffic signal component of DIF at such time as payment of DIF is required by Chapter 15.06 the Temecula Municipal Code as it now exists or may hereafter be amended. The OWNER is obligated to construct certain On -Site Improvements and Off -Site Improvements pursuant to the Development Approval(s) and this Agreement. Certain of these On -Site Improvements and Off -Site Improvements are for traffic signals that are listed in the DIF Nexus Study, approved by the City Council as described in Resolution No. 97-94 and Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code ("DIF Eligible Traffic Signals"). In consideration of the OWNER'S completion of construction of DIF Eligible Traffic Signals pursuant to the Development Plan Approval(s), CITY shall reimburse OWNER such DIF Eligible Traffic Signals in an amount equal to the actual costs of design, property acquisition and construction costs incurred by the OWNER in completing the DIF Eligible Traffic Signals minus the OWNER'S fair share contributions for the On -Site and Off -Site Public Improvements for traffic signals that serve the Project and mitigate its impacts. There shall be no credit to OWNER for the Traffic Signal component of DIF. OWNER shall not be eligible for any DIF reimbursement for any On -Site and Off -Site Public Improvements for which OWNER has also received credit or reimbursement from TUMF. OWNER may apply to the Director of Public Works for reimbursement of these costs and provide such information and documentation requested by the Director of Public Works as necessary to establish the amount of such reimbursement. Director of Public Works shall reasonably determine the amount of reimbursement pursuant to this subsection and City shall pay to OWNER the reimbursement required by this subsection within thirty (30) days following OWNER'S submission of OWNER'S application or notify the OWNER of any objections to the information provided or amount of reimbursement requested. There shall be no credit to OWNER for the Traffic Signal component of DIF. 4.2.3. Street Improvement and Traffic Signal Fair Share Costs. Pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by the CITY's traffic engineer, five (5) road segments and intersections have been identified to warrant fair share payments to the CITY by OWNER. A third -party cost to complete estimate has been prepared which estimates one hundred percent (100%) of the offsite intersection and road segment cost at $731,450 for which OWNER's Fair Share Payment is $90,016. Three of the five road segments and intersections are located near the Project and pursuant to the Development Plan, OWNER will construct one hundred percent (100%) of, (i) Convert Ridge Park Drive to Right-In/Right-Out, (ii) construct two new stop signs at the intersection of Pujol and First Street, and (iii) construct a signalized intersection at Pujol and First Street. The total estimated cost to construct these three improvements is $291,450 which is greater than OWNER's Fair Share Payment. Therefore, OWNER's net fair share payment obligation results is a credit for the Street System Component of DIF of $201,434. 25 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 4.2.4. Park and Recreation DIF Component. In consideration of the parks and recreational facilities to be constructed by OWNER pursuant to the Development Plan Approval(s) and Section 4.4.4.A. of this Agreement, OWNER is hereby granted a credit for one hundred percent (100%) of the of the Park and Recreation Component of the DIF. 4.2.5. Open Space and Trails DIF Component. In consideration of the OWNER's obligation pursuant to the Development Plan Approval(s) and Section 4.4.4.B. of this Agreement to dedicate and construct trails and open space, OWNER is hereby granted a credit for one hundred percent (100%) of the Open Space and Trails Component. 4.2.6. CFD Financing of DIF -Eligible Facilities. In the event the proceeds of the CFD financing described in Section 4.5.2 are used to pay 100% of the costs of constructing of a DIF eligible On -Site or Off -Site Public Improvement, the OWNER shall not receive DIF credit or reimbursement for such CFD -funded public improvements. However, the proceeds of a CFD financing may be used to pay such costs in excess of the amount of DIF or TUMF credit or reimbursement to be received by Owner for the On -Site or Off-site Public Improvements. 4.3. Future Development Approvals Review. Future Development Approvals will be reviewed in a manner consistent with the general review procedures of the CITY accorded the particular type of Future Development Approval being sought and necessary conditions imposed in a manner consistent with this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the health, safety and general welfare based mitigation measures arising from the Future Development Approvals shall not be limited by this Agreement. 4.4. Related Real Property Conveyances; Conditions to Development Agreement. 4.4.1. Intent of the Parties. The CITY and OWNER agree that the timely completion and performance of the real estate transactions and the related agreements described hereafter are a material component of the consideration each party has relied upon in its respective decision to enter into this Agreement. OWNER and the CITY, individually and collectively, represent that neither party would have entered into this Agreement but for the promises of the other to transfer the interests in real property described hereunder to the other party and to enter into the related agreements. Further, OWNER and the CITY, individually and collectively, agree that the failure of any one of the conveyances or related agreements to be completed or performed in a timely manner will be an event of default under Section 10. of this Agreement. 4.4.2. Liens, Encumbrances and Environmental Conditions. All real property dedicated to the CITY pursuant to this Agreement shall be free and clear of any and all matters of record (excepting all non -delinquent taxes and assessments), including but not limited to, deeds of trust, liens, or other encumbrances of record unless such items of record are approved in writing by the CITY. Further the real property shall be warranted to be free of any known environmental conditions that would prevent, restrict or cause the CITY to fund hazardous material/contamination/toxic remediation activities so as to allow the real property to be used as intended by the CITY. OWNER warrants and represents to 26 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 the City that as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, OWNER has conducted preliminary studies of the properties it will convey to the CITY and has found no environmental conditions that would prevent, restrict or cause the CITY to fund hazardous material/contamination/toxic remediation activities so as to allow the real property to be used as intended by the CITY. OWNER shall provide the CITY copies of all reports, investigations and analysis that discuss the environmental condition of the real property. 4.4.3. Disposition of the Nature Center Phase. (i) Configuration and Use of the Nature Center Phase. (a) The Nature Center Phase ultimately shall consist of four separate legal parcels comprised of the following: (i) approximately one (1) acre of roadways serving the Nature Center Phase (the "Nature Center Road Parcel"); (ii) approximately sixteen (16) acres for a nature center (the "Nature Center Parcel"); (iii) approximately three (3) acres of open space (the "Nature Center Open Space Parcel"); and (iv) approximately thirty-five (35) acres of ungraded open space upon which a conservation easement in favor of the Regional Conservation Agency ("RCA") or an entity that has a Management MOU with the RCA (the "Conservation Easement") shall be recorded and maintained (the "Nature Center Conservation Easement Parcel"). The four parcels are described and depicted on Attachment 4. (b) If no legal action (based on CEQA or otherwise) is filed against all or any portion of the Project within the applicable statutes of limitation, the CITY hereby waives any and all rights to seek a specific plan amendment to change the use of all or any portion of the Nature Center Phase. (c) If a legal action or actions (based on CEQA or otherwise) is filed against all or any portion of the Project within the applicable statutes of limitation, then such Nature Center Parcel may be combined with the Nature Center Open Space Parcel and the combined parcel may be utilized for any other civic use as may be determined by the CITY in its sole and absolute discretion following the approval of a specific plan amendment for such purpose. Such approval of a Specific Plan Amendment must occur within six months of a lawsuit being filed, at which time RCA's consistency determination is automatically revoked for the entire project. (ii) CITY's Acquisition of the Nature Center Phase. CITY shall acquire the Nature Center Phase upon the date that is sixty (60) days following the completion of all of the following: (a) CITY's Approval of the Development Plan Approvals. The CITY's approval of the Development Plan Approvals and either (a) the expiration of any and all applicable statutes of limitation or other similar time periods with no legal action or challenge of any kind being filed against the Property, the Project or the CITY or OWNER and related in any way to the Property or the Project, or (b) the resolution of any such legal action or challenge filed against the Property, the Project or the 27 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 CITY or OWNER and related in any way to the Property or the Project, in a manner mutually acceptable to CITY and OWNER. (b) CITY's Formation and Funding of the CFD(s). The CITY' s formation and funding of the CFD(s) consistent with the terms and provisions of Sections 4.5.2. and 4.5.3. of this Agreement, and either (i) the expiration of any and all applicable statutes of limitation or other similar time periods with no legal action or challenge of any kind being filed against the CFD(s), the Property, the Project, the CITY or the OWNER in any way related to the CFD(s), the Property or the Proj ect, or (ii) the resolution of any such legal action or challenge filed against the CFD(s), the Property, the Proj ect, the CITY or the OWNER in any way related to the CFD(s), the Property or the Proj ect, in a manner mutually acceptable to CITY and OWNER) consistent with the terms of this Agreement. (c) Creation of the Four (4) Separate Legal Parcels Comprising the Nature Center Phase and Recordation of the Conservation Easement. CITY's approval of a parcel map, lot split or other legal and appropriate action to create the four (4) separate legal parcels comprising the Nature Center Phase and recordation of the Conservation Easement, all as described in Section 4.4.3.(i) above. The four parcels are described and depicted on Attachment 4. (d) Completion of Superpad Improvements on the Improved Portion of the Nature Center Phase. The completion by OWNER of the Superpad Improvements as defined in Section 4.5.3. below on the Improved Portion of the Nature Center Phase. (iii) Obligations of the Parties Following the CITY's Acquisition of the Nature Center Phase. Following CITY's acquisition of the Nature Center Phase, CITY shall be responsible for and shall expressly assume (in the documentation memorializing the closing of the acquisition of the Nature Center Phase), any and all remaining conditions of approval in any way related to the Development of the Nature Center Phase. 4.4.4. Parks, Trails and Recreational Facilities. OWNER is required pursuant to the Development Plan Approval(s) to dedicate certain acreage of the Project to the City for use as public parks, trails, open space and recreational facilities. Additionally OWNER has agreed to dedicate additional land and as described below, to construct, at its sole expense, the improvements for certain public parks and facilities, and to devote certain acreage of the Project for use as recreational facilities for the residents of the Project. OWNER's dedication and/or construction of such public parks and facilities and private recreational facilities shall be as set forth below. All real property shall be conveyed as provided for in Section 4.4.5. OWNER shall demonstrate the condition of title pursuant to CLTA title insurance policies, without exemptions, in amount equal to the fair market value of the land. 28 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 (i) 5 -Acre Park and Grand Staircase. OWNER agrees to convey fee title to the CITY and improve per the conditions in the Development Plan the five (5) acre park available for use by the public centrally located and connected to Old Town via a monumental "grand staircase". Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the formal submittal of the design to the CITY, OWNER and the Director of Community Development shall have the a pre -meeting to discuss the design of the five -acre park and Grand Staircase. The design of the five -acre park and Grand Staircase shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. The five -acre park and Grand Staircase shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. It shall be accepted for maintenance by the CITY promptly following the one (1) year maintenance and establishment period as determined by the Director of Public Works; provided, however, the five -acre park and the Grand Staircase shall not be open to the public until after CITY acceptance thereof for maintenance. (ii) Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail System. OWNER agrees to improve per the conditions in the Development Plan a pedestrian and cycling network available to the public to be interwoven through all villages and active open space throughout the Project and which shall connect to adjacent communities and regional trails systems. The design of these improvements shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Following the completion of the improvement to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, those portions of the pedestrian and bicycle trails system located on OWNER's property shall be conveyed to, and maintained by, the Proj ect master homeowner' s association ("Master HOA"), and following completion of the improvement to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and expiration of the one (1) year maintenance period, those portions located in the CITY right-of-way shall be conveyed to, and maintained, by the CITY; provided, however, these trail improvements shall not be open to the public until after CITY acceptance thereof for maintenance. Owner shall indemnify the CITY for any claims or lawsuits relating to the use of the trails maintained by the Master HOA pursuant to Section 6., Indemnification, of this Agreement provided that, subject to the approval of the City Manager, OWNER may satisfy this obligation by assigning the indemnification obligation to the Master HOA and requiring the Master HOA to procure and maintain liability insurance in an amount and with terms reasonably acceptable to the City Manager of the CITY. The indemnification obligation of this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement unless assigned to the Master HOA. (iii) Recreation Center and Clubhouse. OWNER agrees to improve per the conditions in the Development Plan Approval(s) a recreation center with an outdoor pool and spa, and fitness and exercise rooms, and a two-tiered clubhouse with a multipurpose room, kitchen and restrooms, to be available to residents of the Project to be located at the highest elevation of the 5 -acre park described in Section 4.4.3.B. The recreation center and clubhouse will be conveyed to, and maintained by, the Master HOA. 29 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 (iv) Quimby Credits. In consideration of OWNER' s obligations to improve and convey to the CITY the parkland and trails referenced above in subsections A. and B., the CITY hereby agrees to credit OWNER's obligations under the CITY's subdivision/Quimby parkland acreage requirements as satisfied in full and CITY shall not exact any further contribution from OWNER. In the event that the OWNER fails to convey all or portions of the parkland and trails referenced in this subsection, OWNER shall pay to the CITY the Quimby Fee required for the Project in the amount of Six Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,600,000.00) or a portion thereof based such parkland and trails as actually conveyed to the City. Receipt of such payment shall not constitute a waiver of any of CITY's rights to enforce the terms of this Agreement or the Development Plan Approval(s). OWNER shall not be eligible for any Quimby Fee Credits for any On -Site and Off -Site Public Improvements that OWNER has constructed using the proceeds from CFD financing. (v) Schedule of Completion of Park and Recreation Improvements. The park and recreation improvements, and components thereof, described in this Subsection 4.4.4. shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development in accordance with the schedule set forth in Attachment 3, Description and Timing of On -Site Improvements. (vi) Prior to issuance of grading permit, the RCA shall review and approve for conformance with the Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines the design of the applicant' s Urban Wildlands Interface measures (fencing, lighting, access control, plant palette, drainage, etc.) for development adjacent to all conservation areas (Western Bypass, Villages A and G, and Nature Center). The Nature Center trails shall be reviewed and approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies for compliance with Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines and MSHCP Section 7.4.2, Conditionally Compatible Uses. 4.4.5. Open Space Acquisition and Conservation. OWNER agrees to contribute to and construct several conservation features as part of the Project that will further aid in the conservation of sensitive habitats and the enhancement of wildlife movement and genetic diversity of mountain lions in the region. These conservation features are: (i) Onsite Conservation. OWNER shall convey to the Regional Conservation Authority ("RCA") for permanent conservation lots 8, 9, 10, 20 and 25 on Tentative Tract Map 36959 consisting of approximately 87.2 acres. (ii) Slope Restoration. OWNER shall restore with native upland vegetation approximately twenty (20) acres of slopes along the Western Bypass as described on Attachment 8 which are not needed for fuel modification in areas that abut the existing MSHCP conservation areas, as well as those contemplated by the Development Plan Approval(s). Such restoration shall occur concurrently with the phased construction of the Western Bypass and shall be temporarily irrigated and maintained by OWNER until such time as they are offered for dedication to the HOA. OWNER shall convey at no charge such slopes to the HOA for conservation purposes on or before the earlier to occur 30 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 of the date six (6) months after the maintenance bond for the restoration described in this subsection is released by the CITY, and the date of acceptance of the land dedication by the HOA. OWNER shall not be entitled to any fee credits in connection with such slope restoration. (iii) Conservation of 8.97 Acres. OWNER acquired, at its expense, of 8.97 acres located on the hillside escarpment adjacent to the Project for conservation as described on Attachment 9 pursuant to an existing Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Hillside Escarpment PSA") and will convey this property to the Regional Conservation Authority for Two Hundred Thirty -Five Thousand Dollars ($235,000.00) for conservation purposes prior to the issuance of the first grading permit for the Project. (iv) Conservation of 65.06 Acres. On or before the issuance of the first grading permit for the Project, OWNER shall complete the purchase, at its expense, of 65.06 acres located south of the Project as described on Attachment 10 pursuant to an existing Purchase and Sale Agreement and convey this property to the Regional Conservation Authority ("RCA") at no cost. OWNER shall prepare and submit to the RCA an equivalency analysis of this land prior to the City Council's adoption of the ordinances and resolutions approving the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the Project and this Agreement. (v) Additional Funding for Wildlife Conservation Efforts. OWNER shall pay to the CITY the following: (i) on or before the issuance of the first (1st) building permit for the Project, the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) (the "Initial Wildlife Conservation Fee") less the cost of the land purchase and associated closing costs described in 4.4.5 (iv) above; and (ii) as provided in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan and Section 4.5.2 of this Agreement, an annual payment of $43 per Occupied Residential Property, in perpetuity, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of two percent (2%) of the prior year's fee (the "Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee"). (a) The proceeds of the Wildlife Conservation Fee shall be used for the following purposes ("Wildlife Conservation Costs"): (1) The initial six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) of the Initial Wildlife Conservation Fee and the Wildlife Conservation Fee shall be held in an account by the City for the purposes of acquiring one hundred (100) acres of conservation lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the Property and/or in Riverside County and within ten (10) miles of the Property. RCA shall acquire such land and CITY shall reimburse RCA for the cost of its land purchase and associated closing costs, with interest, from the initial $6,000,000.00. The land acquisitions shall be in accordance with the equivalency standards for the acquisition of land submitted to the RCA and CITY prior to the City Council's approval of the Project. Once this objective has been satisfied, then the CITY shall use such funding thereafter for one or more of the the conservation activities described below in subsections (2), (3) or (4). The interest rate for the reimbursement shall be compound interest at the rate equal to the average interest rate 31 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 paid on deposits in the State Local Agency Investment Fund, Government Code Sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, during the year prior to July 1 of each year. Pursuant to Section 4.5.2 above and Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan, OWNER, its successors to the property within the Project, including End Users, shall fulfill this obligation of the Specific Plan with the proceeds of Special Tax C of the CFD(s), provided, however, that the obligation under this Section and Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan remains regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it or whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. (2) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the CITY in conjunction with the RCA along Interstate 15 between the Property and the San Diego County Line whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lion) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or (2) Reimbursement to the RCA of its costs, with interest, for the acquisition of lands south of the Project for conservation (the interest rate for the reimbursement shall be compound annual interest at the rate equal to the average interest rate paid on deposits in the State Local Agency Investment Fund, Government Code Sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, during the year prior to July 1 of each year); and/or (3) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (i) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Project Site undertaken by the City or RCA. (b) Pursuant to Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan, OWNER, its successors to the property within the Project, including End Users, shall be obligated to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee. Pursuant to Section 4.5.2. below the OWNER, its successors to the property within the Project, including End Users, may fulfill this obligation for paying the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee with the proceeds of Special Tax C of the CFD(s). (c) OWNER shall not be entitled to any fee credits in connection with such conservation funding. (v) Agency Permits and Assumption of Western Bypass Bridge Obligations. OWNER and CITY understand and agree that: (a) CITY had previously obtained all of the agency permits necessary for construction of the Western Bypass Bridge; (b) some of these agency permits for the Western Bypass Bridge have expired; and (c) the Western Bypass Bridge shall be constructed in connection with the Development Plan. The CITY shall remain the applicant for such agency permits, but OWNER shall have the obligation to update the bridge plans to meet current conditions and renew or reobtain the permits for construction of the Western Bypass Bridge. CITY shall use its best efforts to cooperate with OWNER in updating the bridge plans and renewing or reobtaining the permits for the construction of the Western Bypass Bridge. Once OWNER (with CITY's cooperation) has renewed or reobtained the permits for the Western Bypass 32 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 Bridge, OWNER shall continue to have full responsibility for the plans, keeping the environmental permits current and construction of the Western Bypass Bridge. In connection with the assumption of such obligations, OWNER shall be responsible to accomplish the enhancement of approximately one and one tenth (1.1) acres of land owned by the City in Murrieta Creek or on other real property owned by the CITY. In the event such mitigation obligation consists of enhancing the CITY's property in Murrieta Creek, the CITY shall not be entitled to any compensation for the enhancement of such property, but all costs and expenses of such enhancement shall be borne solely by OWNER. If upon completing subsurface testing (paid for by OWNER), it is determined that restoration mitigation in Murrieta Creek is not feasible due to the presence of rock, then CITY shall provide the necessary land elsewhere, at CITY's cost, for OWNER to complete the restoration at OWNER's cost as described above. Further, if CITY is not able to provide additional land, CITY and OWNER may consider the purchase of mitigation credits and negotiate in good faith each Party's share of such cost. (vi) MSHCP Fee Credits for Onsite Conservation. OWNER and CITY understand and agree that: (i) OWNER will be preserving onsite approximately 84.63 acres of open space; (ii) as a result of such onsite preservation OWNER may qualify for fee credit consistent with RCA Resolution 2016-003; and (iii) CITY shall cooperate with OWNER to receive such credit as and when due and owing. 4.4.6. Smart Shuttle/Bike Share Program. In consideration of the CITY's performance of the terms of this Agreement, OWNER agrees to participate with the Riverside Transportation Authority (RTA) and CITY to further a "Smart Shuttle" or "bike share" program. OWNER's participation shall consist of providing funding in the amount of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) to further the Smart Shuttle or bike share program as defined in an agreement between the CITY and RTA. Payment shall be made the earlier of, (i) on or before the issuance of the first (1st) building permit for the South Phase , or (ii) issuance of the 950th building permit for the Project. If, following the issuance of such permit, the "Smart Shuttle" or "bike share" program is successful and well-received by the public and CITY desires to continue such program, OWNER and/or the HOA shall cooperate in good faith with CITY to identify potential future funding sources for such program including, without limitation, governmental grants from the State of California, WRCOG and/or the RTC, as well as potential funding from the HOA. 4.5. CITY Obligations. 4.5.1. OWNER's Option to Purchase CITY Land for Habitat Restoration and Pond Turtle Habitat (i) Habitat Restoration Property. (a) The CITY owns approximately thirty-two (32) acres of land south of Temecula Parkway, west of the I-15 freeway and adjacent east and north of Murrieta Creek (the "CITY Property") that will be used, in part, as right of way and habitat 33 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 buffers for the reconstruction of the I-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange ("Interchange"). The amount of acreage and the configuration of the right of way and habitat buffers needed for the Interchange has not been fully established by the CITY and the resources agency. Primarily due to development of the Western Bypass Road, the Development Plan impacts 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat which needs to be created elsewhere for the Project's Determination of Biological Equivalent Superior Preservation. The resource agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish & Wildlife and Regional Water Quality Control Board) prefer mitigation to occur within the same watershed and as close to the impact site as possible. In addition, the California Department of Fish & Wildlife would like this area within Murrieta Creek conserved and enhanced to better accommodate the diminishing pond turtle habitat. (b) The OWNER and CITY shall negotiate in good faith the actual acreage up to 1.24 acres and the location of the property to be conveyed by way of conservation easement from CITY to OWNER for habitat restoration, provided, however, that the City Manager of CITY shall, in his discretion, determine whether such property should be conveyed by way of conservation easement to OWNER, and, if so, the City Manager shall, in his discretion, approve, in writing, the actual acreage, configuration, and location of such property to be conveyed by way of conservation easement ("Habitat Restoration Property"). OWNER acknowledges and agrees that the CITY may not be able to convey by way of conservation easement, or other conveyance, the Habitat Restoration Property to OWNER for habitat restoration in this area given the constraints of the Interchange improvements and, in such case, OWNER shall acquire the required property for habitat conservation elsewhere. (c) Therefore, the CITY hereby grants to OWNER an option to acquire by way of conservation easement the agreed-upon Habitat Restoration Property for the purpose of habitat restoration upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Section (the "Habitat Restoration Property Option"): (ii) Term of the Habitat Restoration Property Option. The term of the Habitat Restoration Property Option (the "Habitat Restoration Property Option Term") shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire on the one (1) year anniversary of the Effective Date (unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions set forth below). (iii) Consideration of the Habitat Restoration Property Option. The Habitat Restoration Property Option is granted in consideration of the obligations and agreements undertaken by OWNER. (iv) Exercise of the Habitat Restoration Property Option. The Habitat Restoration Property Option may be exercised by OWNER in the event OWNER, during the Habitat Restoration Property Option Term, delivers to CITY and an institutional Escrow Holder selected by OWNER (the "Escrow Holder") written notice of OWNER's election to purchase the Habitat Restoration Property on the terms and conditions set forth herein (the "Habitat Restoration Property Option Notice") (in the event OWNER does not 34 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 give timely CITY the Habitat Restoration Property Option Notice, the Habitat Restoration Property Option shall immediately terminate without further action by CITY). The Habitat Restoration Property Option Notice delivered to Escrow Holder also shall include a non-refundable deposit against the Habitat Restoration Property Purchase Price (defined below) in the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), which shall be applicable to the Habitat Restoration Property Purchase Price. (v) Purchase and Sale. Provided the Habitat Restoration Property Option has been timely exercised as described above, CITY agrees to transfer the Habitat Restoration Property to OWNER, and OWNER shall pay to the CITY a purchase price for such transfer in the amount of its then fair market value as determined by an appraiser mutually acceptable to CITY and OWNER (the "Habitat Restoration Purchase Price"), payable in full upon close of escrow within sixty (60) days' of the Habitat Restoration Property Option Notice. The Conservation Easement Deed for the Habitat Restoration Property shall restrict the use of the Habitat Restoration Property to habitat restoration in accordance with the Project EIR. (vi) Memorandum of Habitat Restoration Property Option. A Memorandum of the Habitat Restoration Property Option shall be recorded against the CITY Property in a form mutually acceptable to CITY and OWNER. 4.5.2. Community Facilities District. (i) OWNER shall request in writing that the CITY establish one or more community facilities districts (each a "CFD") pursuant to the Mello -Roos Act to finance infrastructure, public facilities and public services that may be required in connection with the Development Plan and the Development of the Property and shall vote in favor of each such community facilities districts. It is anticipated that three (3) annual special taxes will be authorized to be levied within each CFD, which shall be referred to herein as "Special Tax A," "Special Tax B," and "Special Tax C." (ii) Special Tax A will be authorized to be levied on all non -governmentally owned assessor's parcels within each CFD to fund, in order of priority: (a) administrative expenses of the CFD; (b) scheduled debt service on bonds for the CFD that are issued to fund eligible public facilities (including, as may be permitted by the City, public facilities in lieu of Contributions); (c) replenishment of a reserve fund for the bonds; and (d) on a pay as you go basis, eligible public facilities (including, as may be permitted by the City, public facilities in lieu of Contributions) including acquisition of the Nature Center Phase as described in Section 4.5.3. (iii) Special Tax B will be authorized to be levied on assessor's parcels in the CFD for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued ("Occupied Residential Property") in an initial amount of Two Hundred Thirty Seven Dollars ($237.00) per dwelling unit per year, subject to the annual increases described below, to fund, in order of priority: (a) administrative expenses of the CFD; (b) replenishment of any applicable reserve fund; and (c) eligible CITY services in an amount equal to the Services Deficit pursuant to Section 35 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 11.8 of the Specific Plan and Section 4.7 below. The Maximum Special Tax B shall be increased each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year following the formation of the CFD, by a percentage equal to five and six tenths percent (5.6%) of the prior year's levy of the Maximum Special Tax. (iv) Special Tax C will be authorized to be levied on Occupied Residential Property in the CFD in an initial amount of Forty Three Dollars ($43.00) per dwelling unit per year to fund, subject to the annual increases described below, in order of priority: (a) administrative expenses of the CFD; (b) replenishment of any applicable reserve fund; and (c) Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs pursuant to Section 4.4.5(iv). The Maximum Special Tax C shall be increased each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year following the formation of the CFD, by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's Maximum Special Tax C. (v) CITY agrees that the maximum effective tax rate for assessor's parcels within each CFD, including without limitation, Special Tax A, Special Tax B and Special Tax C, may not exceed two and one tenth percent (2.1%) of the reasonably expected value of the parcel with planned vertical improvements determined at the time of approval of the CFD and the Rate and Method of Apportionment. (vi) CITY agrees to use reasonable efforts to develop and implement the CFD(s) subject to public hearing and election requirements of applicable State and, if tax-exempt bonds are to be issued, Federal law, the Existing Regulations and the customary and reasonable industry standards for the development of such financings for CFD(s). OWNER and CITY acknowledge and agree that the establishment of a CFD for facilities and services and the issuance of bonds supported by the special taxes are dependent on many factors that are not known at this time. The viability of the financing, the amount of special taxes for debt service, and available bond proceeds will be dependent on several factors existing at the time the bonds are sold, including, but not limited to, the financial markets, interest on tax exempt financings, housing market, value of homes in the area, absorption rates for home sales in the area, bond underwriting criteria and ratings by bond -rating agencies. (vii) CITY agrees that upon receipt of OWNER'S written request and application and the deposit with CITY of sufficient funds to pay the CITY's costs to undertake the proceedings to establish any particular CFD, CITY shall conduct proceedings to establish the respective CFD(s) and OWNER shall cooperate in the conduct of such proceedings. OWNER acknowledges that this Agreement cannot obligate the City Council to establish the CFD(s) at the conclusion of those proceedings. 4.5.3. Acquisition of Nature Center Phase. (i) The CITY shall acquire the Nature Center Phase with proceeds of the CFD(s) as described in Section 4.5.2. 36 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 (ii) Approximately eighteen (18) acres of the Nature Center Phase comprised of the Nature Center Road Parcel and the Nature Center Parcel (the "Improved Portion") shall be improved as roadways with respect to the Nature Center Road Parcel, and to a "Superpad Condition" with respect to the Nature Center Parcel, by the OWNER. "Superpad Condition" shall mean for the purposes of this Agreement: (a) consisting of grading and setting survey markers at the elevations shown on the City approved conceptual grading plan; (b) paved primary access to parking lot and secondary access off of Camino Estribo to the Nature Center Parcel; (c) irrigated slopes with landscaped of native vegetation; (d) constructed trails with decomposed granite and look -out posts; (e) all wet and dry utilities to the site; (f) construct all interim and permanent storm drains including drainage for the trails; (g) all required work under the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan required by Chapter 18.18 of the Temecula Municipal Code; and (h) Water Quality Management Plan and installation of devices, basins and other facilities and work required by the Water Quality Management Plan. "Superpad Improvements" shall mean all of the construction and grading work required to be performed by the OWNER and described in (a) -(h) in the preceding sentence. All plans referenced in the definition of Superpad Condition shall be approved by the City or its designated official. The remaining approximately thirty-seven (37) acres of the Nature Center Phase (comprised of the Nature Center Open Space Parcel and the Nature Center Conservation Easement Parcel) (the "Unimproved Portion") shall be acquired by the CITY in its "as is" condition and the Nature Center Conservation Parcel shall be subject to the Conservation Easement. (iii) Both the Improved Portion and the Unimproved Portion shall be acquired by the CITY as set forth in Section 4.4.3. and this Section for an acquisition price equal to the appraised value of the Nature Center Phase (by an MAI appraiser agreed to by the parties) with the Superpad Improvements based on the uses allowed on the Nature Center Phase by the Specific Plan at the time of the appraisal provided the appraisal is completed within six months prior to the date of conveyance (the "Acquisition Price"). (iv) The time for conveyance of the Nature Center Phase is described in Section 4.4.3. (v) The Acquisition Price for the Nature Center Phase shall be paid solely from the proceeds of Special Tax A and bonds issued by the CFD(s) that are secured by Special Tax A and no other CITY funds shall be used for such payments. 4.6. Public Art. OWNER shall comply with the requirements of public art requirements of Chapter 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 4.7. City Services Deficit Payment. (i) As described in Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan, the CITY estimates that the costs to the CITY of providing public safety and other municipal services to the Project will exceed the municipal revenue from the Project by a substantial amount 37 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ("Services Deficit") and the owners of the property within the Specific Plan Area are required to pay the Services Deficit in apportioned annual amounts. (ii) The OWNER, its successors to the properties within the Project, including End Users, shall pay to the CITY the sum of two hundred thirty seven dollars ($237.00) per occupied residential dwelling unit within the Project each year with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. (iii) Pursuant to Section 4.5.2 above and Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan, OWNER, its successors to the property within the Project, including End Users, shall fulfill this obligation of the Specific Plan with the proceeds of Special Tax B of the CFD(s), provided, however, that the obligation under this Section and Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan remains regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it or whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 5. Further Assurances to OWNER Regarding Exercise of Reserved Authority. 5.1. Adoption of General Plan and Granting of Other Project Approvals. In preparing and adopting any general plan amendment, zoning district change and in granting the other Project Approvals, the CITY reserves its right to and shall consider the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the CITY. 5.2. Assurances to OWNER. The parties further acknowledge that the public benefits to be provided by OWNER to the CITY pursuant to this Agreement are in consideration for and reliance upon assurances that the Property can be developed in accordance with the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement. Accordingly, while recognizing that the Development of the Property may be affected by exercise of the authority and rights reserved and excepted as provided in Sections 3.3.1. and 3.3.2. ("Reserved Authority") of this Agreement, OWNER is concerned that normally the judiciary extends to local agencies significant deference in the adoption of land use regulations, which might permit the CITY in violation of the Reserved Authority, to attempt to apply regulations which are inconsistent with the Proj ect Approvals pursuant to the exercise of the Reserved Authority. Accordingly, OWNER desires assurances that the CITY shall not and the CITY agrees that it shall not further restrict or limit the development of the Property in violation of this Agreement except in strict accordance with the Reserved Authority. 5.3. Judicial Review. Based on the foregoing, in the event OWNER judicially (including by way of a reference proceeding) challenges the application of a future land use regulation as being in violation of this Agreement and as not being a land use regulation adopted pursuant to the Reserved Authority, OWNER shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that such rule, regulation or policy is inconsistent with the Existing Regulations and the Development Plan Approval(s) and the CITY shall thereafter bear the burden of proof in establishing that such regulation was adopted pursuant to and in 38 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 accordance with the Reserved Authority and was not applied by the CITY in violation of this Agreement. 6. Indemnification. 6.1. OWNER Indemnification. Except to the extent of the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties (as defined below), OWNER agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the CITY, the Temecula Community Facilities District, the Temecula Housing Authority, the Temecula Public Financing Authority, any community facilities districts organized by such entities, and their agents, officers, contractors, attorneys, and employees ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any claims or proceeding against the Indemnified Parties to set aside, void or annul the approval of this Agreement or any Development Plan Approval(s) or Subsequent Development Plan Approval(s) or actions taken thereto pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Agreement, OWNER's obligation pursuant to this Section is not a benefit or burden running with the land and shall not be assigned to any person without the prior, express written consent of the City. OWNER shall deposit the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) toward the expected costs of defense, as reasonably determined by the City Attorney, with the City within five (5) business days of notice from the City of the claim and shall add to the deposit within five (5) business days from the , written request of City. Without in any way limiting the provisions of this Section, the parties hereto agree that this Section shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2778 in effect as of the Effective Date. 6.2. OWNER Indemnification for Legal Challenge. Notwithstanding Section 6.1 above, and as a separate and distinct obligation of OWNER, OWNER agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against each and every claim, action, proceeding, cost, fee, legal cost, damage, award or liability of any nature arising from alleged damages caused to third parties and alleging that the Indemnified Parties is or are liable therefor as a direct or indirect result of the City's approval of this Agreement or any Development Plan Approval(s) or Subsequent Development Plan Approval(s) pursuant to this Agreement. OWNER'S duties under this Section are solely subject to and conditioned upon the Indemnified Parties written request to OWNER to indemnify the Indemnified Parties. OWNER shall deposit the expected costs of defense, as reasonably determined by the City Attorney, with the City within five (5) business days of notice from the City of the claim and shall add to the deposit within five (5) business days from the request of City. Without in any way limiting the provisions of this Section, the parties hereto agree that this Section shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2778 in effect as of the Effective Date. 6.3. Indemnification of RCA. The MSHCP is overseen by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, a Joint Powers Agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. ("RCA"). The RCA has not, to date, granted any approval of the Project. The City and Applicant have consulted with the RCA regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP. While that consultation would not constitute an approval of the Project and thus should not subject RCA to any legal action, the Applicant or any successor -in -interest shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the RCA 39 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 or its Board, agents, officers, officials, and employees from any petition for writ of mandate, or other claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval of the Project or related to the approval of the Project, that names the RCA, including, but not limited to, any associated costs, damages, attorney fees awards and administrative and legal expenses incurred by the RCA related to such actions, including but not limited to costs associated with California Public Records Act requests submitted to the RCA related to the Project and for the purposes of the action. The RCA shall promptly notify the Applicant and City of any such claim, action, or proceeding and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the RCA fails to promptly notify the Applicant and City of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold harmless the RCA. The obligations imposed by this condition include, but are not limited to, the following: the Applicant shall pay all reasonable legal services expenses the RCA incurs in connection with any such claim, action or proceeding, whether it incurs such expenses directly, whether it is ordered by a court to pay such expenses, or whether it incurs such expenses by providing legal services through RCA legal counsel. The Applicant and City agree that all litigation pleadings in the action filed jointly with or on behalf of the RCA will be subject to review, revision, and approval by RCA legal counsel. 6.4. Indemnification Procedures. Each Indemnifying Party shall retain settlement authority with respect to any matter concerning that Indemnifying Party provided that prior to settling any such lawsuit or claim with respect to that Indemnifying Party, the Indemnifying Party shall provide the CITY and the other Indemnifying Parties with a minimum ten (10) business days written notice of its intent to settle such lawsuit or claim. If the CITY or the other Indemnifying Parties, in their discretion, do not desire to settle such lawsuit or claim, it may notify the applicable Indemnifying Party of the same, in which event the applicable Indemnifying Party may still elect to settle the lawsuit or claim as to itself, but the non -settling parties may elect to continue such lawsuit, at their cost and expense, so long as: (i) with respect to the CITY, the CITY's decision is predicated upon a legitimate and articulated threat to either the exercise of its police powers or a risk of harm to those present within the CITY; or (ii) with respect to the other Indemnifying Parties, the decision is predicated upon a legitimate and articulated threat to the Development of that Indemnifying Party' s property. 7. Relationship of Parties. The contractual relationship between the CITY and OWNER is such that OWNER is an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of the CITY. The CITY and OWNER hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained in this Agreement or in any document executed in connection with the Project shall be construed as making the CITY and OWNER joint ventures or partners. 8. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by mutual consent of the parties in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65868. No amendment or modification of this Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each party hereto. This provision shall not limit the CITY's or OWNER's remedies as provided by Section 10. 40 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 9. Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement. 9.1. Periodic Review. The CITY and OWNER shall review this Agreement at least once every 12 -month period from the Effective Date. The CITY shall notify OWNER in writing of the date for review at least thirty (30) days prior thereto. Such periodic review shall be conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 65865.1. 9.2. Good Faith Compliance. During each periodic review, OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. OWNER agrees to furnish such reasonable evidence of good faith compliance as the CITY, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require. If requested by OWNER, the CITY agrees to provide to OWNER, a certificate that OWNER or a successor or assignee is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, provided OWNER reimburses the CITY for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by the CITY with respect thereto. 9.3. Failure to Conduct Annual Review. The failure of the CITY to conduct the annual review shall not be an OWNER default. Further, OWNER shall not be entitled to any remedy for the CITY's failure to conduct this annual review. 9.4. Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the annual review, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this Agreement by giving written notice to OWNER. Within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice, OWNER shall submit evidence to the CITY Council of OWNER's good faith compliance with this Agreement and such review and determination shall proceed in the same manner as provided for the annual review. The City Council shall initiate its review pursuant to this Section 9.4. only if it has probable cause to believe the CITY's general health, safety or welfare is at risk as a result of specific acts or failures to act by OWNER. 9.5. Administration of Agreement. Any final decision by the CITY staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement and Development of the Property in accordance herewith may be appealed by OWNER to the City Council, provided that any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after OWNER receives written notice that the staff decision is final. The City Council shall render, at a noticed public hearing, its decision to affirm, reverse or modify the staff decision within thirty (30) days after the appeal was filed. 9.6. Availability of Documents. If requested by OWNER, the CITY agrees to provide to OWNER copies of any documents, reports or other items reviewed, accumulated or prepared by or for the CITY in connection with any periodic compliance review by the CITY, provided OWNER reimburses the CITY for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by the CITY with respect thereto. The CITY shall respond to OWNER's request on or before ten (10) business days have elapsed from the CITY's receipt of such request. 41 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 10. Events of Default: Remedies and Termination. Unless amended or canceled as provided in Section 8, or modified or suspended pursuant to Government Code Section 65869.5 or terminated pursuant to this Section 10., this Agreement is enforceable by either party hereto. 10.1. Defaults by Owner. If the CITY determines on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this agreement, the CITY shall, by written notice to OWNER, specify the manner in which OWNER has failed to so comply and state the steps OWNER must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within sixty (60) days after the effective date of notice from the CITY specifying the manner in which OWNER has failed to so comply, OWNER does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance as required and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then OWNER shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement. The CITY may terminate this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1. OWNER agrees that its default hereunder is a conclusive representation that it is consenting to the cancellation of this Agreement. In event of default by OWNER, except as provided in Section 10.3., the CITY's sole remedy for any breach of this Agreement by OWNER shall be the CITY's right to terminate this Agreement. 10.2. Defaults by CITY. If OWNER determines on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence that the CITY has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, OWNER shall, by written notice to the CITY, specify the manner in which the CITY has failed to so comply and state the steps the CITY must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within sixty (60) days after the effective date of notice from OWNER specifying the manner in which the CITY has failed to so comply, the CITY does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance as required and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then the CITY shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement and OWNER may terminate this Agreement and, in addition, may pursue any other remedy available at law or equity, including specific performance as set forth in Section 10.3. 10.3. Remedies. 10.3.1. OWNER's Remedies. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Proj ect, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide for other benefits. OWNER has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts. For the above reasons, the CITY and OWNER agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if the CITY fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and that OWNER shall have the right to seek and obtain specific performance as a remedy for any breach of this 42 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 Agreement. Moreover, the CITY would not have consented to this Agreement if it were to be subject to damages for breach of this Agreement. Therefore, OWNER specifically agrees that it has no authority under this Agreement or otherwise to seek monetary damages against the CITY for any breach of this Agreement by the CITY, and agrees not to seek monetary damages against the CITY for breach of this Agreement. 10.3.2. CITY's Remedies. In the event of an uncured default by OWNER of the terms of this Agreement, CITY, at its option, may give notice of its intent to terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to this Agreement and/or the Development Agreement Act, in which event the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council in the manner set forth in the Agreement or the Development Agreement Act. The CITY and OWNER further acknowledge that, if OWNER fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement, the CITY shall have the right to refuse to issue any permits or other approvals which OWNER would otherwise have been entitled to pursuant to this Agreement. Therefore, the CITY's remedy of terminating this Agreement shall be sufficient in most circumstances if OWNER fails to carry out its obligations hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the CITY issues a permit or other approval pursuant to this Agreement in reliance (explicitly stated in writing) upon a specified condition being satisfied by OWNER in the future, and if OWNER then fails to satisfy such condition, the CITY shall be entitled to specific performance for the sole purpose of causing OWNER to satisfy such condition. The CITY's right to specific performance shall be limited to those circumstances set forth above, and the CITY shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause OWNER to otherwise proceed with the Development of the Project in any manner. 10.4. Institution of Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, OWNER or the CITY may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenants or agreements herein, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, or to obtain any other remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Such legal action shall be heard by a reference from the Riverside County Superior Court pursuant to the reference procedures of the California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 638, et seq. OWNER and the CITY shall agree upon a single referee who shall then try all issues, whether of fact or law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances of the controversy before him. If OWNER and the CITY are unable to agree on a referee within ten (10) days of a written request to do so by either party hereto, either party may seek to have one appointed pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 640. The cost of such proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the parties. Any referee selected pursuant to this Section 10.4 shall be considered a temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the California Constitution. 10.5. Estoppel Certificates. Either party may at any time deliver written notice to the other party requesting an estoppel certificate (the "Estoppel Certificate") stating: of the parties. 10.5.1. The Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation 43 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 10.5.2. The Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if so amended, identifying the amendments. 10.5.3. No default in the performance of the requesting party's obligations under the Agreement exists or, if a default does exist, the nature and amount of any default. A party receiving a request for an Estoppel Certificate shall provide a signed certificate to the requesting party within thirty (30) days' after receipt of the request. The City Manager or any person designated by the City Manager may sign Estoppel Certificates on behalf of the CITY. Any officer of OWNER may sign on behalf of OWNER. An Estoppel Certificate may be relied on by assignees and mortgagees. In the event that one party requests an Estoppel Certificate from the other, the requesting party shall reimburse the other party for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by such party with respect thereto. 10.6. Local, State And Federal Laws. OWNER and its contractors shall carry out the design and construction of all private improvements on the Property and all Public Improvements in conformity with all applicable laws, including, without limitation, all applicable federal, state and local occupation, employment, prevailing wage, safety and health laws, rules, regulations and standards. Except to the extent of the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties, OWNER agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the Indemnified Parties (as defined in Section 6) harmless from and against any cost, expense, claim, charge or liability relating to or arising directly or indirectly from any breach by or failure of OWNER or its contractor(s) or agents to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. OWNER's indemnity obligations set forth in this Section shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement unless OWNER'S obligation has been transferred to another party pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 11. Waivers and Delays. 11.1. No Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, and failure by a party to exercise its rights upon a default by the other party hereto, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to demand strict compliance by such other party in the future. 11.2. Third Parties. Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a third person, except as provided in Section 11.3. 11.3. Force Majeure. A party shall not be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond such party's control, government regulations (including, without limitation, local, state and federal environmental and natural resource regulations), voter initiative or referenda, moratoria (including, without limitation, any "development 44 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 moratorium" as that term is applied in Government Code Section 66452.6) or judicial decisions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, OWNER is not entitled pursuant to this Section to an extension of time to perform because of past, present, or future difficulty in obtaining suitable construction financing or permanent financing for the Development, or because of economic or market conditions. In the event OWNER or CITY desires to invoke these Force Majeure provisions, the party shall notify the other party of a Force Majeure event within thirty (30) days of the event and include a detailed description of the Force Majeure event and how it affects that party's compliance with the terms of this Agreement. 11.4. Extensions. The Term of this Agreement and the time for performance by OWNER or the CITY of any of its obligations hereunder or pursuant to the Project Approvals shall be extended by the period of time that any of the events described in Section 11.3. exist and/or prevent performance of such obligations. In addition, the Term shall be extended for delays arising from the following events for a time equal to the duration of each delay which occurs during the Term: 11.4.1. Litigation. The period of time after the Effective Date during which litigation related to the Development Plan Approval(s) or having the actual effect of delaying implementation of the Project is pending, including litigation pending on the Effective Date. This period shall include any time during which appeals may be filed or are pending. 12. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or sent by an independent courier service with confirmation of delivery. Notices required to be given to the CITY shall be addressed as follows: CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street. Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: City Manager With a copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Ave., 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attention: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Notices required to be given to OWNER shall be addressed as follows: Temecula West Village, LLC 179 Calle Magdalena #201 Encinitas, CA 92024 Attention: Robert F. Anselmo 45 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 With a copy to: Lieberg Oberhansley LLP 41911 Fifth Street, Suite 300 Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Philip D. Oberhansley, Esq. A party may change its address for notices by giving notice in writing to the other party as required herein and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. 13. Attorneys' Fees. If legal action is brought by either party against the other for breach of this Agreement, including actions derivative from the performance of this Agreement, or to compel performance under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and shall also be entitled to recover its contribution for the costs of the referee referred to in Section 10.4 above as an item of damage and/or recoverable costs, provided, however, that the attorney fees that may be awarded to the OWNER shall not exceed the hourly rate of attorneys employed by the CITY or the amount of attorneys fees and costs charged to the CITY in the litigation. 14. Recording. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation hereto shall be recorded, at no cost to the CITY, in the Official Records of Riverside County by the City Clerk within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. 15. Effect of Agreement on Title. 15.1. Effect on Title. OWNER and the CITY agree that this Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Agreement has terminated. 15.2. Encumbrances and Lenders' Rights. 15.2.1. CITY Cooperation with Lender. OWNER and the CITY hereby agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit any owner of any interest in the Property, or any portion thereof, at any time or from time to time in any manner, at its or their sole discretion, from encumbering the Property, the improvements thereon, or any portion thereof with any mortgage, deed of trust sale and leaseback arrangement or other security device. The CITY acknowledges that any Lender (as hereinafter defined) may require certain interpretations of or modifications to the Agreement or the project and the CITY agrees, upon request, from time to time from OWNER, to meet with the property owner(s) and/or representatives of such Lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification through an amendment to this Agreement or an Operating Memorandum. The CITY further agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification to the extent such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Agreement. 46 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 A default under this Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Lender. 15.2.2. Seniority of Agreement. This Agreement is and shall be senior and superior to the lien of any Mortgage and to all renewals, modifications, consolidations, replacements and extensions thereof; provided, however, CITY agrees that, CITY will attorn to and recognize the mortgagee of a mortgage or beneficiary of a deed of trust or holder of any other security interest in the Property or any portion thereof and their successors and assigns, including without limitation the purchaser at a judicial or non judicial foreclosure sale or a person or entity which obtains title by deed -in -lieu of foreclosure ("Lender") as an approved Development Transferee pursuant to Section 2.5.1. of this Agreement for the unexpired balance (and any extensions, if exercised) of the term of this Agreement upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. 15.2.3. Notice to Lender. The Lender shall, upon written request to the CITY, be entitled to receive a copy of any notice of Default (as defined in Section 10.1. hereof) delivered to OWNER. As a pre -condition to the institution of legal proceedings or termination proceedings, the CITY shall deliver to all Lenders who have requested such notice written notification of any default by OWNER in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement which is not cured within sixty (60) days (the "Second Default Notice") and shall allow the Lender(s) an opportunity to cure such defaults as set forth herein. The Second Notice of Default shall specify in detail the alleged default and the suggested means to cure it. After receipt of the Second Default Notice, each such Lender shall have the right, at its sole option, within sixty (60) days to cure such default to the satisfaction of the CITY or, if such default cannot reasonably be cured within that sixty (60) day period, to commence to cure such default and diligently proceed with such cure to the satisfaction of the CITY, in which case no default shall exist and the CITY shall take no further action. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if such default shall be a default which can only be remedied by such Lender obtaining possession of the Property, or any portion thereof, and such Lender seeks to obtain possession, such Lender shall have until sixty (60) days after the date obtaining such possession to cure or, if such default cannot reasonably be cured within such period, then to commence to cure such default. 16. Severability of Terms. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby if the tribunal finds that the invalidity was not a material part of consideration for either party. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants. The covenants contained herein constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party. 17. Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation in effect as of the Agreement Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 3.3.2. above, to the extent that subsequent amendments to the Government Code would affect the provisions of this Agreement, such amendments shall not be applicable to this Agreement unless necessary 47 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 for this Agreement to be enforceable or required by law or unless this Agreement is modified pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Agreement and Government Code Section 65868 as in effect on the Agreement Date. 18. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms. 18.1. Interpretation and Governing Law. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The parties understand and agree that this Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of the CITY, and in particular, the CITY's police powers. In this regard, the parties understand and agree that this Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute the surrender or abnegation of the CITY's governmental powers over the Property. 18.2. Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 18.3. Gender. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. 18.4. No Joint and Several Liability. Except for the obligations of OWNER to design, acquire, construct and install the public and private improvements described in this Agreement and except for the obligations of the OWNER to convey property to the CITY or some other governmental entity, at any time that there is more than one OWNER, no breach hereof by an OWNER shall constitute a breach by any other OWNER. Except for the obligations of OWNER to design, acquire, construct and install the public and private improvements described in this Agreement and except for the obligations of the OWNER to convey property to the CITY or some other governmental entity, any remedy, obligation, or liability, including but not limited to the obligations to defend and indemnify the CITY, arising by reason of such breach shall be applicable solely to the OWNER that committed the breach. However, the CITY shall send a copy of any notice of violation to all OWNERS, including those not in breach. 18.5. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this agreement of which time is an element. 18.6. Recitals. All Recitals set forth herein are incorporated in this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 18.7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and the Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussion and agreements between the parties, and no parol evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. 48 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 18.8. Authority to Execute; No Liens; No Litigation. OWNER, warrants and represents to CITY that: (i) it is duly organized and existing; (ii) it is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement; (iii) by so executing this Agreement, OWNER, is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement; (iv) this Agreement is legal, valid and enforceable against the OWNER; (v) OWNER's entering into and performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement do not violate any provision of any other agreement to which OWNER is bound; and (vi) there is no existing or threatened litigation or legal proceedings of which OWNER, is aware which could prevent OWNER from entering into or performing their obligations set forth in this Agreement. Within ten (10) days of the City Council's adoption of the Authorizing Ordinance, OWNER shall submit to the City a duly executed consent and subordination agreement from each lender or other person with an interest in the Project that consents to this Agreement and subordinates its rights in the Property to this Agreement. Such subordination and consent agreement shall be in substantially the form of Attachment 11 and approved by the City Attorney. 18.9. Attachments. Attachments 1 through 11 identified as follows, are attached to this Agreement and are incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Attachment 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attachment 2 DESCRIPTION OF TIMING OF OFF-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Attachment 3 DESCRIPTION OF TIMING OF ON-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Attachment 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND DEPICTION OF NATURE CENTER PHASE PARCELS Attachment 5 EXISTING REGULATIONS Attachment 6 DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL(S) Attachment 7 FORM OF AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE OFF-SITE RIGHT OF WAY (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66462.5 Attachment 8 DESCRIPTION OF SLOPES TO BE RESTORED Attachment 9 DESCRIPTION OF HILLSIDE ESCARPMENT Attachment 10 DESCRIPTION OF 65.06 ACRES Attachment 11 FORM OF CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT 49 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 19. Extension of Maps. In accordance with Government Code Section 66452.6(a), any tentative map approved which relates to all or a portion of the Property shall be extended for the greater of (i) the Term of the Agreement or (ii) expiration of the tentative map pursuant to Section 66452.6. 20. Not for Benefit of Third Parties. This Agreement and all provisions hereof are for the exclusive benefit of the CITY and OWNER and its Development Transferees and shall not be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any third party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year dated below. "CITY" ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney 50 CITY OF TEMECULA, a Municipal corporation Maryann Edwards, Mayor "OWNER" TEMECULA WEST VILLAGE, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company By: Name: Title: Manager [Resolution of authority is required.] City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ATTACHMENT 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Real property in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL A: (APN: 940-310-047-2) PARCEL 1 AND THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 23969 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 169 PAGES 11 THROUGH 13 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE NORTH 24° 54' 38" WEST, 332.99 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, NORTH 41° 48' 41" EAST, 523.91 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE, NORTH 33° 58' 25" WEST, 313.49 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCELS 1 AND 2; THENCE, NORTH 53° 45' 28" WEST, 270.12 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE, NORTH 85° 13' 55" WEST, 122.84 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF RIDGE PARK WAY, BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 189.00 FEET A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 83° 17' 34" EAST; THENCE, SOUTHWESTERLY, 252.14 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 76° 26' 08"; THENCE, SOUTH 24° 54' 38" EAST, 684.70 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCELS 1 AND 2 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 51 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 NOTE: SAID LAND IS ALSO SHOWN AS ADJUSTED PARCEL "A" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 17, A COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED JUNE 3, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 202396, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL B: (APN: 940-310-044-9 and 940-310-048-3) THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 23969, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 169 PAGES 11 THROUGH 13 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE, NORTH 24° 54' 38" WEST, 332.99 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE, NORTH 41° 48' 41" EAST, 523.91 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE, SOUTH 33° 58' 25" EAST, 35.08 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE; THENCE, SOUTH 45° 27' 33" EAST, 18.02 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PUJOL STREET, BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING BEARS SOUTH 82° 36' 47" WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY, 31.32 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38° 04' 20"; THENCE, SOUTH 45° 27' 33" EAST, 253.96 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES OF PUJOL TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE, SOUTH 44° 24' 40" WEST, 623.21 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. NOTE: SAID LAND IS ALSO SHOWN AS ADJUSTED PARCEL "B" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 17, A COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED JUNE 3, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 202396, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 52 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 PARCEL C: (APN: 940-310-045-0 and 940-310-046-1) PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP 23969, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON FILE IN BOOK 169 PAGES 11, 12, AND 13, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL D: (APN: 940-310-015-3 and 940-310-016-4) PARCELS 20 AND 21, AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP 18254 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON FILE IN BOOK 116, PAGES 69 THROUGH 78 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL E: (APN: 940-310-013-1 AND 940-320-001-1 THROUGH 940-320-007-7) PARCELS 23 THROUGH 29 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAP 18254, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 116, PAGES 69 THROUGH 78, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL F: (APN: 922-210-049-3) THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 10814, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 78 PAGES 5, 6, 7 AND 8 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, LYING NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4 AND THE BEGINNING OF THE LINE BEING HEREBY DESCRIBED: THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES ARE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4; THENCE SOUTH 39° 28' 35" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 543.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 39° 45' 41" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 408.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49° 04' 03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 760.59; THENCE NORTH 40° 55' 57" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET; 53 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 THENCE SOUTH 49° 04' 03" EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4, A DISTANCE OF 768.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60° 43' 38" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 432.05 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4, AND THE END OF THE LINE BEING DESCRIBED. 54 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ATTACHMENT 2 DESCRIPTION AND TIMING OF OFF-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 1. North Phase Off -Site Improvements. A. North Phase (Villages A and B). The following Off -Site Improvements shall be completed before the first (1st) building permit is issued for Villages A and B of the North Phase of the Development: (i) Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side of Vincent Moraga between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Road northbound right turn lane improvements within this segment; (ii) Acquisition of right-of-way on the south side of Rancho California Road between Vincent Moraga Drive and the Murrieta Creek Bridge and construction of all intersection improvements within this road segment including an additional westbound left turn lane on Rancho California Road to Vincent Moraga Drive; (iii) Traffic signal and utility relocation where needed and construction of the ultimate build -out of the Rancho California Road, Diaz Road and Vincent Moraga Drive intersection; (iv) Construction of the Ridge Park Drive and Western Bypass Road intersection improvements to provide left -turn ingress and right-in/right-out to Ridge Park Drive. OWNER shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement pursuant to Section 4.2.3 herein; and (v) Install multi -way stop controls at the First Street & Pujol Street intersection. OWNER shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement pursuant to Section 4.2.3 herein. B. Remaining Off -Site Improvements of the North Phase. The remaining Off -Site Improvements of the North Phase shall be completed by the earlier to occur of: (i) before the three hundred fiftieth (350th) building permit is issued for the North Phase; and (ii) before the first (1st) building permit is issued for the Central Phase, and shall consist of the following: (i) Acquisition of right-of-way on the west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Road improvements within this road segment; and (ii) Acquisition of right-of-way on the east and west sides of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Ridge Park Drive and construction of the designed Western Bypass Road improvements within this road segment. 55 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 2. Central Phase Off -Site Improvements. A. Central Phase (Village C). The following Off -Site Improvements shall be completed before the first (lst) building permit is issued for Village C of the Central Phase of the Development: (i) Construction of one (1) new left turn lane (re -stripe only), and optimize signals and modify head at the Ynez Road and Santiago Road Intersection; and (ii) Construction of traffic signal improvements at the First Street and Pujol Street Intersection. OWNER shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement pursuant to Section 4.2.3 herein. B. Central Phase (Traffic Mitigation). The remaining Improvements of the Central Phase shall be commenced before the seven hundredth (700th) building permit is issued for the Project, and shall be completed before the earlier to occur of (i) the nine hundred and fiftieth (950th) building permit is issued for the Project, or (ii) the first (1st) building permit is issued for the South Phase of the Project, and shall consist of the following: (i) Construction of either (i) the Western Bypass Bridge (Off -Site Improvements), or (ii) the construction of Western Bypass Road phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway (On Site Improvements). CITY shall allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or Nature Center Parcel prior to Civic Phase grading permit issuance. 3. South Phase Off -Site Improvements. A. South Phase (Villages D, E and F). The following Off -Site Improvements shall be completed before the first (1st) building permit is issued for Villages D, E and F of the South Phase of the Development: (i) Construction of the Western Bypass Bridge. 4. Western Bypass Bridge Phase. Construction of the Western Bypass Bridge shall be completed prior to the earlier of (i) the nine hundred and fiftieth (950th) building permit being issued for the Project, (ii) the first (1st) building permit being issued for the South Phase, and (iii) the first (1st) building permit being issued for the Civic Phase. 5. Traffic Signal Optimization. A. OWNER shall optimize traffic signals pursuant to the Conditions of Approval for the Development Plan. 56 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ATTACHMENT 3 DESCRIPTION AND TIMING OF ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 1. North Phase On -Site Improvements. A. North Phase (Villages A and B). The following On -Site Improvements within Villages A and B of the North Phase of the Development shall be completed before the first (1st) building permit is issued for these Villages: (i) Construction of the designed onsite Western Bypass Road phase 1 improvements from the Project's northern property line to the future Altair Vista intersection; and (ii) Construction of Altair Vista improvements within this North Phase (Phase 1 of Altair Vista); 2. Central Phase On -Site Improvements. A. Central Phase (Village C). The following On -Site Improvements of Village C of the Central Phase of the Development shall be completed before the first (1st) building permit is issued for this Village: (i) Construction of Altair Vista from the northern boundary of the Central Phase to/including the roundabout west of the Village C Park (Phase 2 of Altair Vista); (ii) Construction of Coromell Trail between Altair Vista and First Street; (iii) Construction of "A" Street Phase 1 with secondary access provided by neighborhood internal streets; and (iv) Construction of trail at the Village 'B' toe of slope to connect Western Bypass pedestrians and/or cyclists to 6th Street and ultimately across the Main Street bridge to Old Town. B. Central Phase (Village C Park). The following On -Site Improvements in the Central Phase shall be completed before building permits are issued for any pads within the Development south of the Village C Park: (i) Construction of Altair Vista from the roundabout west of the Village C Park to the southern boundary of the Central Phase (Phase 3 of Altair Vista); (ii) Construction of "A" Street Phase 2 including the vehicular bridge over the Village C Park; and 57 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 (iii) Construction of the Main Street transition, grand stairway, ADA access from Main Street (offsite) to 'A' Street (onsite) and Village C Park "soft" landscaping. C. Remaining On -Site Improvements of the Central Phase. The remaining Improvements of the Central Phase shall be commenced before the seven hundredth (700th) building permit is issued for the Project, and shall be completed before the earlier to occur of (i) the nine hundred and fiftieth (950th) building permit is issued for the Project, or (ii) the first (1st) building permit is issued for the South Phase of the Project, and shall consist of the following: (i) Construction of either (i) the Western Bypass Bridge (Off Site Improvements), or (ii) the construction of Western Bypass Road phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway (On Site Improvements). CITY shall allow for stockpiling of excess dirt on either Village G or Nature Center Parcel prior to Civic Phase grading permit issuance; and (ii) Construction of either (i) the Recreation Center (west building, pool and spa), or (ii) the Clubhouse (east building overlooking the park). 3. South Phase On -Site Improvements. A. South Phase (Villages D, E and F). The following On -Site Improvements within Villages D, E and F of the South Phase of the Development shall be completed before the first (1st) building permit is issued for these Villages: Altair Vista); (i) Construction of the remainder of Altair Vista (Phase 4 of (ii) Construction of "B" Street North; (iii) Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass Road and Altair Vista intersection; and (iv) Construction of the Village C Park "hard" landscaping. B. Remaining On -Site Improvements in the South Phase (Villages D, E and F). The following On -Site Improvements within Villages D, E and F of the South Phase shall be completed before the three hundredth (300th) building permit is issued for these Villages: (i) Construction of the Village D Park; and (ii) Construction of the Village E/F Park. 58 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 4. Civic Phase On -Site Improvements. A. Civic Phase (Village G & Nature Center Parcel). The following On -Site Improvements within the Civic Phase of the Development shall be completed before the first (1st) building permit is issued for these Villages. (i) Construction of Western Bypass Road phase 3 improvements (2 western lanes; southbound); (ii) Construction of "B" Street South; (iii) Construction of "C" Street; (iv) Construction of signal improvements at the Western Bypass Road and "B" Street intersection; and (v) Construction of either (i) the Recreation Center (west building, pool/spa), or (ii) the Clubhouse (east building overlooking the park) (whichever building has not yet been constructed). 59 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ATTACHMENT 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND DEPICTION OF THE NATURE CENTER PHASE AND PARCELS City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 1 1 Nature Center Conservation Easement Parcel 0 14/ 0 Nature Center Conservation Easement Parcel � 11 61 Nature Center Road Parcel Nature Center Parcel Nature Center Open Space Parcel City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ATTACHMENT 5 EXISTING REGULATIONS 1. The provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code in effect as of the Effective Date of this Development Agreement. 2. Ordinances, resolutions and written policies of the City relating to the regulation of land within the City, whether or not codified in the Temecula Municipal Code. 3. The General Plan of the City of Temecula, and each element thereof, in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. 3. The resolutions, ordinances, written policies and the rate and method of approtionment of any Community Facilities District formed and funded pursuant to Section 4.5.2 of this Agreement. 62 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ATTACHMENT 6 DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL(S) Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report. Adopted by Resolution No. 2017 - entitled: Planning Application No. PA14-0158, a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) by Ambient Communities to revise the current alignment of the proposed Western Bypass, and to replace the existing General Plan Land use designations of Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) with Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for land uses proposed in the Altair Specific Plan as Active Open Space (AO), Natural Open Space (NO), Residential (R), Mixed -Use (M), Mixed -Use Residential (MR), Educational (E), and Institutional (I). Adopted by Resolution No. 2017- . Planning Application No. PA14-0159, a proposed Specific Plan to include the four -lane divided Western Bypass, up to 1,750 residential units, an elementary school, up to 7,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, a clubhouse, civic site, parks, trails, and hillside preservation. The Specific Plan will also include off-site improvements for public infrastructure including, but not limited to, construction of the Western Bypass bridge over Murrieta Creek, road widening of Vincent Moraga, construction of Main Street north of Pujol, and off-site sewer, water and dry utility extensions. Adopted by Ordinance No. 2017- . Planning Application No. PA14-0160, a proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36959) that will create the residential planning areas consistent with the Specific Plan, and include the four -lane divided Western Bypass, public and private roads, an elementary school site, civic site, open space, parks, trails, and hillside preservation. Adopted by Resolution No. 2017- . 63 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ATTACHMENT 7 FORM OF AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE OFF-SITE RIGHT OF WAY (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66462.5 AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66462.5 (ALTAIR PROJECT) This Agreement for acquisition of real property pursuant to Government Code section 66462.5 is made and entered into as of , 201 , by and between TEMECULA WEST VILLAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("OWNER" hereinafter) and the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation ("CITY" hereinafter). OWNER and CITY are referred to jointly below as "parties." In consideration of the foregoing recitals of fact, all of which are expressly incorporated into this Agreement, the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and for the further consideration described in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes that each agrees to be true and correct. A. OWNER has submitted, and CITY has had approved, applications for development of a residential and/or commercial project on that certain real property of OWNER generally located in the City of Temecula; B. On , the of the City of Temecula adopted thereby approving OWNER's "Proj ect"; C. To facilitate the orderly development of the Project on the above -referenced property, a specific condition of approval required OWNER to construct . However, satisfaction of the condition involves real property that is neither owned by OWNER or CITY (the "Off-site Property" hereinafter). A legal description and map depiction of the Off-site Property required to satisfy the condition of approval is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. D. Pursuant to California Government Code section 66462.5, when a condition of a subdivision map approval or a development agreement requires the installation or construction of improvements on off-site property not owned or controlled by the OWNER, and title cannot be obtained by negotiated purchase, a city is required to commence proceedings to acquire off-site property by eminent domain or such off-site improvement conditions will be waived. Pursuant to said section 66462.5, a city and a OWNER may enter into an agreement to allocate the costs and responsibilities for acquisition of such off-site property. 64 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 E. OWNER has recorded or intends to record Tract Map No. and, under a separate subdivision improvement agreement, has agreed (and posted security) to undertake and complete all required public improvements set forth in , including said Off-site Property, following recordation of Tract Map No. F. CITY has been provided credible evidence that OWNER has made a good faith effort to acquire the Off-site Property but has been unable to do so by negotiated purchase; G. California Government Code Section 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1230.010 et seq. authorizes CITY to acquire by eminent domain any and all property necessary for purposes; H. The CITY must comply with Relocation Assistance Act, Government Code Sections 7260 et seq., and the Eminent Domain Law, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1230.010 et seq., and their implementing regulations, in acquiring property for public improvements ("Public Land Acquisition Statutes"). I. To facilitate the satisfaction of the condition of approval, CITY and OWNER now mutually desire to enter into this Agreement under Government Code Section 66462.5 concerning acquisition of the Off-site Property and to allocate responsibility between the respective parties; and J. This Agreement is solely made in furtherance of the authority granted under Government Code Section 66462.5. The parties recognize that CITY cannot exercise its power of eminent domain until all legally required preconditions under the Land Acquisition Statutes, including a Resolution of Necessity have been lawfully adopted by the City Council of the CITY pursuant to law. It is neither a commitment nor an announcement of an intent by CITY to acquire any or all of the Off-site Property that may be identified in this Agreement. In the event CITY elects to commence an action after the required public hearing on the Resolution of Necessity, then CITY shall cause the eminent domain action for the acquisition of the specified interest or interests (whether fee, leasehold or otherwise) in and to the Off-site Property to be filed and expeditiously processed to completion by and through the use of CITY's power of eminent domain. 2. CITY Acquisition of Off-site Property. Subject to OWNER's timely and continuous performance of all elements of this Agreement, CITY shall cause an action pursuant to the Land Acquisition Statutes to be pursued to completion for the acquisition of the Off-site Property using legal counsel and consultants of CITY' selection. OWNER agrees CITY's selected legal counsel is not representing OWNER in any capacity and further that OWNER is not a third party beneficiary under the engagement agreement between CITY and CITY's selected legal counsel. 3. OWNER Responsible for All Costs of Acquisition. OWNER shall solely responsible for all Off-site Property acquisition costs, which shall include, but not be limited to, the costs of title reports and/or litigation guarantees, litigation expenses, court 65 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 costs, attorneys' fees, deposits necessary to take immediate possession of any such interest, deposits reflecting_verdicts as to the value of any such interest necessary to obtain any final order or orders of condemnation, any sum paid as and for a settlement of any suit filed by CITY pursuant to this Agreement, payments for land and improvements on the land, severance damages, fixtures and equipment payments, payments for loss of business goodwill, relocation benefits, precondemnation damages, relocation expenses, abandonment damages, Off-site Property owners' statutory costs and litigation expenses authorized by the Eminent Domain Law, codified as Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), Public Land Acquisition Statutes and any and all fees, costs and expenses arising from or related to any of the foregoing items, actions, and proceedings. No settlement of an action brought by CITY to acquire Off -Site Property or arising from CITY's action(s) shall be effective without OWNER first providing its written approval thereof to CITY, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 4. Limitations on City's Ability to Acquire Off-site Property; Time Waiver. The parties hereto recognize that if the City Council, in its discretion, adopts a Resolution of Necessity and authorizes the filing of an eminent domain proceeding, the City may not be able to obtain the fee title to the Property within the time set forth in Government Code section 66462.5 and in recognition of this potential circumstance the parties hereby waive the time requirements for action by the City set forth in Government Code Section 66462.5. 5. Deposit of Costs. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement by CITY, OWNER shall deliver to CITY the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00). CITY agrees to deposit said sum in a separate CITY account ("Separate Fund") and to use the principal sum, and any interest earned thereon, in furtherance of satisfying the costs specified in this Agreement, other than the unsatisfied costs identified in this paragraph. A. CITY shall, on a monthly basis, or as often as CITY deems necessary, provide OWNER with an accounting of disbursements from the Separate Fund established pursuant to paragraph 5, above. In the event disbursements reduce the balance of the fund to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) or less, OWNER, five (5) business days following a written request of CITY, shall deliver to CITY such additional monies as are necessary to maintain the balance in the separate fund at Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00). B. In addition to its deposits to the Separate Fund, OWNER agrees to deliver to CITY, promptly upon demand by CITY, the entire amount CITY determines is required by the Eminent Domain Law ("Deposit Amount"), which amount CITY will deposit under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1255.010, et seq. if CITY and OWNER agree that CITY should seek prejudgment possession of the Off -Site Property. If the City' s expert valuation witness determines at the date of exchange of valuation data under Code of Civil Procedure section 1258.220 that the fair market value of the Off-site Property is higher than the Deposit Amount, OWNER shall deliver this additional amount to CITY upon five (5) business days written notice by CITY or as ordered by any court of competent jurisdiction. CITY shall promptly deposit this additional amount with the Court. 66 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 C. If for any reason OWNER fails to maintain the Separate Fund balance referenced in this paragraph, or fails to provide the monies as required by this paragraph, CITY may utilize and draw down all or any portion of the improvement security deposited pursuant to the separate subdivision improvement agreement to pay any of the costs and expenses referenced herein for acquisition of the Off-site Property. CITY shall not commence any activity under or in furtherance of this Agreement until OWNER provides CITY and CITY agrees with and approves a written acknowledgment from both the OWNER and the person, firm, or entity who has provided the referenced security that: (i) the CITY may make demand on the security for the purposes described in this Agreement; (ii) the surety will promptly pay such monies to CITY upon CITY's demand and (iii) the amount of the security deposit is adequate to fund both the anticipated physical improvements under the map and the anticipated costs of acquisition pursuant to this Agreement. D. When any eminent domain action which was commenced pursuant to this Agreement is concluded, CITY shall remit to OWNER the balance of the separate fund within sixty (60) days after full payment of just compensation, costs and all applicable litigation expenses have been made to Off-site property owners. Additionally, CITY shall expeditiously withdraw any funds remaining on deposit with the Court and disburse the same to OWNER once a final order of condemnation or a dismissal of the eminent domain action is entered by the Court. 6. OWNER Acquisition of Property. If OWNER should independently acquire all or any portion of the Off-site Property by negotiated purchase after an eminent domain action is filed by the CITY, OWNER shall immediately notify CITY of the acquisition. After OWNER obtains fee title to the subject interest CITY shall move to abandon all or any unnecessary part of the action relating to the property acquired by negotiation. If a complete or partial abandonment is filed, OWNER shall bear any and all costs, expenses and/or damages related thereto, including, but not limited to, any condemnee's recoverable costs and/or recoverable attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1268.610, et seq. 7. General Provisions. A. Notices. Any and all notices, requests or other communications required or permitted to be given under this Agreement or by reason of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when: (i) delivered in person or by courier or overnight delivery service; or (ii) five (5) business days after mailing, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the parties at the following addresses or any such other address or addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing in the manner herein specified: CITY: CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92589 Attention: City Manager 67 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 With a copy to: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Attention: Mr. Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney OWNER: TEMECULA WEST VILLAGE, LLC 179 Calle Magdalena #201 Encinitas, CA 92024 Attention: Robert F. Anselmo With a copy to: LIEBERG OBERHANSLEY LLP 41911 Fifth Street, Suite 300 Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Philip D. Oberhansley, Esq. B. Further Cooperation. Each party to this Agreement agrees to cooperate by performing any further acts and by executing and delivering any and all additional monies, items, or documents which may be reasonably necessary to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement, and each party to this Agreement agrees that it will not act in any manner whatsoever which would hinder, impede, interfere or prohibit or make more onerous or difficult the performance of the other party hereto under this Agreement. C. Amendment. No amendment to this Agreement shall be effective unless first provided in writing and executed by the parties hereto. D. No Agency or Joint Venture. The terms and provisions of this Agreement shall not cause the parties hereto or any of each parties' agents, consultants, contractors or other providers of professional services to be construed in any manner whatsoever as partners, joint venturers or agents of each other in the performance of their respective duties and obligations under this Agreement, or subject either party to this Agreement to any obligation, loss, charge or expense of the other party to this Agreement. E. Time of Essence. Time is expressly made of the essence of each and every provision of this Agreement. F. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assignees. G. Remedies. No remedy or election hereunder shall be deemed to be exclusive but shall, wherever possible, be cumulative with all other remedies at or in equity. 68 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 H. Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action arising directly or indirectly under this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of Riverside County, California. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereof have executed and entered into this Agreement as of the date set forth above. TEMECULA WEST VILLAGE, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company By: Name: Title: Manager OWNER' S SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation Aaron Adams, City Manager Attest: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney 69 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 EXHIBIT 1 TO ATTACHMENT 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND MAP DEPICTION OF THE OFF-SITE PROPERTY 70 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ATTACHMENT 8 DESCRIPTION OF SLOPES TO BE RESTORED Tract 36569-1, Parcel 7 on the proposed Tentative Tract Map. Tract 36569-2, Parcel 18 on the proposed Tentative Tract Map. Tract 36569-3, Parcel 12 on the proposed Tentative Tract Map. Tract 36569, Parcel 7 on the proposed Tentative Tract Map. City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ATTACHMENT 9 DESCRIPTION OF HILLSIDE ESCARPMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the unincorporated area of the County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: LOT 6 TRACT 25980 IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 243, PAGES 92 THROUGH 96, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. APN: 940-090-010-9 72 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ATTACHMENT 10 DESCRIPTION OF 65.06 ACRES All that certain real property situated in the County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL. 1: GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 30, 1948, IN BOOK 905, PAGE(S) 101 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF COURSE DESCRIBED AS "NORTH 70 16' EAST, 339.19 FEET" IN SAID DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED ABOVE; THENCE NORTH 15° 37' 52" WEST, 570.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 7° 15' 21" WEST. 230.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0° 28' 33" EAST, 1130.53 FEET TO SAID WEST LINE OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 2: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER. OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIF' 8 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 30, 1948 IN BOOK 905, PAGE(S) 101 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAI' PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF COURSE DESCRIBED AS "NORTH 7° 16' EAST, 339.19 FEET" IN SAID DEFT) TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DESCRIBED ABOVE; THENCE NORTH 150 37' 52" WEST, 570.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 7° 15' 21" WEST, 230.22 FEET; THENCE NORTII 0° 28' 33" EAST, 1130.53 FEET TO SAID WEST LINE OF T1 -IAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED TO TIIE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. APNs 918-080-008 and 918-080-009 73 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 ATTACHMENT 11 CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT LENDER'S CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1 ("Lender") holds a security interest in a portion of the Property described in the "Development Agreement between City of Temecula and Temecula West Village, LLC" ("Agreement") set forth above between Temecula West Village, LLC, ("Developer"), and the City Of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), dated as of 2017. 2. Lender acknowledges that the Agreement is an integral parts of the Developer's land use entitlements for the Property and provide significant benefits to the Developer and to the Property. 3. In consideration of the rights and benefits conferred upon the Developer by the terms of the Agreement and in recognition of the accrual of those benefits to the Lender in the event Lender takes possession of the Property, Lender hereby consents to the Agreement, its recordation and further agrees that Lender's interests in the Property are subject to, and made subordinate to, the rights and interests of the City as set forth in the Agreement. 4. The City agrees to provide notice of any default to Lender pursuant to Section 10 of the Development Agreement at the following address: 5. The individuals who have signed this document on behalf of Lender have the legal power, right, and authority approve this Consent and bind the Lender. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Lender has executed this Consent and Subordination as of , 2017. [Name of Lender]: Name: Title: 74 City Council Hearing Draft: 12-7-17 Name: Title: 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, (insert name and title of the officer) 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 (Seal) 75 ATTACHMENT 11B FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS a l t -f r Altair Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Prepared for: City of Temecula Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. October 2017 Altair Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Temecula, California Prepared for: City of Temecula October 2017 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 555 West Beech St., Suite 460 San Diego, California 92101 500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1480 Los Angeles, California 90071 Golden Gateway Commons 160 Pacific Avenue, Suite 204 San Francisco, California 94111 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Key Findings 3 III. Fiscal Impact at Build -Out 5 IV. Fiscal Impact — 20 -Year Projection 14 V. Economic Benefits to Old Town 17 VI. Estimate of Permits and Fees 20 VII. Limiting Conditions 22 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES. I. INTRODUCTION A. Objective In accordance with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.'s (KMA's) March 26, 2015 contract, later amended on May 23, 2017, with the City of Temecula (City), KMA has undertaken a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) for the Altair Specific Plan (Project). As background, Ambient Communities (Developer) has proposed a Specific Plan for a 270 -acre property west of Old Town Temecula (Property). The Developer has applied for a General Plan Amendment to allow for the proposed zoning identified in the Specific Plan. The proposed Plan will include up to 1,750 housing units, a small amount of neighborhood commercial, an elementary school, and recreational amenities. The predominant land use will be residential, including attached and detached housing types, ranging from five to 33 units per acre. In addition, a non- contiguous 55 -acre site at the southern end of the property (South Parcel) will be reserved for a nature center that will benefit the public through recreation; tourism; and education related to culture, the natural environment, and sustainability in the region. The FIA prepared by KMA evaluated the recurring General Fund revenues and expenditures generated by the proposed Project over a 20 -year time period, beginning upon the sale of the Project's first residential unit in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and ending in FY 2038. In support of this 20 -year projection, KMA first prepared a fiscal impact model at build -out. The build -out scenario is a hypothetical, static model, expressed in FY 2017 dollars. While it is useful for establishing the fiscal impact methodology in the context of the City's General Fund budget. However, the 20 -year fiscal impact model provides a more realistic depiction of General Fund fiscal surplus or deficit generated by the Project as it is developed, absorbed, and stabilizes over time. In addition to the FIA, KMA included an assessment of the potential economic benefits to Old Town Temecula as a result of the Project. B. Methodology In completing this assignment, KMA undertook the following principal work tasks: • Reviewed background materials and resource documents relevant to the Project. • Reviewed the City's FY 2016-2017 Mid -Year Adjusted General Fund budget to understand the City's fiscal condition and revenue/expenditure parameters. • Reviewed key inputs and assumptions with the City Finance Director. • Collected and reviewed demographic and economic trends for the Temecula area. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 1 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 • Reviewed residential market data provided by the development team. • Estimated recurring annual revenues and municipal service expenditures as a result of completion of the Project. C. Report Organization Following this introduction, this FIA is organized as follows: • Section II presents a summary of the KMA key findings. • Section III provides an estimate of fiscal impact of the Project at build -out. • Section IV provides an estimate of fiscal impact of the Project on the City's General Fund over a 20 - year time period. • Section V presents the KMA estimate of the economic benefits to Old Town generated by development of the Project. • Section VI provides an estimate of permits and fees for the Project. • Section VII presents limiting conditions pertaining to this report. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 2 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 II. KEY FINDINGS A. Fiscal Impact at Build -out For purposes of comparison with the City's current General Fund budget, KMA modeled the stabilized annual fiscal impact of the Project at build -out in FY 2017 dollars, as described below. • The Project is projected to generate annual revenues to the General Fund estimated at about $1.9 million (FY 2017 dollars). Revenues are primarily driven by sales tax and Measure S revenues generated by residents, property taxes, and property tax in -lieu of vehicle license fees (VLF). Together, these sources account for approximately 75.1% of total General Fund revenues generated by completion of the Project. • Total annual service costs to the General Fund upon stabilization of the Project are estimated at $2.2 million (FY 2017 dollars). The major expense categories are Police (50%), Asset Management Fund (9.5%), and Public Works (Land Development, Public Works, etc.) (7.9%). • As shown in Table 11-1 below, the Project is projected to generate a net fiscal impact to the City of negative $285,000 (FY 2017 dollars) at build -out. This finding is not surprising in that the predominant land use is residential. New households require additional municipal services, and the cost to provide these services is only partially offset by the revenue generation from the Project's commercial development and retail spending of new residents. Table 11-1: Recurring Annual Fiscal Impact at Build -out (1) Altair Specific Plan General Fund Revenues $1,868,000 General Fund Expenditures ($2,153,000) Annual Net Fiscal Impact to City ($285,000) Revenue to Expense Ratio 0.87 Deficit per Unit per Year ($163) (1) Figures are expressed in FY 2017 dollars. It is also anticipated that the Project will include a nature center on the South Parcel, the potential for additional General Fund revenues to the City from this use is not reflected in the KMA fiscal impact projection. However, the potential economic impact of this use, through recreation, tourism, and education, may provide additional benefits to partially offset the negative impact to the City's General Fund. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 3 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 B. 20 -Year Fiscal Impact Projection The 20 -year FIA reflects fiscal impact outcomes that align more closely with the Project's projected development and absorption phasing in contrast to the static scenario described above. The 20 -year fiscal impact projections are as follows: • The Project is projected to yield a negative net fiscal impact to the City's General Fund each year over the projected 20 -year time period. • The Project's fiscal impact is estimated at negative $399,000 at build -out year, Year 6 (FY 2024), and is projected to increase to negative $891,000 by Year 20 (FY 2038). • On a per-unit basis, the Project fiscal impact is estimated at negative $228 per unit at build -out year, Year 6 (FY 2024), and is projected to increase to negative $509 per unit by Year 20 (FY 2038). C. Economic Benefits Analysis • New infrastructure to serve the Project and the City, such as the Western Bypass, will alleviate traffic congestion along Old Town Front Street. This improvement will enhance Old Town's outdoor experience and increase the likelihood of attracting additional visitors and patrons to Old Town. • Reduced traffic volumes resulting from construction of the Western Bypass will also lower City maintenance costs along Jefferson Avenue and Old Town Front Street. • The Project's commercial space, patio, and surrounding property will offer panoramic views of Old Town and the Temecula Valley. This new destination — reached via a public staircase from the west end of Main Street — adds a new amenity for Old Town visitors, serving also to keep visitors in the district and environs longer. • Annual spending by Project residents is expected to support the demand for 11,000 square feet (SF) of additional retail/restaurant space in Old Town. • The Project will help support the development of a grocery store west of Interstate 15. Existing and new residents from Old Town, Altair, Uptown Temecula, and Shearwater Creek are ultimately projected to support approximately 1.69 grocery stores in the western portion of the City. D. Permits and Fees • The Project will be required to pay an estimated total $4,271,223 in Building and Fire plan check and permit fees. • The Project will also pay an estimated total $31,937,713, or $18,250 per unit, in Development Impact Fees. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 4 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 III. FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILD -OUT A. Overview of Methodology This section presents the KMA methodology to estimate the fiscal impact to the City of Temecula General Fund resulting from build -out of the proposed Project. The detailed KMA static fiscal impact model is provided in Appendices A and B and summarized below. Demographic Overview Table III -1 below presents the findings of the KMA review of demographic factors for the City. The data consist of population, number of households, number of housing units, and total jobs. Table III -1: Demographic Overview, City of Temecula 2017 Estimate Population 111,024 Households 34,959 Housing Units 36,320 Jobs 50,218 Overview of the City of Temecula Budget Table III -2 below provides an overview of the City's Mid -Year FY 2016-2017 Adjusted General Fund Budget. A more detailed analysis can be found in Appendix A, Table A-2. As shown, the City is projected to experience a net surplus of $363,000 in FY 2016-2017. Table III -2: City of Temecula, Mid -Year FY 2016-2017 Adjusted General Fund Budget General Fund Revenues General Fund Expenditures Net Surplus/(Deficit) $71,859,000 ($71,496,000) $363,000 (1) Total before deduction of Program Revenues. It is important to note that through discussions with City staff, estimated revenues from Measure S and projected expenditures for Recreation Funding and Asset Management Fund were further modified by KMA. These modifications are presented in Table III -3 below, with additional details presented in Appendix A, Tables A-3 and A-4. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 5 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Table III -3: KMA Modifications to Mid -Year FY 2016-2017 Adjusted General Fund Budget FY 2016-2017 KMA Modifications to Mid -Year Mid -Year Adjusted FY 2016-2017 Adjusted (1) I. Revenues A. Measure S $1,236,000 $14,468,000 (2) II. Expenditures A. Recreation Funding $4,823,000 $6,200,000 B. Asset Management Fund $0 $6,000,000 (1) (2) Per City of Temecula, Finance Department, May 2017. KMA estimate. Based on FY 2017-2018 estimates provided by the City Finance Department for Measure S, reduced by 4.69% to reflect a full year for FY 2016-2017. As a result of the modifications presented above, the Mid -Year FY 2016-2017 Adjusted General Fund Budget is projected to experience a net surplus of $6.2 million as presented in Table III -4 below. Table III -4: KMA Modifications to Mid -Year FY 2016-2017 Adjusted General Fund Budget General Fund Revenues General Fund Expenditures (1) Net Surplus/(Deficit) $85,092,000 ($78,873,000) $6,219,000 (1) Total before deduction of Program Revenues. Appendix A, Tables A-3 and A-4 also show the departmental revenues and expenditures used to calculate the per capita impacts to the General Fund from the development of the proposed Project. The revenues shown are strictly departmental revenues and exclude such revenues as property and sales tax, which are estimated based on projected increases in assessed value and taxable sales from incremental development, respectively. The expenditures reflect the gross General Fund expenditures less the associated General Fund departmental charges for services. By isolating the net expenditure, the actual impact to the General Fund can be calculated. B. Key Fiscal Impact Assumptions As shown below in Table III -5, the Project will include 1,750 residential units, a 7,000 -SF community center, and an 80,000 -SF elementary school situated in a series of villages and sub -districts throughout the Property. A more detailed description of the Project can be found in Appendix B, Table B-1. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 6 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Table III -5: Project Description Single -Family Village A Village F Total Single -Family 30 Units 10 Units 40 Units Multi -Family Village A 230 Units Village B 180 Units Village C 680 Units Village D 170 Units Village E 120 Units Village F 130 Units Village G 130 Units Other 70 Units Total Multi -Family 1,710 Units Community Center - Retail Village C 7,000 SF Elementary School 80,000 SF South Parcel Nature Center 16 Acres Table III -6 below presents the Project's annual absorption for residential and non-residential uses assumed in the Fiscal Impact Analysis. The Developer intends to develop the Project's residential component in three phases, with all units built and sold by FY 2024. Non-residential uses are anticipated to be completed by FY 2020. The development of a nature center on the South Parcel was not included in the anticipated schedule of development presented below. A more detailed analysis of the Project's annual absorption can be found in Appendix C, Table C-1. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 7 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Table III -6: Anticipated Schedule of Development (Annual Absorption) Fiscal Year: 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Residential (Units) Phase I (Villages A and B) Phase 11 (Village C) Phase III (Village D, C, E, F, and G) Total Residential Non -Residential (SF) Retail Elementary School Total Non -Residential 249 251 0 111 0 0 249 362 0 7,000 0 80,000 0 87,000 0 0 0 0 222 222 110 0 49 195 195 146 271 417 305 146 1,750 500 665 585 0 0 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 80,000 0 0 0 0 87,000 Assumptions used in the fiscal impact analysis are based upon an assessment of future circumstances regarding population, employment, property valuation, and taxable sales. Table III -7 provides a summary of the key assumptions used in this analysis, as follows: Table III -7: Key Assumptions Population Resident Equivalents Non -Residential Employment Residential Value Non -Residential Value 2.0 — 3.5 persons per unit 0.33 0.8 — 2.0 $290,000 - $497,000 $375 employees per resident employees per 1,000 SF per unit (FY 2017$) (1) per SF (FY 2017$) (1) Source: MarketPointe Realty Advisors. Includes 5% view premiums for for -sale units. The Fiscal Impact Analysis also estimates other General Fund revenues and expenditures based on a modified per capita measure known as "resident equivalents." This approach combines residents and employees to form a single service population. As summarized in Table III -8 below, the resident equivalent approach weights an employee as 0.33 residents, such that three employees are viewed as having the same impact as one resident. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Table III -8: Total Resident Equivalents (1) City of Temecula Altair Specific Plan Total Population 111,024 3,776 Total Employment 50,218 72 Total Population + Jobs 161,242 3,848 Total Resident Equivalents (2) 127,596 3,800 (1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-8. (2) Assumes a resident equivalent factor of 0.33 (three employees have approximately the same impact as one resident). C. Annual Recurring General Fund Revenues This section discusses the recurring General Fund revenue assumptions utilized to estimate the impact of the proposed Project. Annual recurring revenues for the Project, such as Property Tax and Sales and Use Tax, were estimated based on assumed real estate market factors such as market values of the residential uses. One-time revenues such as Development Impact Fees and building permits used to offset one-time City costs were not evaluated in the fiscal impact model. Franchise Fees; Licenses and Permits; and Fines and Forfeitures; and other revenues were estimated by applying a per capita or "per resident equivalent" to the number of new residents anticipated for the Project. Table III -9 summarizes the KMA estimate of recurring General Fund revenues at build -out. As shown, the Project at build -out is estimated to generate approximately $1.9 million annually in General Fund revenues. A more detailed analysis is provided in Appendix B, Table B-9. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 9 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Table III -9: Recurring General Fund Revenues at Build -out (1) Total (FY 2017$) % of Total (2) Sales Tax - Resident Spending (3) $719,000 38.5% Property Tax $358,000 19.2% Property Tax in -lieu of VLF $325,000 17.4% Special Tax (Measure C) $115,000 6.2% Franchise Fees $107,000 5.7% Gax Tax Fund $71,000 3.8% Capital Improvement Program $65,000 3.5% Sales and Use Tax $42,000 2.2% Property Transfer Tax $32,000 1.7% Fines and Forfeitures $16,000 0.9% Licenses and Permits $9,000 0.5% Law Enforcement Fund $6,000 0.3% Vehicle License Fees $2,000 0.1% Miscellaneous Revenue $1,000 0.1% Intern Fellowship Fund 0.0% Total Annual Revenues $1,868,000 100.00% (1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-9. (2) Allow for rounding. (3) Includes Project -generated Measure S revenues at Project's build -out year (FY 2024). Sales Tax, inclusive of Measure S revenues, from new resident spending represents the largest component of General Fund revenues as a result of the Project. Altair's 3,776 new residents are expected to generate $719,000 of new sales tax and Measure S revenues to the City at build -out. This represents about 38.5% of total revenues generated by the Project. Property Tax revenues are the second largest source of General Fund revenues to be generated by the Project's 1,750 residential units as well as the non-residential commercial component. At build -out, the project is projected to generate approximately $358,000 per year in property tax revenues, comprising of 19.2% of the total General Fund revenues generated by the Project. Property Tax in Lieu of VLF represent the third largest component of General Fund revenues. The increase in gross assessed value will generate approximately $325,000 in additional motor vehicle license fee revenues to the City, representing 17.4% of the total General Fund revenues to be generated by the Project. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 10 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 The other sources of revenue including Franchise Fees, Gas Tax Fund, Miscellaneous Revenue, and all other revenue sources are anticipated to account for 24.9% of General Fund revenues generated by the Project. The breakout of revenues generated by the Project at build -out is further illustrated in Exhibit III -1 below. Exhibit III -1: Recurring General Fund Revenues at Build -out Sales Tax/Measure S - Resident Spending Property Tax ✓ Property Tax in -lieu of VLF Special Tax (Measure C) - Franchise Fees • Gax Tax Fund • Other D. Annual Recurring General Fund Expenditures This section discusses the recurring annual General Fund expenditure assumptions utilized to estimate the impact of the Project at build -out. A more detailed analysis can be found in Appendix B, Tables B-10 and B-11. Annual recurring expenditures were estimated by applying a per capita or "per resident equivalent" cost estimate to the number of new residents anticipated from build -out of the Project, with the exception of Police. To estimate Police expenditures, KMA applied the Project's pro rata share of one (1) new police officer at $300,000 per 1,000 population added to the City. As a result of this method, at build -out, the Project's 3,776 new residents are anticipated to add $1,076,000 in Police expenditures to the City's General Fund due to the need for approximately 3.59 new police officers generated by the Project. As shown in Table III -10, the total annual General Fund expenditures to provide services to the new development are estimated at $2.2 million at build -out. Major expenditure categories were estimated based on projections from current service levels. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 11 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Table III -10: Recurring General Fund Expenditures at Build -out (1) Total (FY 2017$) % of Total (2) Police (2) $1,076,000 50.0% Asset Management Fund $205,000 9.5% Public Works - Land Development, Public Works, etc. $170,000 7.9% Recreation Funding $169,000 7.8% Fire $145,000 6.7% Public Works - Parks & Maintenance $110,000 5.1% Community Development $60,000 2.8% City Manager $59,000 2.7% Finance $49,000 2.3% Retiree Medical Contribution $46,000 2.1% City Clerk $25,000 1.2% City Attorney $13,000 0.6% Animal Control $12,000 0.6% City Council $8,000 0.4% Community Support $2,000 0.1% Property Tax Administration $2,000 0.1% PERS Replacement Benefit $2,000 0.1% Total Annual Expenditures $2,153,000 100.0% (1) Source: Appendix B, B-11. (2) Allow for rounding. (3) Based on cost of staffing one Police Officer ($300,000) per 1,000 population. As shown in Table III -10 above, Police represents the largest of Project -generated General Fund expenditures at $1,076,000, accounting for 50.0% of total expenditures. The City's Asset Management Fund accounts for the second largest expenditure category at $205,000, or 9.5% of General Fund expenditures generated by the Project. Public Works (Land Development, Public Works, etc.) represents the third largest expenditure category, accounting for $170,000, or 7.9% of total General Fund expenditures, at Project build -out. The remaining departmental expenditures including, but not limited to, Recreation Funding, Fire, City Council, Community Development, and other Public Works services account for a combined $702,000 (32.6% of total). The breakout of expenditures generated by the Project at build -out is further illustrated in Exhibit III -2 below. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 12 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Exhibit 111-2: Recurring General Fund Expenditures at Build -out ■ Police Asset Management Fund Public Works - Land Development, Public Works, etc. Recreation Funding Other City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 13 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 IV. FISCAL IMPACT — 20 -YEAR PROJECTION This section provides an estimate of the fiscal impact to the City's General Fund resulting from the build- out of the proposed Project over a 20 -year period. A more detailed analysis can be found in Appendix C. A. Key Fiscal Impact Assumptions General Fund Revenues As shown in Table IV -1 below, KMA applied the following escalation factors to estimate the annual General Fund revenues to the City over a 20 -year period. The annual escalation factors were based on KMA's review of recent historical valuation trends in the City. Table IV -1: Annual Revenue Escalation Factors Escalation Factor Assessed Value Residential For -Sale Pre -Build -out 5.0% Post -Build -out 4.0% Rental Pre -Build -out 5.0% Post -Build -out 3.0% Non -Residential Pre -Build -out 3.5% Post -Build -out 2.5% Sales Tax and Measure S Revenues 2.5% Special Tax C 0.0% Other General Fund Revenues 2.5% General Fund Expenditures Annual escalation factors for each major expenditure category were based on discussions with the City Finance Director regarding the anticipated increases in expenditures over the next 20 years. As shown in Table IV -2, the City anticipates that General Fund expenditures will increase at an escalation rate of 2.0% per year, with the exception of expenditures associated with Police, Public Works, Recreation, Fire, Community Development, and Retiree Medical Contribution. These expenditure categories are expected to increase between 3.0% and 6.0% per year. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 14 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Table IV -2: Annual Expenditure Escalation Factors Escalation Factor (1) Police 6.0%/4.0% (2) Fire 5.0%/3.0% (3) Retiree Medical Contribution 4.0% Public Works — Land Development, Public Works, etc. 3.0% Recreation Funding 3.0% Public Works — Parks & Maintenance 3.0% Community Development 3.0% Asset Management Fund 2.0% City Manager 2.0% Finance 2.0% City Clerk 2.0% City Attorney 2.0% Animal Control 2.0% City Council 2.0% Community Support 2.0% Property Tax Administration 2.0% PERS Replacement Benefit 2.0% (1) Source: Finance Department, City of Temecula. (2) Reflects escalation factor for FY 2017 -FY 2022, escalation is reduced to 4.0% beginning in FY 2023. (3) Reflects escalation factor for FY 2017 -FY 2022, escalation is reduced to 3.0% beginning in FY 2023. B. Annual General Fund Impact Comparison of the annual revenues and annual expenditures indicates that the Project will yield a negative net fiscal impact to the City's General Fund each year over the 20 -year period. As shown in Table IV -3, the Project's net fiscal impact is estimated at negative $399,000, or negative $228 per unit in the Project's build -out year (FY 2024), and increasing to negative $891,000, or negative $509 per unit by Year 20 (FY 2038). A more detailed analysis is presented in Appendix C, and summarized below. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 15 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Table IV -3: Annual General Fund Impact Revenues to Fiscal General Fund General Fund Recurring Per Unit Expenditures Year Revenues Expenditures Surplus/(Deficit) Per Year (1) Ratio 2019 $276,000 $342,000 ($66,000) ($265) 0.81 2020 $771,000 $876,000 ($105,000) ($172) 0.88 2021 $1,156,000 $1,309,000 ($153,000) ($173) 0.88 2022 $1,740,000 $2,003,000 ($263,000) ($202) 0.87 2023 $2,204,000 $2,550,000 ($346,000) ($216) 0.86 2024 $2,475,000 $2,874,000 ($399,000) ($228) 0.86 2025 $2,589,000 $2,972,000 ($383,000) ($219) 0.87 2026 $2,662,000 $3,074,000 ($412,000) ($235) 0.87 2027 $2,736,000 $3,179,000 ($443,000) ($253) 0.86 2028 $2,813,000 $3,288,000 ($475,000) ($271) 0.86 2029 $2,893,000 $3,401,000 ($508,000) ($290) 0.85 2030 $2,974,000 $3,518,000 ($544,000) ($311) 0.85 2031 $3,059,000 $3,639,000 ($580,000) ($331) 0.84 2032 $3,146,000 $3,764,000 ($618,000) ($353) 0.84 2033 $3,235,000 $3,894,000 ($659,000) ($377) 0.83 2034 $3,328,000 $4,029,000 ($701,000) ($401) 0.83 2035 $3,423,000 $4,168,000 ($745,000) ($426) 0.82 2036 $3,521,000 $4,313,000 ($792,000) ($453) 0.82 2037 $3,622,000 $4,463,000 ($841,000) ($481) 0.81 2038 $3,727,000 $4,618,000 ($891,000) ($509) 0.81 (1) Represents annual General Fund impact per unit based on anticipated annual absorption for the Project. Full build -out of the Project does not occur until FY 2024. Although the Project is projected to generate an annual negative fiscal impact, it should be noted that the proposed Project is also anticipated to add a nature center on the South Parcel. Estimation of potential revenues from such a land use, which lacks specific definition at this time in terms of features and operating parameters, would be speculative. Therefore, KMA did not include the South Parcel in the KMA fiscal impact projection. However, the City can expect to capture additional economic benefits associated with possible recreation, tourism, and education provided by the nature center. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 16 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 V. ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO OLD TOWN This section provides an assessment of the economic benefits to Old Town resulting from the build -out of the proposed Project. These benefits include the installation of new infrastructure to serve the Project and the City as a whole, and increased market support for retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses in Old Town. The KMA detailed technical analysis is provided in Appendix D. A. Western Bypass Development plans for the Project include the construction of the Western Bypass. The Western Bypass is proposed to run from Temecula Parkway to Vincent Moraga Drive and eventually Diaz Road, allowing for an alternative north -south route to the frequent congestion on Interstate 15. Currently, Old Town Front Street through Old Town serves as an alternative when Interstate 15 is backed up. This has significant negative effects on the experience of visitors and shoppers in Old Town. The construction of the Western Bypass will make this shortcut through Old Town unnecessary, thereby enhancing visitors' Old Town experience and improving the likelihood of increased sales of goods and services. The Western Bypass is also expected to decrease maintenance costs for Old Town Front Street and Jefferson Avenue as traffic volumes along these streets are reduced. B. New Visitor Amenities The Project's commercial space will be located above Old Town at the top of a public stairway linked to the west end of Main Street. The commercial space could potentially include eating and drinking uses such as restaurants, cafes, ice cream shops, or other similar uses. The building, patio, and surrounding property will offer panoramic views of Old Town and the Temecula Valley. Given the placement of these uses on a perch above Old Town, and their close proximity to the core of Old Town, it is reasonable to assume that "climbing the stairs" will become a tradition for many Old Town visitors. The public stairway, along with new public parks, trails, and bike lanes, will add new amenities to Old Town, enticing visitors to experience the district and environs longer. C. Retail/Restaurant Space Supported by Resident Spending Table V-1 below estimates the amount of annual retail/restaurant space supported by the addition of the Project's projected 3,776 residents. KMA estimated Project residents' demand for retail/restaurant space based on projections of household income, retail/restaurant spending ratios, and potential capture within the City of Temecula in general and Old Town in particular. The key KMA assumptions and methodology are detailed in the table. As shown, KMA estimates an annual demand for 11,000 SF of retail/restaurant space in Old Town from Project residents. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 17 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Table V-1: Estimate of Retail/Restaurant Space in Old Town Supported by Altair Residents Household Incomes, Altair Residents (1) $76,000 - $121,000 Income Allocation to Retail/Restaurant Spending 33.5% City of Temecula Capture Rate 80% Old Town Capture Rate 5.0% - 20.0% Sales Productivity $400/SF per year Retail/Restaurant Space in Old Town Supported by Altair Residents 11,000 SF (1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-6. D. Support for Additional Grocery Store Development Another important economic benefit to be considered is the Project's contribution to supporting the development of a grocery store on the west side of Interstate 15. As shown in Table V-2, KMA evaluated the anticipated number of residents resulting from build -out of the Old Town, Altair, and Uptown Temecula Specific Plans, as well as the Shearwater Creek development. Taken together, these plans are projected to yield a total of 8,238 units resulting in a total of 16,062 new residents. Based on industry standards regarding population requirements for grocery stores, KMA estimates that build -out of these plans will support nearly two grocery stores in the western portion of the City. Obviously, the full build- out of Old Town and Uptown Temecula will take decades, so it is important to note that the anticipated population for Altair supports approximately 0.40 grocery stores, i.e., 24% of the total projected long- term demand for 1.69 grocery stores. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 18 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Table V-2: Estimate of the Number of Grocery Stores Supported by New Residents Units Population (1) Old Town Existing, 2014 (2) 822 1,977 Old Town Projected 1,800 3,848 Shearwater Creek 140 266 Altair 1,750 3,776 Uptown Temecula (3) 3,726 6,195 Total 8,238 16,062 Total Number of Grocery Stores Supported by New Residents @ 9,500 Residents/Store (4) 1.69 (1) Assumes households sizes at: 3.5 persons/unit for single family; 2.5 persons/unit for multi -family for -sale; and 2.0 persons/unit for multi -family rental. (2) Source: The Nielsen Company, 2014. (3) Assumes households sizes at: 2.0 persons/unit for multi -family for -sale and 1.5 persons/unit for multi -family rental. (4) Reflects threshold population for grocery stores per store, Metropolitan Research and Economics, 2011. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 19 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 VI. PERMITS AND FEES This section estimates the amount of permits and fees paid by the Project as estimated by the City of Temecula. Detailed estimates of the Project's plan check and permit fees for Building and Fire and Development Impact Fees are provided in Appendix E. A. Building Permit Fees Table VI -1 provides an estimate of the Project's building permit fees. Fees are estimated on a per-unit (by product type) and per -building basis. As shown, the Project is estimated to pay a total of $4,271,223, or $2,441 per unit, toward Building and Fire plan check and permit fees. Table VI -1: Building Permit Fees, 2017-2018 Single -Family Units $77,345 Multi -Family Units $2,664,912 Building $1,528,966 Total Building Permit Fees $4,271,223 Per Unit $2,441 B. Development Impact Fees Development Impact Fees (DIFs) paid by the Project are estimated to total $31,937,713, or $18,250 per unit. As shown in Table VI -2, DIFs paid by the Project include City DIFs; Quimby Act fees for park improvements; Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF fees) for roadway, bridges, and interchanges; Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan fees for the protection of endangered species and their habitats; Kangaroo -Rat Plan fees for the protection of the endangered Kangaroo Rat; and a Public Arts in -lieu fee for art in public spaces. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 20 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 Table VI -2: Development Impact Fees, 2017-2018 City of Temecula DIFs $11,700,956 Quimby Act $6,683,678 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) $11,009,930 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) $2,275,000 Kangaroo -Rat Plan (K -Rat) $93,150 Public Art $175,000 Total Development Impact Fees Per Unit $31,937,713 $18,250 City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 21 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 VII. LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. The KMA analysis is based, in part, on data provided by secondary sources such as state and local governments, planning agencies, real estate brokers, and other third parties. While KMA believes that these sources are reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. 2. A projection of economic impacts is inherently based on judgment. The projections contained herein are based on the best information available at the time that this document was prepared. However, the actual impacts may vary. 3. The accompanying projections and analyses are based on estimates and assumptions which were developed using currently available economic data, Plan area -specific data, and other relevant information. It is the nature of forecasting, however, that some assumptions may not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Such changes are likely to be material to the projections and conclusions herein and, if they occur, require review or revision of this document. 4. Any estimates of revenue or cost projections are based on the best Plan area -specific and fiscal data available at this time as well as experience with comparable projects. They are not intended to be projections of actual future performance of any specific project. 5. Revenue estimates are based on the assumption that sufficient market support exists for the proposed uses and that the Plan areas will achieve industry standard productivity levels. 6. KMA assumes that all applicable laws and governmental regulations in place as of the date of this document will remain unchanged throughout the projection period of our analysis. In the event that this does not hold true, i.e., if any tax rates change, the analysis would need to be revised. 7. It has been assumed that the property valuation will not be impacted by the presence of any soils, toxic, or hazardous conditions that require remediation to allow development. 8. Value estimates assume that any necessary entitlements or zoning changes for development can be obtained in a reasonable time frame. 9. Value estimates assume that property titles are good and marketable; no title search has been made, nor has KMA attempted to determine property ownership. The value estimates are given without regard to any questions of boundaries, encumbrances, liens or encroachments. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 22 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 10. Property tax projections reflect KMA's understanding of the assessment and tax apportionment procedures employed by the County. The County procedures are subject to change as a reflection of policy revisions or legislative mandate. While we believe our estimates to be reasonable, taxable values resulting from actual appraisals may vary from the amounts assumed in the projections. 11. No assurances are provided by KMA as to the certainty of the projected tax revenues shown in this document. Actual revenues may be higher or lower than what has been projected and are subject to valuation changes resulting from new developments or transfers of ownership not specifically identified herein, actual resolution of outstanding appeals, future filing of appeals, or the non- payment of taxes due. City of Temecula —Altair Specific Plan — Fiscal Impact Analysis 23 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 17087ndh 19545.038.006 APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN Demographic Profile and City of Temecula General Fund Budget TABLE A-1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE - CITY OF TEMECULA, 2017 ESTIMATES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA 2017 Estimate I. Population and Households Population (1) 111,024 Households (2) 34,959 Average Household Size (1) 3.15 Jobs (3) 50,218 II. Housing Units (1) Single -Family 29,816 Multi -Family 6,345 Mobile Homes 159 Total 36,320 III. Occupied Units (1) IV. Percent Vacant (1) (1) Source: California Department of Finance, January 1, 2017. (2) Source: The Nielsen Company, 2017. (3) Source: The Nielsen Company, 2017. Reflects employment by place of work. 33,707 7.2% Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename i:\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 24 TABLE A-2 SUMMARY OF CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL FUND BUDGET - FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Mid -Year FY 16-17 Adjusted (1) I. Revenues Taxes and Franchises $52,691,000 73.3% Intergovernmental Revenues $7,478,000 10.4% Licenses, Permits and Service Charges $4,348,000 6.1% Operating Transfers In $3,536,000 4.9% Reimbursements $2,856,000 4.0% Fines and Forfeitures $736,000 1.0% Miscellaneous Revenue (2) $330,000 0.5% Use of Money and Property ($116,000) -0.2% Total Revenues $71,859,000 100.0% II. Expenditures Police Non Departmental (3) Public Works - Land Development, Public Works, etc. Fire Community Development Public Works - Parks & Maintenance City Manager Finance City Clerk City Attorney Animal Control City Council Community Support Total Expenditures $28,830,000 40.3% $12,383,000 17.3% $7,333,000 10.3% $6,088,000 8.5% $4,608,000 6.4% $3,637,000 5.1% $3,329,000 4.7% $2,332,000 3.3% $1,215,000 1.7% $736,000 1.0% $463,000 0.6% $453,000 0.6% $89,000 0.1% $71,496,000 100.0% III. Net Surplus/(Deficit) Revenues to Expenditures Ratio $363,000 1.01 (1) Source: City of Temecula, Mid -Year FY 2016-2017 Adjusted General Fund Budget. (2) Includes Prior Year Contractual Obligations. (3) Includes Property Tax Administration, Recreation Funding, Retiree Medical Contribution, and PERS Replacement Benefits. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename is\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 25 TABLE A-3 SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Revenues Included in Analysis Taxes and Franchises Property Tax Sales and Use Tax Franchise Fees Special Tax (Measure C) Total Licenses and Permits Business Licenses Bids and Proposals Total Fines and Forfeitures Intergovernmental Revenues Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Vehicle License Fees Total Operating Transfers In Gas Tax Fund Law Enforcement Fund Intern Fellowship Fund Measure S Total Capital Improvement Program Miscellaneous Revenue Mid -Year FY 16-17 Adjusted General Fund Revenues FY 2016-2017 $7,598,000 $36,392,000 $3,580,000 $1,853,000 $49,423,000 $300,000 $7,000 $307,000 $547,000 $7,430,000 $49,000 $7,478,000 $2,073,000 $218,000 $9,000 $1,236,000 $3,536,000 $2,167,000 $42,000 KMA Modifications to Mid -Year FY 16-17 Adjusted General Fund Revenues FY 2016-2017 $49,423,000 $307,000 Comments projected based on increase in gross AV (excludes RDA properties) projected based on taxable sales from incremental development projected based on population and employment based on residential units and commercial acreage developed projected based on population and employment projected based on population and employment $547,000 projected based on population and employment $7,478,000 $2,073,000 $218,000 $9,000 $14,468,000 $16,768,000 $2,167,000 projected based on increase in gross AV (includes RDA properties) projected based on population projected based on population projected based on population and employment projected based on population and employment (1) projected based on taxable sales from incremental development projected based on population and employment $42,000 projected based on population and employment Total Included Items $63,499,000 $76,732,000 II. Charges for Services Deducted from Community Development Planning - Various Building and Safety - Various Total Deducted from Public Works - Land Development Land Development - Various Public Works - NPDES Permit Fee Plan Check Permits Inspection Fees Total Deducted from Public Works - Parks & Maintenance Lease Income Deducted from Police Citations and Bookings Miscellaneous Vehicle Impound Fees Reimbursements Total Deducted from Fire Various Charges for Services III. Excluded Items Pechanga IGA Taxes and Franchises Transient Occupancy Tax Use of Money and Property Investment Interest Lease/Rental Income Total Reimbursements Other Total Sponsorship Change in Fair Value of Investments Prior Year Contractual Obligations Total Excluded Items $672,000 $1,423,000 $2,095,000 $988,000 $4,000 $1,000 $1,000 $994,000 $51,000 $100,000 $96,000 $90,000 $143,000 $428,000 $952,000 $4,520,000 $451,000 $3,268,000 so $86,000 $86,000 $96,000 $96,000 $2,000 ($252,000) $190,000 $3,840,000 $4,520,000 $3,840,000 independent of projected incremental development hotel use not planned as part of Project independent of projected incremental development independent of projected incremental development independent of projected incremental development independent of projected incremental development independent of projected incremental development independent of projected incremental development IV. Total Revenues $71,859,000 $85,092,000 (1) KMA estimate. Based on FY 2017-2018 estimates provided by the City Finance Department for Measure S, deflated by 4.69% to reflect a full year for FY 2016-2017. Source: City of Temecula, Fiscal Year 2016-17 Mid -Year Budget Adjustment. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename i:\Appendix -Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 26 TABLE A-4 SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA I. Expenditures Included in Analysis City Council Mid -Year FY 16-17 Adjusted General Net After Deduction Fund Expenditures of Program Revenues FY 2016-2017 (Table A-3) $453,000 $0 $453,000 Community Support $89,000 $0 $89,000 City Manager City Manager $1,406,000 Economic Development $1,009,000 Human Resources $777,000 Emergency Management $137,000 Total General Government $3,329,000 $0 $3,329,000 City Clerk $1,215,000 $0 City Attorney $1,215,000 $736,000 $0 Finance Finance $2,332,000 Animal Control $463,000 Total Finance $2,795,000 $736,000 $0 Community Development Planning $2,113,000 Building & Safety $2,495,000 Total Community Development $4,608,000 Public Works Land Development Public Works Total Public Works Public Works $2,795,000 ($2,095,000) $1,561,000 55,773,000 $7,333,000 $2,513,000 ($994,000) $6,339,000 KMA Modifications to Mid -Year FY 16-17 Adjusted General Fund Net After Deduction Expenditures of Program Revenues Comments FY 2016-2017 (Table A-3) $453,000 $0 $89,000 $453,000 projected based on population and employment $0 $89,000 projected based on population and employment $3,329,000 $0 $3,329,000 projected based on population and employment $1,215,000 $0 $1,215,000 projected based on population and employment $736,000 $0 $736,000 projected based on population and employment $2,795,000 $0 $2,795,000 projected based on population and employment $4,608,000 ($2,095,000) $2,513,000 projected based on population and employment $7,333,000 ($994,000) Parks & Maintenance $3,637,000 ($51,000) $3,637,000 $6,339,000 projected based on population and employment ($51,000) Total Public Works $3,586,000 Fire $6,088,000 ($952,000) $6,088,000 Property Tax Administration $5,136,000 $3,586,000 projected based on population and employment ($952,000) $5,136,000 projected based on population and employment $78,000 $0 $78,000 $0 $78,000 $78,000 Recreation Funding Recreation Funding $4,273,000 Library Funding 5550,000 Total Recreation Funding $4,823,000 $6,200,000 Retiree Medical Contribution PERS Replacement Benefit Total Included Items Add: Asset Management Fund $4,823,000 $6,200,000 (1) $1,554,000 $0 $1,554,000 $0 $1,554,000 $81,000 $0 $81,000 $1,554,000 $81,000 $36,819,000 $32,727,000 $38,196,000 $0 $6,000,000 $0 $0 581,000 $34,104,000 $6,000,000 (1) Grand Total Included Items $36,819,000 $32,727,000 $44,196,000 $40,104,000 II. Excluded Items Police Service Level B Funding CIP Administration Classification Plan Stipend (Non -GF) 2011 Financing Lease - 2001 & 200E PHS/Medicine Sales Tax Sharing Separation CAL Payout Total Excluded Items $28,830,000 (2) $331,000 $2,442,000 $250,000 $2,140,000 $454,000 5230,000 $34,677,000 $34,677,000 $34,677,000 $34,677,000 III. Total General Fund Expenditures $71,496,000 $67,404,000 $78,873,000 $74,781,000 (1) KMA adjustment for Measure S -related expenditures per City of Temecula, Finance Department, April 18, 2017. (2) Per City; police expenditures included in analysis reflect project pro rata share of one new police officer per 1,000 population. See Table B-10. Source: City of Temecula, Fiscal Year 2016-17 Mid -Year Budget Adjustment. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename i:\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 27 APPENDIX B FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN At Build -Out (FY 2017 Dollars) TABLE B-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA I. Units by Phase A. Phase I Single -Family For -Sale 30 Units Multi -Family For -Sale 235 Units Rental 235 Units Total Multi -Family 470 Units Total Phase I 500 Units B. Phase II Single -Family For -Sale 0 Units Multi -Family For -Sale 332 Units Rental 333 Units Total Multi -Family 665 Units Total Phase II 665 Units C. Phase III Single -Family For -Sale 10 Units Multi -Family For -Sale 263 Units Rental 182 Units Village G 130 Units Total Multi -Family 575 Units Total Phase III 585 Units II. Unit Mix A. Single -Family- For -Sale 40 Units B. Multi -Family - For -Sale 830 Units C. Multi -Family - Rental 880 Units D. Total 1,750 Units III. Non -Residential Use A. Retail Village C - Community Center B. Institutional Elementary School C. Total Non -Residential Source: City of Temecula Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename is\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt 7,000 SF 80,000 SF 87,000 SF Page 28 TABLE B-2 ESTIMATE OF TOTAL EMPLOYEES AND POPULATION ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA W N OI N W N 2.0 per 1,000 SF 0.8 per 1,000 SF 00 w O O 'aLL lO O 0 �I 00 U U 0 no 5 m Occupancy (2) Ln m LL LL LL N Cr) Cr) NI O O 00 000 W W Non -Residential (U ccw Institutional - Elementary School Total Resident Population Persons/Unit (5) --I NI W m N NII N m -I n c c -i cri O O 0 l0 Lfl Lfl O (r) N N N 0 0 0 l o O O O O Lfl Lfl Lfl Lfl v, v, v, v, d0 EEEE c ice+ D D D D 0 =I 00 00 N ri Residential Single Family - For -Sale Multi -Family - For -Sale Multi -Family - Rental w (U w > O H co 00 00. III. Total Employees and Population N N w (U f0 a vi co • Uf0 w w w vi 4- O w O V) (O 0 •w m w ++ 'E0 c w U,0 U 0 D OA -0 - c -D v, c (o c o D .� D a`., v v w L_ -O O' L,-; CC +-a > w p w Y, Y • 0 U O •U c Y Q Y Q ? U Q) +T' CO +T' w `� N 0 N O c O vL \ w O c (1 E a1 O O\ NO w fl- R w .,(II u O w t o C U fo U f0 XI w c -0 c -0 Q 0f0 14- > N > N co -3 w > w > v (O (p (O . Q w w v, co V c hA c h.0 c V -0 U -0 U Lr, -0 Q w w w w w Q V) 4 v, 4 v, _o L1 _o L1 (13 _o YO co LeY c c c c c " a O O O O O ++++++++++ 2 x CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ E E E E N E 7 7 7 7 7 CU N Q v, v, v, v, v, Y Q (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 T• Q < < Q Q < Y Y Y Y Y v E co co a = N N ci N m Lfl LL TABLE B-3 ESTIMATE OF ASSESSED VALUE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Assumed Assessed Value Total Gross Building per SF Assessed Value I. Non -Residential Area (FY 2017$) (FY 2017$) A. Retail 7,000 SF $375 $2,625,000 B. Total Non -Residential $2,625,000 II. Residential Units Price Unit Assessed Value A. For -Sale Single Family Multi -Family Total For -Sale B. Rental Multi -Family C. Total Residential (2) 40 Units 830 Units 870 Units 880 Units 1,750 Units $497,000 (1) $19,880,000 $361,000 (1) $299,630,000 $367,000 $319,510,000 $290,000 $255,200,000 $328,000 $574,710,000 III. Grand Total Assessed Valuation $577,340,000 (1) Includes 5.0% view premiums. (2) Allow for rounding. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename is\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 30 TABLE B-4 ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES - PROPERTY TAXES AND PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA Annual Recurring Revenues I. Property Tax Estimated Value Property Tax Levy City Portion 5.64% (FY 2017$) $577,340,000 $6,350,740 $358,000 Total Property Tax to City $358,000 II. Property Tax in -lieu of VLF Estimated Value License Fee (per $1,000 in AV growth) $577,340,000 $0.5636 (1) Total Property Tax in -lieu of VLF $325,000 III. Property Transfer Tax A. Non -Residential Property Valuation (FMV) - Retail Transfer Tax (per $500) Total Transfer Tax City Share of Transfer Tax 50.0% Turnover Rate (Retail) Net Transfer Tax - Retail B. Residential Property Valuation (FMV) - Residential Transfer Tax (per $500) Total Transfer Tax City Share of Transfer Tax 50.0% Turnover Rate (Residential) Net Transfer Tax - Residential $2,625,000 $0.55 $2,888 $1,444 5.0% $70 $574,710,000 $0.55 $632,181 $316,091 10.0% $32,000 C. Total Property Transfer Tax $32,000 (1) Source: California State Controller's Office. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename i:\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 31 TABLE B-5 ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES - SALES AND USE TAX (1) ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA I. Retail Retail Building Efficiency Vacancy Sales Productivity/SF Taxable Sales City Portion of Sales Tax Estimate of Measure S - Effective Revenues Allocation of Measure S Revenues to General Fund @ 7,000 SF 95% 6,650 SF 10% 6,000 SF $400 /SF 90% $2,160,000 1.00% 1.00% $22,000 92% (2) $22,000 $20,000 II. Total Sales Tax $42,000 (1) Includes Project -generated General Fund revenues as a result of Measure S. (2) Source: City of Temecula, May 2017. Reflects Measure S revenues allocated to the General Fund at the Project's build- out year (FY 2024). Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename i:\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 32 TABLE B-6 ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES - SPENDING BY RESIDENTS ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA Single -Family For -Sale I. Estimate of Household Income Average Sales Price / Average Monthly Rent $497,000 Down Payment 10% $49,700 Loan Amount $447,300 Interest Rate 5.25% Term (Years) 30 Annual Mortgage Payment/ Rent $29,640 HOA Maintenance / Insurance Property Taxes Total Annual Costs of Income Spent on Housing Annual Income Required II. Number of Households Total Number of Residential Units Occupancy Rate Total Number of Full -Time Equivalent Households $280 /Month $3,360 $50 /Month $600 1.75% $8,698 $42,298 35% $121,000 40 95% 38 Multi -Family Multi -Family For -Sale Rental $ 361,000 $1,900 $ 36,100 $324,900 5.25% 30 $21,529 $22,800 $3,360 $0 $600 $0 $6,318 $31,807 $22,800 35% $91,000 830 95% 789 30% $76,000 880 95% 836 III. Aggregate Household Income $139,888,000 IV. Annual Spending by Households A. General Merchandise (2) Convenience Goods (3) Eating and Drinking Automotive Outlets Other Retail Stores (4) B. Total Spending C. Spending Captured in City of Temecula D. City Portion of Sales Tax @ E. Estimate of Measure S - Effective Revenues (5) Measure S Revenues to General Fund @ Allocation of Household Income to Taxable Spending (1) 15.0% 10.0% 3.0% 5.0% 0.5% 33.5% 80.0% 1.0% 1.0% 92% (5) Estimated Annual Taxable Spending $20,983,000 $13,989,000 $4,197,000 $6,994,000 $699,000 $46,862,000 $37,489,600 $375,000 $375,000 $344,000 F. Total Sales Tax - Resident Spending $719,000 (1) KMA assumption, based on review of spending ratios in Southern California counties. (2) Includes Other Comparison Goods and Home Improvement. (3) Includes food and drug stores. (4) Includes second-hand merchandise; farm implement dealers; farm and garden supply stores; fuel and ice dealers; mobile homes; trailers and campers; and boat, motorcycle, and plane dealers. (5) Source: City of Temecula, May 2017. Reflects Measure S revenues allocated to the General Fund at the Project's build -out year (FY 2024). Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename is \Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 33 TABLE B-7 SPECIAL TAX C ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA Special Tax (Measure C) $74.44 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit I. Residential - Developed Single -Family Multi -Family Total Residential II. Commercial - Developed Retail Total Commercial 870 Parcels (1) 880 Units 1.7 Acres EDU Factor $74.44 /Parcel 0.75 EDU per unit 6.0 EDU per acre Total Special Tax Revenue $65,000 $49,000 $114,000 $800 $800 III. Total Special Tax C $115,000 (1) All for -sale property is taxed at the Single -Family per unit rate. Source: City of Temecula, July 20, 2017. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename i:\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 34 TABLE B-8 ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES - OTHER REVENUES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA Total Total Total Total Population/ Resident Demographic Profile: Population Employment Jobs Equivalents (3) City of Temecula 111,024 (1) 50,218 (2) 161,242 127,596 Altair Specific Plan Area 3,776 72 3,848 3,800 Franchise Fees Gas Tax Fund Capital Improvement Program Fines and Forfeitures Licenses and Permits Law Enforcement Fund Vehicle License Fees Miscellaneous Revenue Intern Fellowship Fund City FY 2016-2017 Budget (4) $3,580,000 $2,073,000 $2,167,000 $547,000 $307,000 $218,000 $49,000 $42,000 $9,000 Amount Per Resident or Service Resident Population Equivalent RE $28.06 P $18.67 RE $16.98 RE $4.29 RE $2.41 RE $1.71 P $0.44 RE $0.33 RE $0.07 New Residents/ Resident Equivalents 3,800 3,776 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,776 3,800 3,800 Total Revenues $107,000 $71,000 $65,000 $16,000 $9,000 $6,000 $2,000 $1,000 X. Total Other Revenues $277,000 Legend: RE - Resident Equivalent P - Population (1) Source: California Department of Finance, January 1, 2017. (2) Source: The Nielsen Company, 2017. Reflects employment by place of work. (3) KMA assumption. Assumes that approximately three employees have the same impact as one resident. (4) Source: See Table A-3, KMA Modifications to Mid -Year FY 16-17 Adjusted General Fund Budget - Included Items. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename i:\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 35 TABLE B-9 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES AT BUILD -OUT (1) ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA General Fund I. Sales Tax - Resident Spending (2) II. Property Tax III. Property Tax in -lieu of VLF IV. Special Tax (Measure C) V. Franchise Fees VI. Gax Tax Fund VII. Capital Improvement Program VIII. Sales and Use Tax IX. Property Transfer Tax X. Fines and Forfeitures Xl. Licenses and Permits XII. Law Enforcement Fund XIII. Vehicle License Fees XIV. Miscellaneous Revenue XV. Intern Fellowship Fund Total Percent $719,000 38.5% $358,000 19.2% $325,000 17.4% $115,000 6.2% $107,000 5.7% $71,000 3.8% $65,000 3.5% $42,000 $32,000 $16,000 $9,000 $6,000 $2,000 $1,000 2.2% 1.7% 0.9% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% XVI. Total Annual Recurring Revenues to General Fund $1,868,000 100.0% (1) Reflects stabilized annual revenue in constant FY 2017 dollars at build -out. (2) Includes Project -generated Measure S revenues at Project's build -out year (FY 2024). Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename is\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 36 TABLE B-10 ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL RECURRING EXPENDITURES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA Total Total Total Total Population/ Resident Demographic Profile: Population Employment Jobs Eguivalents(3) City of Temecula 111,024 (1) 50,218 (2) 161,242 127,596 Altair Specific Plan Area 3,776 72 3,848 3,800 I. Police II. Asset Management Fund III. Public Works - Land Development, Public Works, etc. IV. Recreation Funding V. Fire VI. Public Works - Parks & Maintenance VII. Community Development VIII. City Manager IX. Finance X. Retiree Medical Contribution XI. City Clerk XII. City Attorney XIII. Animal Control XIV. City Council XV. Community Support XVI. Property Tax Administration XVII. PERS Replacement Benefit Amount Per Net New City Resident or New Residents/ "Marginal Cost" Residents/ FY 2016-2017 Escalation Service Population Resident Resident Impact Resident Total Budget (4) Factor (5) Population Type Equivalent Equivalent Adjustment Equivalenten Expses 6.0% (6) $6,000,000 2.0% P $6,339,000 3.0% RE $6,200,000 3.0% P $5,136,000 5.0% (8) RE $3,586,000 3.0% P $2,513,000 3.0% RE $3,329,000 2.0% RE $2,332,000 2.0% RE $1,554,000 4.0% RE $1,215,000 2.0% RE $736,000 2.0% RE $463,000 2.0% RE $453,000 2.0% RE $89,000 2.0% RE $78,000 2.0% RE $81 000 2.0% RE --- $300.00 (7) 3,776 5% 3,587 $1,076,000 111,024 $54.04 3,800 0% 3,800 $205,000 127,596 $49.68 3,800 10% 3,420 $170,000 111,024 $55.84 3,776 20% 3,021 $169,000 127,596 $40.25 3,800 5% 3,610 $145,000 111,024 $32.30 3,776 10% 3,398 $110,000 127,596 $19.69 3,800 20% 3,040 $60,000 127,596 $26.09 3,800 40% 2,280 $59,000 127,596 $18.28 3,800 30% 2,660 $49,000 127,596 $12.18 3,800 0% 3,800 $46,000 127,596 $9.52 3,800 30% 2,660 $25,000 127,596 $5.77 3,800 40% 2,280 $13,000 127,596 $3.63 3,800 10% 3,420 $12,000 127,596 $3.55 3,800 40% 2,280 $8,000 127,596 $0.70 3,800 20% 3,040 $2,000 127,596 $0.61 3,800 30% 2,660 $2,000 127,596 $0.63 3,800 0% 3,800 $2,000 XIX. Total Annual Expenditures $40,104,000 $2,153,000 Leeend: RE - Resident Equivalent P - Population (1) Source: California Department of Finance, January 1, 2017. (2) Source: The Nielsen Company, 2017. (3) KMA assumption. Assumes that three employees have the same impact as one resident. (4) Source: See Table A-4, KMA Modifications to Mid -Year FY 16-17 Adjusted General Fund Budget - Included Items. (5) Source: Finance Department, City of Temecula. (6) Reflects escalation factor for FY 2017 -FY 2022, escalation is reduced to 4.0% beginning in FY 2023. (7) Based on the cost for staffing one Police Officer ($300,000) per 1,000 population. (8) Reflects escalation factor for FY 2017 -FY 2022, escalation is reduced to 3.0% beginning in FY 2023. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename is\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017; mdt Page 37 TABLE B-11 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RECURRING EXPENDITURES (1)(2) ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA General Fund Total Percent I. Police $1,076,000 50.0% II. Asset Management Fund $205,000 9.5% III. Public Works - Land Development, Public Works, etc. $170,000 7.9% IV. Recreation Funding $169,000 7.8% V. Fire $145,000 6.7% VI. Public Works - Parks & Maintenance $110,000 5.1% VII. Community Development $60,000 2.8% VIII. City Manager $59,000 2.7% $49,000 2.3% X. Retiree Medical Contribution $46,000 2.1% IX. Finance XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. City Clerk City Attorney Animal Control City Council Community Support Property Tax Administration PERS Replacement Benefit XVIII. Total Annual Recurring Expenditures $25,000 1.2% $13,000 0.6% $12,000 0.6% $8,000 0.4% $2,000 0.1% $2,000 0.1% $2,000 0.1% $2,153,000 100.0% XIX. Grand Total Annual Recurring Expenditures $2,153,000 100% (1) Reflects stabilized annual expenditures in constant FY 2017 dollars at build -out. (2) Excludes capital improvement costs. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Filename is\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 38 TABLE B-12 ESTIMATE OF STABILIZED FISCAL IMPACT (1) ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA City of Temecula - General Fund I. Annual Recurring Revenues Altair Specific Plan Area Totals Percent Sales Tax - Resident Spending (2) $719,000 38.5% Property Tax $358,000 19.2% Property Tax in -lieu of VLF $325,000 17.4% Special Tax (Measure C) $115,000 6.2% Franchise Fees $107,000 5.7% GaxTax Fund $71,000 3.8% Capital Improvement Program $65,000 3.5% Sales and Use Tax $42,000 2.2% Property Transfer Tax $32,000 1.7% Fines and Forfeitures $16,000 0.9% Licenses and Permits $9,000 0.5% Law Enforcement Fund $6,000 0.3% Miscellaneous Revenue $1,000 0.1% Vehicle License Fees $2,000 0.1% Intern Fellowship Fund a) 0.0% Total Annual Revenues $1,868,000 100.0% 11. Annual Recurring Expenditures Police Asset Management Fund Public Works - Land Development, Public Works, etc. Recreation Funding Fire Public Works - Parks & Maintenance City Manager Community Development Finance Retiree Medical Contribution City Clerk City Attorney Animal Control City Council Community Support Property Tax Administration PERS Replacement Benefit Total Annual Expenditures $1,076,000 $205,000 $170,000 $169,000 $145,000 $110,000 $60,000 $59,000 $49,000 $46,000 $25,000 $13,000 $12,000 $8,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $ 2,153,000 50.0% 9.5% 7.9% 7.8% 6.7% 5.1% 2.8% 2.7% 2.3% 2.1% 1.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 100.0% III. Annual Recurring Surplus/(Deficit) ($285,000) Per Unit Per Year ($163) Revenues to Expenditures Ratio 0.87 (1) Reflects stabilized annual revenues and expenditures in constant FY 2017 dollars at build -out. (2) Includes Project -generated Measure S revenues at Project's build -out year (FY 2024). Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename i:\Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 39 APPENDIX C FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN 20 -Year Projection TABLE C-1 ANNUAL ABSORPTION ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Total at Buildout FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 I. Residential A. Phase I Single -Family For -Sale Multi -Family For -Sale Rental Total Multi -Family 30 Units 235 Units 235 Units 470 Units 15 15 0 0 0 0 117 118 0 0 0 0 117 118 0 0 0 0 234 236 0 0 0 0 B. Phase II Single -Family For -Sale Multi -Family For -Sale Rental Total Multi -Family 0 Units 332 Units 333 Units 665 Units O 0 0 0 0 0 O 55 111 111 55 O 56 111 111 55 O 111 222 222 110 0 0 0 C. Phase III Single -Family For -Sale Multi -Family For -Sale Rental Total Multi -Family 10 Units 263 Units 312 Units 575 Units O 0 1 3 3 3 O 0 22 88 88 65 O 0 26 104 104 78 O 0 48 192 192 143 D. Total Residential 1,750 Units 249 362 271 417 305 146 II. Non -Residential A. Retail Village C - Community Center 7,000 SF B. Institutional Elementary School 80,000 SF O 7,000 0 0 0 0 O 80,000 0 0 0 0 C. Total Non -Residential 87,000 SF O 87,000 0 0 0 0 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 40 TABLE C-2 CUMULATIVE ABSORPTION ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Total at Buildout 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 I. Residential A. PhaseI Single -Family For -Sale Multi -Family For -Sale Rental 30 Units 235 Units 235 Units 470 Units 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 117 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 117 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 234 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 B. Phase II Single -Family For -Sale 0 Units Multi -Family For -Sale 332 Units Rental 333 Units 665 Units O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 55 166 277 332 332 332 332 332 332 O 56 167 278 333 333 333 333 333 333 O 111 333 555 665 665 665 665 665 665 C. Phase III Single -Family For -Sale 10 Units Multi -Family For -Sale 263 Units Rental 312 Units 575 Units O 0 1 4 7 10 10 10 10 10 O 0 22 110 198 263 263 263 263 263 O 0 26 130 234 312 312 312 312 312 O 0 48 240 432 575 575 575 575 575 D. Total Residential Units 1,750 Units 249 611 882 1,299 1,604 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1 1,750 II. Non -Residential A. Retail Village C - Community Center 7,000 SF B. Institutional Elementary 80,000 SF O 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 O 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 IC. Total Non -Residential 87,000 SF 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix- Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 41 TABLE C-2 CUMULATIVE ABSORPTION ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Total at Buildout 14 15 16 17 18 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 I. Residential A. PhaseI Single -Family For -Sale Multi -Family For -Sale Rental 30 Units 235 Units 235 Units 470 Units 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 B. Phase II Single -Family For -Sale 0 Units Multi -Family For -Sale 332 Units Rental 333 Units 665 Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 665 665 665 665 665 665 665 665 665 665 C. Phase III Single -Family For -Sale 10 Units Multi -Family For -Sale 263 Units Rental 312 Units 575 Units 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 ID. Total Residential Units 1,750 Units 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,7501 II. Non -Residential A. Retail Village C - Community Center 7,000 SF B. Institutional Elementary 80,000 SF 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 IC. Total Non -Residential 87,000 SF 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,0001 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix- Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 42 TABLE C-3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA (1) Assumes a Building Efficiency Factor of 95.0%. (2) Assumes a resident equivalent factor of 0.33. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix- Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 43 Total at Buildout Vacancy Factor Employment Factor FY 2019 2 FY 2020 3 FY 2021 4 FY 2022 5 FY 2023 6 FY 2024 7 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 I. Population A. Phase! Single -Family per Unit For -Sale 30 Units 5.0% 3.50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Multi -Family For -Sale 235 Units 5.0% 2.50 278 558 558 558 558 558 558 558 558 558 Rental 235 Units 5.0% 2.00 222 447 447 447 447 447 447 447 447 447 470 Units 500 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 B. Phase II Single -Family For -Sale 0 Units 5.0% 3.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multi -Family For -Sale 332 Units 5.0% 2.50 0 131 394 658 789 789 789 789 789 789 Rental 333 Units 5.0% 2.00 0 106 317 528 633 633 633 633 633 633 665 Units 0 237 712 1,186 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 C. Phase III Single -Family For -Sale 10 Units 5.0% 3.50 0 0 3 13 23 33 33 33 33 33 Multi -Family For -Sale 263 Units 5.0% 2.50 0 0 52 261 470 625 625 625 625 625 Rental 312 Units 5.0% 2.00 0 0 49 247 445 593 593 593 593 593 575 Units 0 0 102 508 915 1,217 1,217 1,217 1,217 1,217 ID. Total Residential Population 1,750 Units 550 1,341 1,921 2,812 3,464 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,7761 II. Employment per 1,000/SF A. Retail(1) Village C - Community Center 7,000 SF 90% 2.0 0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 B. Institutional Elementary School 80 000 SF 100% 0.75 0 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 C. Total Employment 87,000 SF 0 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 III. Total Population + Employment 550 1,413 1,993 2,884 3,536 3,848 3,848 3,848 3,848 3,848 11V. Total Resident Equivalents (2) 550 1,365 1,945 2,836 3,487 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,8001 (1) Assumes a Building Efficiency Factor of 95.0%. (2) Assumes a resident equivalent factor of 0.33. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix- Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 43 TABLE C-3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA (1) Assumes a Building Efficiency Factor of 95.0%. (2) Assumes a resident equivalent factor of 0.33. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix- Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 44 Total at Buildout Vacancy Factor Employment Factor 11 FY 2029 12 FY 2030 13 FY 2031 14 FY 2032 15 FY 2033 16 FY 2034 17 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 I. Population A. Phase I Single -Family per Unit For -Sale 30 Units 5.0% 3.50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Multi -Family For -Sale 235 Units 5.0% 2.50 558 558 558 558 558 558 558 558 558 558 Rental 235 Units 5.0% 2.00 447 447 447 447 447 447 447 447 447 447 470 Units 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 B. Phase II Single -Family For -Sale 0 Units 5.0% 3.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multi -Family For -Sale 332 Units 5.0% 2.50 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 Rental 333 Units 5.0% 2.00 633 633 633 633 633 633 633 633 633 633 665 Units 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 C. Phase III Single -Family For -Sale 10 Units 5.0% 3.50 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 Multi -Family For -Sale 263 Units 5.0% 2.50 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 Rental 312 Units 5.0% 2.00 593 593 593 593 593 593 593 593 593 593 575 Units 1,217 1,217 1,217 1,217 1,217 1,217 1,217 1,217 1,217 1,217 ID. Total Residential Population 1,750 Units 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,7761 II. Employment per 1,000/SF A. Retail(1) Village C - Community Center 7,000 SF 90% 2.0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 B. Institutional Elementary School 80 000 SF 100% 0.75 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 C. Total Employment 87,000 SF 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 III. Total Population + Employment 3,848 3,848 3,848 3,848 3,848 3,848 3,848 3,848 3,848 3,848 11V. Total Resident Equivalents (2) 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,8001 (1) Assumes a Building Efficiency Factor of 95.0%. (2) Assumes a resident equivalent factor of 0.33. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix- Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 44 TABLE C-4 ANNUAL ASSESSED VALUE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Price per Unit/Value per SF (2017$)(1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 I. Assessed Value - Phase I A. Single -Family For -Sale (2) $497,000 B. Multi -Family For -Sale (2)(3) $361,000 C. Multi -Family Rental (4) $290,000 $8,219,138 $17,177,997 $17,865,117 $18,579,722 $19,322,911 $20,095,827 $20,899,660 $21,735,647 $22,605,073 $23,509,276 $46,566,293 $97,741,454 $101,651,112 $105,717,157 $109,945,843 $114,343,677 $118,917,424 $123,674,121 $128,621,085 $133,765,929 $37,407,825 $78,143,987 $80,488,307 $82,902,956 $85,390,045 $87,951,746 $90,590,298 $93,308,007 $96,107,248 $98,990,465 II. Assessed Value - Phase II A. Single -Family For -Sale (2) $497,000 B. Multi -Family For -Sale (am $361,000 C. Multi -Family Rental (4) $290,000 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,984,644 $72,610,581 $126,656,883 $158,330,757 $164,663,987 $171,250,547 $178,100,569 $185,224,591 $192,633,575 $0 $18,799,830 $58,490,971 $101,329,204 $125,743,605 $129,515,913 $133,401,391 $137,403,433 $141,525,536 $145,771,302 III. Assessed Value - Phase III A. Single -Family For -Sale (2) $497,000 B. Multi -Family For -Sale (2)(3) $361,000 C. Multi -Family Rental (4) $290,000 $0 $0 $604,107 $2,531,207 $4,630,538 $6,913,746 $7,190,296 $7,477,907 $7,777,024 $8,088,105 $0 $0 $9,653,551 $50,584,605 $95,180,148 $132,004,965 $137,285,164 $142,776,570 $148,487,633 $154,427,138 $0 $0 $9,164,917 $47,932,517 $89,787,777 $124,310,021 $128,039,322 $131,880,502 $135,836,917 $139,912,024 IV. Assessed Value - Non -Residential A. Retail (5) V. Grand Total Assessed Value $375 $0 $2,909,831 $2,982,577 $3,057,142 $3,133,570 $3,211,909 $3,292,207 $3,374,512 $3,458,875 $3,545,347 $92,193,255 $237,757,744 $353,511,240 $539,291,391 $691,465,193 $783,011,793 $810,866,309 $839,731,268 $869,643,982 $900,643,161 (1) Includes view premiums of 5.0% for for -sale residential. (2) Assessed Value inflation rate based on 5.0% per year up to project build -out. After project build -out assessed value inflation decreased to 4.0°%0 . (3) Multi -family for -sale assumed to comprise 40% flats and 60% townhomes. (4) Assessed Value inflation rate based on 5.0% per year up to project build -out. After project build -out assessed value inflation decreased to 3.0°%0 . (5) Assessed Value inflation rate based on 3.5% per year up to project build -out. After project build -out assessed value inflation decreased to 2.5°%0 . Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 45 TABLE C-4 ANNUAL ASSESSED VALUE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Price per Unit/Value per SF (2017$)(1) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 I. Assessed Value - Phase I A. Single -Family For -Sale (2) $497,000 B. Multi -Family For -Sale (2)(3) $361,000 C. Multi -Family Rental (4) $290,000 $24,449,647 $25,427,632 $26,444,738 $27,502,527 $28,602,628 $29,746,733 $30,936,603 $32,174,067 $33,461,030 $34,799,471 $139,116,566 $144,681,229 $150,468,478 $156,487,217 $162,746,706 $169,256,574 $176,026,837 $183,067,910 $190,390,627 $198,006,252 $101,960,179 $105,018,984 $108,169,554 $111,414,641 $114,757,080 $118,199,792 $121,745,786 $125,398,160 $129,160,104 $133,034,907 II. Assessed Value - Phase II A. Single -Family For -Sale (2) $497,000 B. Multi -Family For -Sale (am $361,000 C. Multi -Family Rental (4) $290,000 so so so so so so so so so so $200,338,918 $208,352,475 $216,686,574 $225,354,037 $234,368,198 $243,742,926 $253,492,643 $263,632,349 $274,177,643 $285,144,749 $150,144,441 $154,648,774 $159,288,237 $164,066,884 $168,988,891 $174,058,557 $179,280,314 $184,658,724 $190,198,485 $195,904,440 III. Assessed Value - Phase III A. Single -Family For -Sale (2) $497,000 B. Multi -Family For -Sale (2)(3) $361,000 C. Multi -Family Rental (4) $290,000 $8,411,629 $8,748,094 $9,098,018 $9,461,938 $9,840,416 $10,234,033 $10,643,394 $11,069,130 $11,511,895 $11,972,371 $160,604,224 $167,028,393 $173,709,529 $180,657,910 $187,884,226 $195,399,595 $203,215,579 $211,344,202 $219,797,970 $228,589,889 $144,109,385 $148,432,667 $152,885,647 $157,472,216 $162,196,382 $167,062,274 $172,074,142 $177,236,366 $182,553,457 $188,030,061 IV. Assessed Value - Non -Residential A. Retail (5) V. Grand Total Assessed Value $375 $3,633,981 $3,724,830 $3,817,951 $3,913,400 $4,011,235 $4,111,516 $4,214,304 $4,319,661 $4,427,653 $4,538,344 $932,768,969 $966,063,078 $1,000,568,725 $1,036,330,770 $1,073,395,762 $1,111,812,001 $1,151,629,602 $1,192,900,569 $1,235,678,864 $1,280,020,484 (1) Includes view premiums of 5.0% for for -sale residential. (2) Assessed Value inflation rate based on 5.0% per year up to project build -out. After project build -out assessed value inflation decreased to 4.0%. (3) Multi -family for -sale assumed to comprise 40% flats and60% townhomes. (4) Assessed Value inflation rate based on 5.0% per year up to project build -out. After project build -out assessed value inflation decreased to 3.0%. (5) Assessed Value inflation rate based on 3.5% per year up to project build -out. After project build -out assessed value inflation decreased to 2.5%. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 46 TABLE C-5 ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES - PROPERTY TAXES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Property Tax Levy City Portion 5.64% 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 I. Property Tax - Phase I A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $5,098 $10,655 $11,082 $11,525 $11,986 $12,465 $12,964 $13,482 $14,022 $14,583 $28,885 $60,628 $63,053 $65,575 $68,198 $70,926 $73,763 $76,714 $79,782 $82,974 $23,204 $48,472 $49,926 $51,424 $52,967 $54,556 $56,192 $57,878 $59,614 $61,403 II. Property Tax - Phase II A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $14,257 $45,040 $78,564 $98,211 $102,139 $106,225 $110,474 $114,893 $119,489 $0 $11,661 $36,281 $62,853 $77,998 $80,337 $82,748 $85,230 $87,787 $90,420 III. Property Tax - Phase III A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $0 $0 $375 $1,570 $2,872 $4,289 $4,460 $4,638 $4,824 $5,017 $0 $0 $5,988 $31,377 $59,039 $81,881 $85,157 $88,563 $92,105 $95,790 $0 $0 $5,685 $29,732 $55,694 $77,108 $79,422 $81,804 $84,258 $86,786 IV. Property Tax - Non -Residential A. Retail V. Grand Total Property Tax to City $0 $1,805 $1,850 $1,896 $1,944 $1,992 $2,042 $2,093 $2,146 $2,199 $57,187 $147,479 $219,279 $334,517 $428,909 $485,694 $502,972 $520,877 $539,431 $558,660 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 47 TABLE C-5 ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES -PROPERTY TAXES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Property Tax Levy City Portion 5.64% 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 I. Property Tax - Phase I A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $15,166 $15,773 $16,403 $17,060 $17,742 $18,452 $19,190 $19,957 $20,756 $21,586 $86,293 $89,744 $93,334 $97,067 $100,950 $104,988 $109,188 $113,555 $118,097 $122,821 $63,245 $65,142 $67,096 $69,109 $71,183 $73,318 $75,518 $77,783 $80,117 $82,520 II. Property Tax - Phase II A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $124,268 $129,239 $134,409 $139,785 $145,376 $151,191 $157,239 $163,529 $170,070 $176,872 $93,133 $95,927 $98,805 $101,769 $104,822 $107,967 $111,206 $114,542 $117,978 $121,518 III. Property Tax - Phase III A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $5,218 $5,426 $5,643 $5,869 $6,104 $6,348 $6,602 $6,866 $7,141 $7,426 $99,621 $103,606 $107,750 $112,060 $116,543 $121,204 $126,053 $131,095 $136,338 $141,792 $89,390 $92,071 $94,833 $97,678 $100,609 $103,627 $106,736 $109,938 $113,236 $116,633 IV. Property Tax - Non -Residential A. Retail V. Grand Total Property Tax to City $2,254 $2,310 $578,587 $599,239 $2,368 $2,427 $620,643 $642,826 $2,488 $2,550 $665,817 $689,646 $2,614 $2,679 $714,344 $739,944 $2,746 $2,815 $766,479 $793,984 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 48 TABLE C-6 ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES - PROPERTY TAX IN -LIEU OF VLF ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA License Fee (1) $0.5636 (per$1,000 in AV Growth) 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 I. Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF - Phase I A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $4,633 $9,682 $10,069 $10,472 $10,891 $n,327 $11,780 $12,251 $12,741 $13,251 $26,246 $55,090 $57,294 $59,586 $61,969 $64,448 $67,026 $69,707 $72,495 $75,395 $21,084 $44,045 $45,366 $46,727 $48,129 $49,572 $51,060 $52,591 $54,169 $55,794 II. Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF - Phase II A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $12,955 $40,926 $71,388 $89,240 $92,810 $96,522 $100,383 $104,399 $108,575 $0 $10,596 $32,967 $57,112 $70,873 $72,999 $75,189 $77,445 $79,768 $82,161 III. Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF - Phase III A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $0 $0 $340 $1,427 $2,610 $3,897 $4,053 $4,215 $4,383 $4,559 $0 $0 $5,441 $28,511 $53,647 $74,402 $77,378 $80,474 $83,693 $87,040 $0 $0 $5,166 $27,016 $50,607 $70,065 $72,167 $74,332 $76,562 $78,859 IV. Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF - Non -Residential A. Retail V. Total Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF to City (1) Source: California State Controller's Office. $0 $1,640 $1,681 $1,723 $1,766 $1,810 $1,856 $1,902 $1,950 $1,998 $51,963 $134,008 $199,251 $303,962 $389,733 $441,331 $457,031 $473,300 $490,160 $507,632 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix- Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 49 TABLE C-6 ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES - PROPERTY TAX IN -LIEU OF VLF ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA License Fee (1) $0.5636 (per$1,000 in AV Growth) 11. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 I. Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF - Phase I A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $13,781 $14,332 $14,905 $15,501 $16,121 $16,766 $17,437 $18,134 $18,860 $19,614 $78,411 $81,547 $84,809 $88,201 $91,729 $95,399 $99,215 $103,183 $107,310 $111,603 $57,468 $59,192 $60,968 $62,797 $64,681 $66,621 $68,620 $70,679 $72,799 $74,983 II. Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF - Phase II A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $112,918 $117,434 $122,132 $127,017 $132,098 $137,382 $142,877 $148,592 $154,536 $160,717 $84,626 $87,165 $89,780 $92,473 $95,248 $98,105 $101,048 $104,080 $107,202 $110,418 III. Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF - Phase III A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $4,741 $4,931 $5,128 $5,333 $5,546 $5,768 $5,999 $6,239 $6,488 $6,748 $90,522 $94,143 $97,908 $101,825 $105,898 $110,134 $114,539 $119,121 $123,885 $128,841 $81,225 $83,662 $86,171 $88,757 $91,419 $94,162 $96,987 $99,896 $102,893 $105,980 IV. Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF - Non -Residential A. Retail V. Total Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF to City (1) Source: California State Controller's Office. $2,048 $2,099 $2,152 $2,206 $2,261 $2,317 $2,375 $2,435 $2,496 $2,558 $525,739 $544,505 $563,953 $584,110 $605,001 $626,654 $649,096 $672,358 $696,469 $721,462 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix- Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 50 TABLE C-7 ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES - PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Transfer Tax (per $500) $0.55 City Share of Transfer Tax 50% Turnover Rate (Residential) 10% Turnover Rate (Retail) 5% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Ci FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 I. Property Transfer Tax - Phase I A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental II. Property Transfer Tax - Phase II A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental III. Property Transfer Tax - Phase III A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $452 $945 $983 $1,022 $1,063 $1,105 $1,149 $1,195 $1,243 $1,293 $2,561 $5,376 $5,591 $5,814 $6,047 $6,289 $6,540 $6,802 $7,074 $7,357 $2,057 $4,298 $4,427 $4,560 $4,696 $4,837 $4,982 $5,132 $5,286 $5,444 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $1,264 $3,994 $6,966 $8,708 $9,057 $9,419 $9,796 $10,187 $10,595 $0 $1,034 $3,217 $5,573 $6,916 $7,123 $7,337 $7,557 $7,784 $8,017 $0 $0 $33 $139 $255 $380 $395 $4n $428 $445 $0 $0 $531 $2,782 $5,235 $7,260 $7,551 $7,853 $8,167 $8,493 $0 $0 $504 $2,636 $4,938 $6,837 $7,042 $7,253 $7,471 $7,695 IV. Property Transfer Tax - Non -Residential A. Retail V. Grand Total Property Transfer Tax to City $o $80 $82 $84 $86 $88 $91 $93 $95 $97 $5,071 $12,997 $19,361 $29,577 $37,944 $42,977 $44,507 $46,092 $47,735 $49,438 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 51 TABLE C-7 ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES - PROPERTY TRANS FER TAXES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Transfer Tax (per $500) $0.55 City Share of Transfer Tax 50% Turnover Rate (Residential) 10% Turnover Rate (Retail) 5% 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 I. Property Transfer Tax - Phase I A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental II. Property Transfer Tax - Phase II A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental III. Property Transfer Tax - Phase III A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $1,345 $1,399 $1,454 $1,513 $1,573 $1,636 $1,702 $1,770 $1,840 $1,914 $7,651 $7,957 $8,276 $8,607 $8,951 $9,309 $9,681 $10,069 $10,471 $10,890 $5,608 $5,776 $5,949 $6,128 $6,312 $6,501 $6,696 $6,897 $7,104 $7,317 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $11,019 $11,459 $11,918 $12,394 $12,890 $13,406 $13,942 $14,500 $15,080 $15,683 $8,258 $8,506 $8,761 $9,024 $9,294 $9,573 $9,860 $10,156 $10,461 $10,775 $463 $481 $500 $520 $541 $563 $585 $609 $633 $658 $8,833 $9,187 $9,554 $9,936 $10,334 $10,747 $11,177 $11,624 $12,089 $12,572 $7,926 $8,164 $8,409 $8,661 $8,921 $9,188 $9,464 $9,748 $10,040 $10,342 IV. Property Transfer Tax - Non -Residential A. Retail V. Grand Total Property Transfer Tax to City $loo $102 $105 $108 $110 $51,202 $53,031 $54,926 $56,891 $113 $116 $119 $122 $125 $58,926 $61,037 $63,224 $65,491 $67,841 $70,276 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 52 TABLE C-8 ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES - SALES TAX / RESIDENTIAL SPENDING (1) ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Residential: Taxable Spending by Residents 33.5% Temecula Spending Capture 80% Non -Residential: Sales Productivity (per SF) $400 Taxable Sales 90% Measure 5 (Residential and Non -Residential) : Estimate of Measure 5 - Effective Revenues 1.0% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 I. Sales Tax by Residential Spending - Phase I (2) A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $8,787 $19,414 $21,512 $22,417 $22,977 $23,583 $25,180 $25,810 $26,455 $27,116 $51,543 $114,377 $126,735 $132,070 $135,371 $138,941 $148,348 $152,057 $155,858 $159,755 $43,047 $95,524 $105,845 $110,300 $113,057 $116,038 $123,895 $126,993 $130,167 $133,422 II. Sales Tax by Residential Spending - Phase II (2) A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,090 $92,075 $162,198 $200,719 $206,012 $219,961 $225,460 $231,096 $236,873 $0 $23,036 $77,354 $135,937 $168,121 $172,554 $184,237 $188,843 $193,564 $198,403 III. Sales Tax by Residential Spending - Phase III (2) A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental IV. Grand Total Residential Spending $0 $0 $743 $3,155 $5,734 $8,514 $9,090 $9,317 $9,550 $9,789 $0 $0 $12,300 $65,338 $122,118 $168,164 $179,551 $184,039 $188,640 $193,356 522 L $12,140 $64,489 $120,532 $166,631 $177,913 $182,361 $186,920 $191,593 $103,376 $279,441 $448,703 $695,904 $888,630 $1,000,436 $1,068,174 $1,094,879 $1,122,251 $1,150,307 V. Sales and Use Tax - Non -Residential A. Retail (2) Allocation of Measure 5 Revenues to General Fund (3) (1) Includes Project -generated Measure S revenues. (2) Assumes an escalation factor of 2.5%. (3) Source: City of Temecula, May 2017. $0 $49,742 $55,117 $57,437 $58,873 $60,425 $64,516 $66,129 $67,782 $69,477 64% 74% 89% 92% 92% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 53 TABLE C-8 ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUES - SALES TAX / RESIDENTIAL SPENDING (1) ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Residential: Taxable Spending by Residents 33.5% Temecula Spending Capture 80% Non -Residential: Sales Productivity (per SF) $400 Taxable Sales 90% Measure 5 (Residential and Non -Residential) : Estimate of Measure 5 - Effective Revenues 1.0% .1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 I. Sales Tax by Residential Spending - Phase I (2) A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $27,794 $28,489 $29,201 $29,931 $30,680 $31,446 $32,233 $33,038 $33,864 $34,711 $163,749 $167,842 $172,038 $176,339 $180,748 $185,267 $189,898 $194,646 $199,512 $204,500 $136,757 $140,176 $143,680 $147,272 $150,954 $154,728 $158,596 $162,561 $166,625 $170,791 II. Sales Tax by Residential Spending - Phase II (2) A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $242,795 $248,865 $255,087 $261,464 $268,001 $274,701 $281,568 $288,607 $295,822 $303,218 $203,363 $208,447 $213,658 $219,000 $224,475 $230,087 $235,839 $241,735 $247,778 $253,972 III. Sales Tax by Residential Spending - Phase III (2) A. Single -Family For -Sale B. Multi -Family For -Sale C. Multi -Family Rental IV. Grand Total Residential Spending $10,034 $10,284 $10,542 $10,805 $11,075 $11,352 $11,636 $11,927 $12,225 $12,531 $198,190 $203,145 $208,224 $213,429 $218,765 $224,234 $229,840 $235,586 $241,475 $247,512 $196,383 $201,292 $206,325 $211,483 $216,770 $222,189 $227,744 $233437 $239,273 $245,255 $1,179,065 $1,208,541 $1,238,755 $1,269,724 $1,301,467 $1,334,003 $1,367,353 $1,401,537 $1,436,576 $1,472,490 V. Sales and Use Tax - Non -Residential A. Retail (2) Allocation of Measure 5 Revenues to General Fund (3) (1) Includes Project -generated Measure S revenues. (2) Assumes an escalation factor of 2.5%. (3) Source: City of Temecula, May 2017. $71,214 $72,994 $74,819 $76,690 $78,607 $80,572 $82,586 $84,651 $86,767 $88,936 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 54 TABLE C-9 SPECIAL TAX C REVENUE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA rSpecial Tax (Measure C) $74.44 per EDU Single Family $74.44 /Parcel Multi -Family 0.75 EDU per unit Retail 6.0 EDU per acre 1 7 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 I. Residential - Developed A. Phase I Single -Family Revenue (1) 265 units Multi -Family Revenue 235 units $9,826 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $6,532 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 B. Phase II Single -Family Revenue (1) 332 units Multi -Family Revenue 333 units $0 $4,094 $12,357 $20,620 $24,714 $24,714 $24,714 $24,714 $24,714 $24,714 $0 $3,126 $9,324 $15,521 $18,591 $18,591 $18,591 $18,591 $18,591 $18,591 C. Phase III Single -Family Revenue (1) 273 units Multi -Family Revenue 312 units D. Total Residential Units 1,750 units $0 $0 $1,712 $8,486 $15,260 $20,322 $20,322 $20,322 $20,322 $20,322 $0 $0 $1,452 $7,258 $13,064 $17,419 $17,419 $17,419 $17,419 $17,419 $16,358 $40,067 $57,691 $84,731 $104,477 $113,893 $113,893 $113,893 $113,893 $113,893 II. Commercial - Developed A. Retail Commercial Revenue III. Total Special Tax C NPV @ 7,000 SF 9.0% $0 $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $16,358 $40,827 (1) Per City of Temecula, all for -sale property is taxed at the Single -Family per unit rate. $58,450 $85,491 $105,236 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix-Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 55 TABLE C-9 SPECIAL TAX C REVENUE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA rSpecial Tax (Measure C) $74.44 per EDU Single Family $74.44 /Parcel Multi -Family 0.75 EDU per unit Retail 6.0 EDU per acre 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 I. Residential - Developed A. Phase I Single -Family Revenue (1) 265 units Multi -Family Revenue 235 units $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $19,727 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 $13,120 B. Phase II Single -Family Revenue (1) 332 units Multi -Family Revenue 333 units $24,714 $24,714 $18,591 $18,591 $24,714 $24,714 $18,591 $18,591 $24,714 $24,714 $18,591 $18,591 $24,714 $24,714 $18,591 $18,591 $24,714 $24,714 $18,591 $18,591 C. Phase III Single -Family Revenue (1) 273 units Multi -Family Revenue 312 units D. Total Residential Units 1,750 units $20,322 $20,322 $20,322 $20,322 $20,322 $20,322 $20,322 $20,322 $20,322 $20,322 $17,419 $17,419 $17,419 $17,419 $17,419 $17,419 $17,419 $17,419 $17,419 $17,419 $113,893 $113,893 $113,893 $113,893 $113,893 $113,893 $113,893 $113,893 $113,893 $113,893 II. Commercial - Developed A. Retail Commercial Revenue III. Total Special Tax C NPV @ 7,000 SF 9.0% (1) Per City of Temecula, all for -sale property is taxed at the $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix-Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 56 TABLE C-10 ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA FY 2017 Amount Per Resident or Resident Service Equivalent (1) Population 6 7 8 9 10 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 I. Total Residential Population II. Total Resident Equivalents 550 1,341 1,921 2,812 3,464 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 550 1,365 1,945 2,836 3,487 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 III. Other Annual General Fund Revenues Franchise Fees $28.06 RE $16,214 $41,248 $60,226 $90,019 $113,474 $126,735 $129,903 $133,151 $136,480 $139,892 Gas Tax Fund $18.67 P $10,790 $26,972 $39,590 $59,404 $75,001 $83,813 $85,908 $88,056 $90,257 $92,514 Capital Improvement Program $16.98 RE $9,815 $24,967 $36,455 $54,489 $68,687 $76,714 $78,632 $80,597 $82,612 $84,678 Fines and Foreitures $4.29 RE $2,477 $6,302 $9,202 $13,754 $17,338 $19,364 $19,848 $20,345 $20,853 $21,375 Licenses and Permits $2.41 RE $1,390 $3,537 $5,165 $7,719 $9,731 $10,868 $11,140 $11,418 $11,704 $11,996 Law Enforcement Fund $1.71 RE $987 $2,512 $3,667 $5,482 $6,910 $7,717 $7,910 $8,108 $8,311 $8,519 Vehicle License Fees $0.44 P $255 $638 $936 $1,404 $1,773 $1,981 $2,031 $2,081 $2,133 $2,187 Miscellaneous Revenue $0.33 RE $190 $484 $707 $1,056 $1,331 $1,487 $1,524 $1,562 $1,601 $1,641 Intern Fellow Fund $0.07 RE $41 $104 $151 $226 $285 $319 $327 $335 $343 $352 IV. Total Other Revenues $42,160 $106,763 $156,099 $233,554 $294,530 $328,998 $337,223 $345,653 $354,295 $363,152 Legend: RE - Resident Equivalent P - Population (1) Assumes escalation factor of 2.5%. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 57 TABLE C-10 ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA FY 2017 Amount Per Resident or Resident Service Equivalent (1) Population 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 I. Total Residential Population II. Total Resident Equivalents 3,776 3,776 3,800 3,800 3,776 3,776 3,800 3,800 3,776 3,776 3,800 3,800 3,776 3,776 3,800 3,800 3,776 3,776 3,800 3,800 III. Other Annual General Fund Revenues Franchise Fees $28.06 RE $143,389 $146,974 $150,648 $154,414 $158,275 $162,232 $166,287 $170,445 $174,706 $179,073 Gas Tax Fund $18.67 P $94,826 $97,197 $99,627 $102,118 $104,671 $107,287 $109,970 $112,719 $115,537 $118,425 Capital Improvement Program $16.98 RE $86,794 $88,964 $91,188 $93,468 $95,805 $98,200 $100,655 $103,171 $105,751 $108,394 Fines and Foreitures $4.29 RE $21,909 $22,457 $23,018 $23,593 $24,183 $24,788 $25,408 $26,043 $26,694 $27,361 Licenses and Permits $2.41 RE $12,296 $12,604 $12,919 $13,242 $13,573 $13,912 $14,260 $14,616 $14,982 $15,356 Law Enforcement Fund $1.71 RE $8,732 $8,950 $9,174 $9,403 $9,638 $9,879 $10,126 $10,379 $10,639 $10,904 Vehicle License Fees $0.44 P $2,241 $2,297 $2,355 $2,414 $2,474 $2,536 $2,599 $2,664 $2,731 $2,799 Miscellaneous Revenue $0.33 RE $1,682 $1,724 $1,767 $1,812 $1,857 $1,903 $1,951 $2,000 $2,050 $2,101 Intern Fellow Fund $0.07 RE $360 $369 $379 $388 $398 $408 $418 $428 $439 $450 IV. Total Other Revenues $372,231 $381,537 $391,075 $400,852 $410,873 $421,145 $431,674 $442,465 $453,527 $464,865 (1) Assumes escalation factor of 2.5%. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix - Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 58 TABLE C-11 ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA FY 2017 Amount Per "Marginal Resident Annual Cost' or Resident Escalation Impact Service Equivalent Rate (1) Adjustment Population 2 3 4 5 6 7 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 8 FY 2026 9 10 FY 2027 FY 2028 I. Total Residential Population II. Total Resident Equivalents III. Annual General Fund Expenditures Police $300.00 6.0% (2) 5% P Recreation Funding $55.84 3.0% 20% P Asset Management Fund $54.04 2.0% 0% P Public Works - Land Development, Public Works, etc. $49.68 3.0% 10% RE Fire $40.25 5.0% (3) 5% RE Public Works - Parks & Maintenance $32.30 3.0% 10% P City Manager $26.09 2.0% 40% RE Community Development $19.69 3.0% 20% RE Finance $18.28 2.0% 30% RE Retiree Medical Contribution $12.18 4.0% 0% RE City Clerk $9.52 2.0% 30% RE City Attorney $5.77 2.0% 40% RE Animal Control $3.63 2.0% 10% RE City Council $3.55 2.0% 40% RE Community Support $0.70 2.0% 20% RE PERS Replacement Benefit $0.63 2.0% 0% RE Property Tax Administration $0.61 2.0% 30% RE 550 1,341 1,921 2,812 3,464 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 550 1,365 1,945 2,836 3,487 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 $176,140 $455,324 $691,151 $1,072,481 $1,373,877 $1,557,764 $1,620,074 $1,684,877 $1,752,272 $1,822,363 $26,070 $65,484 $96,587 $145,635 $184,769 $207,485 $213,709 $220,121 $226,724 $233,526 $30,927 $76,930 $112,367 $167,784 $210,802 $234,421 $239,109 $243,891 $248,769 $253,745 $26,092 $66,699 $97,863 $146,988 $186,191 $208,964 $215,232 $221,689 $228,340 $235,190 $23,190 $60,431 $90,388 $138,397 $175,309 $196,751 $202,653 $208,733 $214,995 $221,445 $16,963 $42,609 $62,848 $94,763 $120,226 $135,007 $139,058 $143,229 $147,526 $151,952 $8,958 $22,678 $32,951 $49,011 $61,480 $68,330 $69,697 $71,091 $72,513 $73,963 $9,194 $23,504 $34,485 $51,796 $65,611 $73,636 $75,845 $78,120 $80,464 $82,878 $7,321 $18,534 $26,930 $40,055 $50,246 $55,844 $56,961 $58,100 $59,262 $60,447 $7,246 $18,702 $27,707 $42,019 $53,743 $60,902 $63,338 $65,872 $68,506 $71,247 $3,815 $9,656 $14,031 $20,869 $26,179 $29,095 $29,677 $30,271 $30,876 $31,494 $1,981 $5,014 $7,285 $10,836 $13,593 $15,107 $15,409 $15,717 $16,032 $16,352 $1,869 $4,731 $6,874 $10,225 $12,826 $14,255 $14,540 $14,831 $15,128 $15,430 $1,219 $3,086 $4,484 $6,669 $8,366 $9,298 $9,484 $9,674 $9,867 $10,065 $319 $808 $1,175 $1,747 $2,192 $2,436 $2,484 $2,534 $2,585 $2,637 $363 $920 $1,336 $1,988 $2,493 $2,771 $2,826 $2,883 $2,941 $2,999 45 620 $31. $1 340 $1,681 $1 868 $1,905 $1 943 $1,982 $2,022 1IV. Total General Fund Expenditures $341,912 $875,731 $1,309,363 $2,002,603 $2,549,583 $2,873,933 $2,972,003 $3,073,577 $3,178,782 $3,287,754 1 (1) Escalation factors per City of Temecula Finance Department. (2) Reflects escalation factor for FY 2017 -FY 2022, escalation is reduced to 4.0% beginning in FY 2023. (3) Reflects escalation factor for FY 2017 -FY 2022, escalation is reduced to 3.0% beginning in FY 2023. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix -Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Le¢end: RE - Resident Equivalent P - Population Page 59 TABLE C-11 ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA FY 2017 Amount Per "Marginal Resident Annual Cost' or Resident Escalation Impact Service Equivalent Rate (1) Adjustment Population 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 I. Total Residential Population II. Total Resident Equivalents 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,776 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 III. Annual General Fund Expenditures Police $300.00 6.0% (2) 5% P $1,895,258 $1,971,068 $2,049,911 $2,131,907 $2,217,184 $2,305,871 $2,398,106 $2,494,030 $2,593,791 $2,697,543 Recreation Funding $55.84 3.0% 20% P $240,532 $247,748 $255,180 $262,835 $270,720 $278,842 $287,207 $295,824 $304,698 $313,839 Asset Management Fund $54.04 2.0% 0% P $258,820 $263,996 $269,276 $274,661 $280,155 $285,758 $291,473 $297,302 $303,248 $309,313 Public Works - Land Development, Public Works, etc. $49.68 3.0% 10% RE $242,246 $249,513 $256,999 $264,709 $272,650 $280,830 $289,254 $297,932 $306,870 $316,076 Fire $40.25 5.0% (3) 5% RE $228,088 $234,931 $241,979 $249,238 $256,715 $264,417 $272,349 $280,519 $288,935 $297,603 Public Works - Parks & Maintenance $32.30 3.0% 10% P $156,510 $161,206 $166,042 $171,023 $176,154 $181,439 $186,882 $192,488 $198,263 $204,211 City Manager $26.09 2.0% 40% RE $75,442 $76,951 $78,490 $80,060 $81,661 $83,294 $84,960 $86,659 $88,392 $90,160 Community Development $19.69 3.0% 20% RE $85,364 $87,925 $90,563 $93,280 $96,078 $98,961 $101,929 $104,987 $108,137 $111,381 Finance $18.28 2.0% 30% RE $61,656 $62,889 $64,147 $65,430 $66,738 $68,073 $69,435 $70,823 $72,240 $73,685 Retiree Medical Contribution $12.18 4.0% 0% RE $74,097 $77,060 $80,143 $83,349 $86,682 $90,150 $93,756 $97,506 $101,406 $105,462 City Clerk $9.52 2.0% 30% RE $32,124 $32,766 $33,421 $34,090 $34,772 $35,467 $36,176 $36,900 $37,638 $38,391 City Attorney $5.77 2.0% 40% RE $16,679 $17,013 $17,353 $17,700 $18,054 $18,415 $18,784 $19,159 $19,542 $19,933 Animal Control $3.63 2.0% 10% RE $15,739 $16,054 $16,375 $16,702 $17,036 $17,377 $17,724 $18,079 $18,441 $18,809 City Council $3.55 2.0% 40% RE $10,266 $10,471 $10,681 $10,894 $11,112 $11,334 $11,561 $11,792 $12,028 $12,269 Community Support $0.70 2.0% 20% RE $2,689 $2,743 $2,798 $2,854 $2,911 $2,969 $3,029 $3,089 $3,151 $3,214 PERS Replacement Benefit $0.63 2.0% 0% RE $3,059 $3,121 $3,183 $3,247 $3,312 $3,378 $3,445 $3,514 $3,585 $3,656 Property Tax Administration $0.61 2.0% 30% RE $2,062 $2,103 $2,146 $2 188 $2,232 $2 277 $2,322 $2 369 $2,416 $2,465 1IV. Total General Fund Expenditures $3,400,631 $3,517,558 $3,638,685 $3,764,167 $3,894,167 $4,028,851 $4,168,393 $4,312,974 $4,462,782 $4,618,010 1 (1) Escalation factors per City of Temecula Finance Department. (2) Reflects escalation factor for FY 2017 -FY 2022, escalation is reduced to 4.0% beginning i n FY 2023. (3) Reflects escalation factor for FY 2017 -FY 2022, escalation is reduced to 3.0% beginning in FY 2023. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix -Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt Page 60 TABLE C-12 ANNUAL GENERAL FUND IMPACT ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA 2 3 4 5 9 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 I. Annual General Fund Revenues Sales Tax - Residential Spending (1) Property Tax Property Tax in -lieu of VLF Franchise Fees Special Tax (Measure C) Gas Tax Fund Capital Improvement Program Sales and Use Tax (1) Property Transfer Tax Fines and Forfeitures Licenses and Permits Law Enforcement Fund Miscellaneous Revenue Vehicle License Fees Intern Fellowship Fund II. Total Revenues $103,376 $279,441 $448,703 $695,904 $888,630 $1,000,436 $1,068,174 $1,094,879 $1,122,251 $1,150,307 $57,187 $147,479 $219,279 $334,517 $428,909 $485,694 $502,972 $520,877 $539,431 $558,660 $51,963 $134,008 $199,251 $303,962 $389,733 $441,331 $457,031 $473,300 $490,160 $507,632 $16,214 $41,248 $60,226 $90,019 $113,474 $126,735 $129,903 $133,151 $136,480 $139,892 $16,358 $40,827 $58,450 $85,491 $105,236 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $10,790 $26,972 $39,590 $59,404 $75,001 $83,813 $85,908 $88,056 $90,257 $92,514 $9,815 $24,967 $36,455 $54,489 $68,687 $76,714 $78,632 $80,597 $82,612 $84,678 $0 $49,742 $55,117 $57,437 $58,873 $60,425 $64,516 $66,129 $67,782 $69,477 $5,071 $12,997 $19,361 $29,577 $37,944 $42,977 $44,507 $46,092 $47,735 $49,438 $2,477 $6,302 $9,202 $13,754 $17,338 $19,364 $19,848 $20,345 $20,853 $21,375 $1,390 $3,537 $5,165 $7,719 $9,731 $10,868 $11,140 $11,418 $11,704 $11,996 $987 $2,512 $3,667 $5,482 $6,910 $7,717 $7,910 $8,108 $8,311 $8,519 $190 $484 $707 $1,056 $1,331 $1,487 $1,524 $1,562 $1,601 $1,641 $255 $638 $936 $1,404 $1,773 $1,981 $2,031 $2,081 $2,133 $2,187 41104151 226 $285 319 327 335 $3.3 $352 $276,000 $771,000 $1,156,000 $1,740,000 $2,204,000 $2,475,000 $2,589,000 $2,662,000 $2,736,000 $2,813,000 III. Annual General Fund Expenditures Police Recreation Funding Asset Management Fund Public Works - Land Development, Public Works, etc. Fire Public Works- Parks & Maintenance City Manager Community Development Finance Retiree Medical Contribution City Clerk City Attorney Animal Control City Council Community Support PERS Replacement Benefit Property Tax Administration IV. Total Expenditures $176,140 $455,324 $691,151 $1,072,481 $1,373,877 $1,557,764 $1,620,074 $1,684,877 $1,752,272 $1,822,363 $26,070 $65,484 $96,587 $145,635 $184,769 $207,485 $213,709 $220,121 $226,724 $233,526 $30,927 $76,930 $112,367 $167,784 $210,802 $234,421 $239,109 $243,891 $248,769 $253,745 $26,092 $66,699 $97,863 $146,988 $186,191 $208,964 $215,232 $221,689 $228,340 $235,190 $23,190 $60,431 $90,388 $138,397 $175,309 $196,751 $202,653 $208,733 $214,995 $221,445 $16,963 $42,609 $62,848 $94,763 $120,226 $135,007 $139,058 $143,229 $147,526 $151,952 $8,958 $22,678 $32,951 $49,011 $61,480 $68,330 $69,697 $71,091 $72,513 $73,963 $9,194 $23,504 $34,485 $51,796 $65,611 $73,636 $75,845 $78,120 $80,464 $82,878 $7,321 $18,534 $26,930 $40,055 $50,246 $55,844 $56,961 $58,100 $59,262 $60,447 $7,246 $18,702 $27,707 $42,019 $53,743 $60,902 $63,338 $65,872 $68,506 $71,247 $3,815 $9,656 $14,031 $20,869 $26,179 $29,095 $29,677 $30,271 $30,876 $31,494 $1,981 $5,014 $7,285 $101836 $13,593 $15,107 $15,409 $15,717 $16,032 $16,352 $1,869 $4,731 $6,874 $10,225 $12,826 $14,255 $14,540 $14,831 $15,128 $15,430 $1,219 $3,086 $4,484 $6,669 $8,366 $9,298 $9,484 $9,674 $9,867 $10,065 $319 $808 $1,175 $1,747 $2,192 $2,436 $2,484 $2,534 $2,585 $2,637 $363 $920 $1,336 $1,988 $2,493 $2,771 $2,826 $2,883 $2,941 $2,999 245 620 $9113. $.11.0 S.1. 1 S.13.5 $.11.3 1 982 $.L1 $342,000 $876,000 $1,309,000 $2,003,000 $2,550,000 $2,874,000 $2,972,000 $3,074,000 $3,179,000 $3,288,000 V. Annual Recurring Surplus/(Deficit) Per Unit Per Year Revenues to Expenditure Ratio (1) Includes Project -generated Measure S revenues. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix- Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt ($66,000) ($105,000) ($153,000) ($263,000) ($346,000) ($399,000) ($383,000) ($412,000) ($443,000) ($475,000) ($265) ($172) ($173) ($202) ($216) ($228) ($219) ($235) ($253) ($271) 0.81 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.86 Page 61 TABLE C-12 ANNUAL GENERAL FUND IMPACT ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA 12 13 14 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 I. Annual General Fund Revenues Sales Tax - Residential Spending (1) Property Tax Property Tax in -lieu of VLF Franchise Fees Special Tax (Measure C) Gas Tax Fund Capital Improvement Program Sales and Use Tax (1) Property Transfer Tax Fines and Forfeitures Licenses and Permits Law Enforcement Fund Miscellaneous Revenue Vehicle License Fees Intern Fellowship Fund II. Total Revenues $1,179,065 $1,208,541 $1,238,755 $1,269,724 $1,301,467 $1,334,003 $1,367,353 $1,401,537 $1,436,576 $1,472,490 $578,587 $599,239 $620,643 $642,826 $665,817 $689,646 $714,344 $739,944 $766,479 $793,984 $525,739 $544,505 $563,953 $584,110 $605,001 $626,654 $649,096 $672,358 $696,469 $721,462 $143,389 $146,974 $150,648 $154,414 $158,275 $162,232 $166,287 $170,445 $174,706 $179,073 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $114,652 $94,826 $97,197 $99,627 $102,118 $104,671 $107,287 $109,970 $112,719 $115,537 $118,425 $86,794 $88,964 $91,188 $93,468 $95,805 $98,200 $100,655 $103,171 $105,751 $108,394 $71,214 $72,994 $74,819 $76,690 $78,607 $80,572 $82,586 $84,651 $86,767 $88,936 $51,202 $53,031 $54,926 $56,891 $58,926 $61,037 $63,224 $65,491 $67,841 $70,276 $21,909 $22,457 $23,018 $23,593 $24,183 $24,788 $25,408 $26,043 $26,694 $27,361 $12,296 $12,604 $12,919 $13,242 $13,573 $13,912 $14,260 $14,616 $14,982 $15,356 $8,732 $8,950 $9,174 $9,403 $9,638 $9,879 $10,126 $10,379 $10,639 $10,904 $1,682 $1,724 $1,767 $1,812 $1,857 $1,903 $1,951 $2,000 $2,050 $2,101 $2,241 $2,297 $2,355 $2,414 $2,474 $2,536 $2,599 $2,664 $2,731 $2,799 360 369 379 388 $398408418428 $439 $450 $2,893,000 $2,974,000 $3,059,000 $3,146,000 $3,235,000 $3,328,000 $3,423,000 $3,521,000 $3,622,000 $3,727,000 III. Annual General Fund Expenditures Police Recreation Funding Asset Management Fund Public Works - Land Development, Public Works, etc. Fire Public Works- Parks & Maintenance City Manager Community Development Finance Retiree Medical Contribution City Clerk City Attorney Animal Control City Council Community Support PERS Replacement Benefit Property Tax Administration IV. Total Expenditures $1,895,258 $1,971,068 $2,049,911 $2,131,907 $2,217,184 $2,305,871 $2,398,106 $2,494,030 $2,593,791 $2,697,543 $240,532 $247,748 $255,180 $262,835 $270,720 $278,842 $287,207 $295,824 $304,698 $313,839 $258,820 $263,996 $269,276 $274,661 $280,155 $285,758 $291,473 $297,302 $303,248 $309,313 $242,246 $249,513 $256,999 $264,709 $272,650 $280,830 $289,254 $297,932 $306,870 $316,076 $228,088 $234,931 $241,979 $249,238 $256,715 $264,417 $272,349 $280,519 $288,935 $297,603 $156,510 $161,206 $166,042 $171,023 $176,154 $181,439 $186,882 $192,488 $198,263 $204,211 $75,442 $76,951 $78,490 $80,060 $81,661 $83,294 $84,960 $86,659 $88,392 $90,160 $85,364 $87,925 $90,563 $93,280 $96,078 $98,961 $101,929 $104,987 $108,137 $111,381 $61,656 $62,889 $64,147 $65,430 $66,738 $68,073 $69,435 $70,823 $72,240 $73,685 $74,097 $77,060 $80,143 $83,349 $86,682 $90,150 $93,756 $97,506 $101,406 $105,462 $32,124 $32,766 $33,421 $34,090 $34,772 $35,467 $36,176 $36,900 $37,638 $38,391 $16,679 $17,013 $17,353 $17,700 $18,054 $18,415 $18,784 $19,159 $19,542 $19,933 $15,739 $16,054 $16,375 $16,702 $17,036 $17,377 $17,724 $18,079 $18,441 $18,809 $10,266 $10,471 $10,681 $10,894 $11,112 $11,334 $11,561 $11,792 $12,028 $12,269 $2,689 $2,743 $2,798 $2,854 $2,911 $2,969 $3,029 $3,089 $3,151 $3,214 $3,059 $3,121 $3,183 $3,247 $3,312 $3,378 $3,445 $3,514 $3,585 $3,656 S.2 1 062 $.L1113 S.L1z.6 2 S.L232 2 277 S.L322 2 $.L 416 a 465 $3,401,000 $3,518,000 $3,639,000 $3,764,000 $3,894,000 $4,029,000 $4,168,000 $4,313,000 $4,463,000 $4,618,000 V. Annual Recurring Surplus/(Deficit) Per Unit Per Year Revenues to Expenditure Ratio (1) Includes Project -generated Measure 5 revenues. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix- Altair Specific Plan Area - FIA_10-10-17;10/10/2017;mdt ($508,000) ($544,000) ($580,000) ($618,000) ($659,000) ($701,000) ($745,000) ($792,000) ($841,000) ($891,000) ($290) ($311) ($331) ($353) ($377) ($401) ($426) ($453) ($481) ($509) 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.81 Page 62 APPENDIX D ECONOMIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN Benefits to Old Town TABLE D-1 ESTIMATE OF SUPPORTABLE RETAIL SPACE DEMAND IN OLD TOWN FROM NEW ALTAIR RESIDENTS ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA I. Annual Spending by Households A. General Merchandise (2) Convenience Goods (3) Eating and Drinking Automotive Outlets Other Retail Stores (4) B. Total Spending Per Capita @ 3,776 population (s) Estimated Annual Gross Spending $20,983,000 $34,972,000 $4,197,000 $6,994,000 $699,000 $67,845,000 $18,000 City Old Town (1) Capture @ 80% Capture Total $16,786,000 5.0% $839,000 $27,978,000 10.0% $2,798,000 $3,358,000 20.0% $672,000 $5,595,000 0.0% $0 $559,000 10.0% $56,000 $54,276,000 $4,365,000 $14,000 $1,000 II. Estimate of Supportable Annual Retail Space Demand in Old Town A. Total Annual Spending B. Estimated Sales per SF per Year C. Supportable Retail Space Demand in Old Town from New Altair Residents (1) Source: Section IV of Table B-6, adjusted by KMA to assume 40% of food and drug stores are taxable. (2) Includes Other Comparison Goods and Home Improvement. (3) Includes both taxable and non-taxable food and drug stores. (4) Includes second-hand merchandise; farm implement dealers; farm and garden supply stores; fuel and ice dealers; and other stores. (5) Source: Section II of Table B-2. $4,365,000 $400 /SF 11,000 SF Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix D - Altair Specific Plan - Econ Benefits_08-09-17;9/11/2017;mdt Page 63 TABLE D-2 THRESHOLD POPULATION FOR NEW RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CITY OF TEMECULA I. Unit Mix and Population A. Unit Mix Single Family Multi -Family - For -Sale Multi -Family - Rental Total Unit Mix B. Population Single Family Multi -Family - For -Sale Multi -Family - Rental C. Total Population (2) D. Cumulative Population 3.50 Persons/Unit 2.50 Persons/Unit 2.00 Persons/Unit Old Town Existing Projected --- Units --- Units Units 822 Units 1,977 0 Units 900 Units 900 Units 1,800 Units 0 2,138 1,710 3,848 1,977 5,825 II. Number of Grocery Stores Supported by New Residents (3) @ 9,500 Residents/Store 0.21 0.41 (1) Assumes households sizes at: 2.0 persons/unit for multi -family for -sale and 1.5 persons/unit for multi -family rental. (2) Assumes a 5.0% vacancy rate. (3) Source: Locational Criteria for Grocery Stores, Metropolitan Research and Economics. Shearwater Creek O Units O Units 140 Units 140 Units Altair 40 Units 830 Units 880 Units 1,750 Units Uptown Temecula 0 Units 1,863 Units 1,863 Units 3,726 Units O 133 0 O 1,971 3,540 (1) 266 1,672 2,655 (1) 266 3,776 6,195 6,091 9,867 16,062 Total 40 Units 3,593 Units 3,783 Units 8,238 Units 133 7,648 6,303 16,062 0.03 0.40 0.65 1.69 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:/Appendix D - Altair Specific Plan - Econ Benefits_08-09-17;9/11/2017;mdt Page 64 APPENDIX E ESTIMATE OF PERMITS AND FEES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE E-1 ESTIMATE OF BUILDING PERMIT FEES (1) ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Number of Units Unit Size 1,750 Units 1,350 SF IV. Total Building Permit Fees Per Unit $4,271,223 $2,441 (1) Reflects plan check and permit fees for Building and Fire; does not include any Development Impact Fees. (2) Number of buildings for Fire Underground Permit reflects number of lots. Source: City of Temecula, August 10, 2017. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename i:\Appendix E - Altair Specific Plan - Permits&Fees_08-10-17;9/11/2017;mdt Page 65 Fees per Unit Number of Units Total I. Single -Family Building Permit - Model $2,825.00 3 $8,475 Building Permit - Production $1,150.00 37 $42,550 Fire Sprinkler Fees $658.00 40 $26,320 Total Single -Family Fees $1,664.00 37 $77,345 11. Multi -Family $1,528,966 Buidling Permit - 4 -Unit Building with Garages (Townhomes) $2,598.00 855 $2,221,290 Fire Sprinkler Permit per Building $1,161.00 214 $248,454 Alarm Permit per Building $912.00 214 $195,168 Total Multi -Family Fees $2,664,912 IV. Total Building Permit Fees Per Unit $4,271,223 $2,441 (1) Reflects plan check and permit fees for Building and Fire; does not include any Development Impact Fees. (2) Number of buildings for Fire Underground Permit reflects number of lots. Source: City of Temecula, August 10, 2017. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename i:\Appendix E - Altair Specific Plan - Permits&Fees_08-10-17;9/11/2017;mdt Page 65 Per Building Number of Buildings Total III. Building Building Permit - 8 -Unit Building with Garages (apartments/rentals) $11,641.00 107 $1,245,587 Fire Sprinkler Permit per Building $1,161.00 107 $124,227 Alarm Permit per Building $912.00 107 $97,584 Fire Underground Permit (2) $1,664.00 37 $61,568 Total Building Fees $1,528,966 IV. Total Building Permit Fees Per Unit $4,271,223 $2,441 (1) Reflects plan check and permit fees for Building and Fire; does not include any Development Impact Fees. (2) Number of buildings for Fire Underground Permit reflects number of lots. Source: City of Temecula, August 10, 2017. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename i:\Appendix E - Altair Specific Plan - Permits&Fees_08-10-17;9/11/2017;mdt Page 65 TABLE E-2 ESTIMATE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Source: City of Temecula, August 10, 2017. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename i:\Appendix E - Altair Specific Plan - Permits&Fees_08-10-17;9/11/2017;mdt Page 66 Fee Per Unit Number of Units Total I. City of Temecula DIF Residential Attached $6,626.17 1,710 $11,330,751 Residential Detached $9,255.12 40 $370,205 Total City of Temecula DIF $11,700,956 II. Quimby Single -Family Residential attached garage - 2.85 density $4,417.50 40 $176,700 Multi -Family Attached (2-4 units per building) - 2.48 density $3,844.00 855 $3,286,620 Multi -Family Attached (5 or more units per building) - 2.43 density $3,766.50 855 $3,220,358 Total Quimby $6,683,678 III. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Residential Attached $6,231.00 1,710 $10,655,010 Residential Detached $8,873.00 40 $354,920 Total TUMF $11,009,930 IV. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) between 8 and 14 dwelling units per acre $1,300.00 1,750 $2,275,000 V. Kangaroo -Rat Plan Fee (K -Rat) $500 per acre X 186.3 Acres $500.00 186 $93,150 VI. Public Art approximately per each unit $100.00 1,750 $175,000 VII. Total Development Impact Fees $31,937,713 Per Unit $18,250 Source: City of Temecula, August 10, 2017. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename i:\Appendix E - Altair Specific Plan - Permits&Fees_08-10-17;9/11/2017;mdt Page 66 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) WITH APPENDICES (AVAILABLE AT https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1214) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) WITH APPENDICES (AVAILABLE AT https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4513) Denise Jacobo From: Rancho Land Associates <rlainc@verizon,net> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 12:49 PM To: Denise Jacobo Cc: rhoner@ambient.email Subject: Altair Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Supplemental information Raoeived /1/1512017 Public Hearing Item 002 (Altair project) CIRCULATION COPIES: Planning Commissioners. Chairperson TeFaslo vica•Chairperscn Youmans Commissionsr Gaerriero Commissioner Tudoy-Tropy Commissioner Watts City Staff; Lan Watson 1pirectar of COy Mee Pelera ( Sr, Planner) Stuart Fisk (Prrncinai Pfannary Palntk Thomas (Director of Pw1 S e Charelta {Asa«. Ener Marfcafa Marroonin (Ms/ Cm), Attorney] Dents° Jacobo (Atlmrn Asst 1 Press Copy Public Copy Other€s1 Original to RocordsrProlecr Rik„ Denise, Please forward this email to each of the Planning Commissioners. I am a long time resident of Temecula and own property near the projected development known as Altair. I am in support of this project as it will offer a much needed niche of residential product not available in the City at this time. More importantly the western bypass will mitigate the transient traffic which burdens Old Town Front Street. I have closely followed the community hearings regarding this project and the Developers have done a commendable job of addressing the concerns of the public. I look forward to the Planning Commission and City Council approving this project. Thank You, Roger W. Epperson f,OYPiLTtLYTtNICULA- Honorable Maryanne Edwards City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 cc: Aaron Greg Luke RECEIVED NOV 1 3 2017 CITY MANAGER 0FRC E Dear Mayor Edwards, Old Town Temecula is one of my favorite places. 1 visit and support the local businesses here on a regular basis. The Altair Project will provide improved traffic flow, bike paths and walkways, parks, a community space and a safer environment for wildlife and human interaction. As 1 understand it, a residential development like Altair has been part of the vison for Old Town for decades. I am excited that Ambient Communities has been working to develop this type of community while preserving the views, the hillside and the charm of Old Town. Please expedite the approval process for the Altair Project and bring it to City Council for immediate consideration and approval. Thank you. My Marne: Tim & Debbie Noonan CC: Ambient Comrnunities Matt Peters From: Aaron Adams Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:17 AM To: Matt Peters; Luke Watson; Stuart Fisk; Christine Damko; Greg Butler Subject: FW: We need your support Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged FYI - Aaron Adams City Manager City of Temecula (951)694-6419 asron.adams(c TemeculaCA.00v TemeculaCA.gov 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: brubio@edcswca.com [mailto:brubio@edcswca.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:16 AM To: brubio@edcswca.com Subject: We need your support Dear EDC Member, We just received the request for support for the Altair project. We did not receive this in time to bring it to the Board for approval. And we do not yet have our Policy Platform for such requests developed and approved. So, I am passing this along to you for your own review and for you to take action, or not, as you see fit. All the best! Doug From: Rob Honer, Altair Temecula [rnaitto:rhoner@ambient.email] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 10:03 AM To: Doug McAllistercdoug@mcaliisterstrategicgroup.com> Subject: We need your support Altair Temecula - We Need Your Support 1 Dear Doug, N/ a I r COMALIT(LY TEM#CULA. For almost five years, Ambient Communities has been working diligently to bring you Altair. We have worked closely with the City to preserve the hillside, construct the Western Bypass, provide an elementary school, build community parks and facilities, construct safe walking and bike paths, contribute to wildlife passageways, and set aside land for a nature center as part of this unique work, play and live development. In addition, we have worked closely with the homeless coalition to clean out encampments and orchestrate services for those that are ready to rejoin society. We have made these investments a priority while we worked through the development process. Altair will be considered at the November 15th City of Temecula Planning Commission meeting. Please join us at 5:00 p.m. to show your support for the project. The meeting will be held at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula. Parking is available in the adjoining parking structure. 2 If you can't join us, please consider submitting a letter of support. Sincerely, Rob Honer join the conversation f ► in o 2917 Canon Street • San Diego, CA 92106 • United States • Click here to unsubscribe. Matt Peters From: Luke Watson Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:49 PM To: Matt Peters Subject: FW: Altair Project in old Town Temecula Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged FYI Luke Watson Director of Community Development City of Temecula (951) 694-6415 I u ke. watson@Tem eculaC A.gov TemeculaCA.gov 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: Maryann Edwards Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 9:46 PM To: Maryann W Cc: Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>; Luke Watson <Iuke.watson@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Re: Altair Project in Old Town Temecula Thank you Maryann and Mark. I am copying the city manager and community development director and your comments will be added to the public record. We look forward to welcoming you to Temecula. Maryann Maryann Edwards Mayor Temecula, CA op V, r Community Pride On Nov 12, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Maryann W < wrote: Dear Honorable Mayor Edwards, We are writing in support of the future Altair Project. 1 We currently reside in New Jersey but plan to move to your beautiful town of Temecula within a few years. We have visited on numerous occasions and my youngest son was married at one of the wineries. Many of our family members were also in town for the wedding and all fell in love with Old Town and the surrounding area. We have been researching the area in anticipation of our move and fell in love with The Altair Project. This project will provide improved traffic flow, bike paths and walkways, parks, a community space, and a safer environment for wildlife and human interaction. We are so excited that Ambient Communities has been working so diligently to develop this type of community while preserving the views, the hillside, and the charm of Old Town. We would be proud to live in such a glorious community. Please expedite the approval process for The Altair Project and bring it to City Council for immediate consideration and APPROVAL! Thank you, Maryann and Mark Wadiak 2 Attachment: Correspondence to the Planning Commission ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE DEDICATED TO ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE LAND USE November 13, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL John H. Telesio, Chair Planning Commission City of Temecula 41000 Main St. Temecula, CA 92590 <denise jacobo@temeculaca.gov> RE: Item 2, November 15, 2017, Altair Project (GPA, Specific Plan, DEIR, Development Agreement) — Opposition unless modified Dear Chairperson Telesio and Members of the Commission: Suppiemontal Information RRcehred 11/15/2017 Public Healing Item #2 (Altair Project) CIRCULATION COPIES.: Planning Commissioners; Clsahperson Telealo w CPerpm on mixer! Commissioner { einem Commissioner Turley -Tres CommIsalwrer Watts City Stall: Luke Watson (Director of CD) Met Petery tar Purer) Stuart Rik {Prindpal Plannyrj Patrick Thome! (Director of PW Cararina (Assoc. Engr.) Malcela Mau -equal CAsd. C yMeuutry Denise JlCdao (Mugu Asat.) Press Copy Public Copy Other(e1 Original to Recara/Prgdd Fere_ Endangered Habitats League (EHL) appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony. We would like to update you on progress or lack thereof in relation to our previously identified issues. 1) Civic site EHL supports the proposed conversion of the Civic Site to a nature center, with some additional suggestions. We have reviewed the nature center footprint and conditions of use with Dr. Paul Beier, a mountain lion expert, who has affirmed their compatibility with wildlife movement objectives. Monies generated by the Wildlife Community Facilities District can and should pay for trails and access enforcement. We also urge the following improvements be undertaken: a. Hours of operation (visitor center and trails): Change to dawn to one hour after dusk b. Fencing: Consultation with wildlife agencies and Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) as to any needed fencing c. Trail locations: Trail siting (re-evaluation of existing as well as new trails) in consultation with the wildlife agencies and RCA d. Grading and slope restoration: Coordination with the wildlife agencies and RCA to see if =contouring can benefit the pond turtle (foraging habitat) and other Murrieta Creek species 2) Project design We continue to support all feasible containment of the development footprint within the confines of the Western Bypass, through such means as density transfer. 8424 SANTA MONICA BLVD SUITE A 592 Los ANGELES CA 90069-4267 $ WWW.EHLEAGUE.ORG * PHONE 213.804.2750 3) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) consistency We are deeply disappointed that the FEIR — contrary to expectations -- does not resolve this issue, but rather reiterates the incorrect arguments put forward in the DEIR. The Regional Conservation Authority's Joint Project Review as well as wildlife agency letters document a significant acreage shortfall (on the order of 120-160 acres). This shortfall must be compensated for in order to "make the MSHCP whole." In prior letters, EHL and others proposed solutions based on replacement acres in locations that enhance connectivity in ways not otherwise anticipated by the MSHCP, for example in proximity to mountain lion corridors. We recommend that your Commission defer action on this project pending resolution of the MSHCP issues. Such resolution should be equivalent to an MSHCP Criteria Refinement. It can make use of various funding sources (including the $500,000 fee and Wildlife Community Facilities District) but must provide for the timely conservation of identified lands. Until these issues are addressed, impacts to the MSHCP and to biological resources and wildlife movement have not been adequately disclosed or mitigated. The EIR should not be certified under this circumstance. We appreciate the great progress embodied by the nature center use of the Civic Site and remain ready to assist the City and applicant in resolving the other issues. Yours truly, Dan Silver Executive Director 'Hand deiivered to the City c #Ter ±ecula on November 13, 2017' November 13, 2017 City of Temecula Planning Commissioner Chair John l-3. Teiesio and Planning Commission members 41000 Main Street Temecula, Ca. 92590 Supplemental Information Recessed 11/1512017 Public Hearing !tern p2 (Altair Project) CIRCULATION COPIES: Planning Commissioners Cnouperson Ternslo_ Y,co-Chalrpnrson YoumenS Commissioner Guernaro Commiss+onar TurlayTrele. Commissioner Watts City Serf: Luke Watson (Director of CD) Malt Peters tS< Mariam/ Skean Fisk (prk+GPal Prpnner) Patrick Thomas (Director of PW) Steve Caareflo (Assoc Engr) Mar,cera Morrogoln (Asst City Allemay) ❑arose Yacnho (Mtmin Aur y _ Press copy,, Public Coq_ RecerdalProlect Fite Subject: Planning Commission meeting of November 15, 2017, Agenda Item #2 "Altair Specific Plan, Planning Application No.'s PA14-0158, PA14-0159, PA14-0160, PA14-0161" i am opposed to the General Plan amendment to revise the current General Plan Roadway alignment of the Western Bypass implemented in the Roadway Plan during the 2005 General Plan Update. Traffic data from 2005 GP Update process indicated the need to connect Temecula Parkway (SR 79South) to the planned French Valley/I-15 interchange, by connecting to Via Industria/Cherry Street, that would serve two purposes. 1) A bypass route to relieve traffic congestion at 1-15 Winchester and Rancho California Road ramp intersections, and 2) provide one of only three offsite ingress/egress connections to the proposed site with limited street intersections. 2.3.3 Circulation, Vehicular Circulation The vehicular circulation system is influenced (restricted) by the linear shape of the project site, grading constraints on the project site, and connections to the existing offsite street network. The main offsite connections would be: • I-15/Temecula Parkway (SR 79South) on the south • First Street/Santiago Road (via Ynez Road) on the east • Western Bypass (via Vincent Moraga Drive/Ranch California Road) on the north Section 3.13 Transportation and Traffic, Project Trip Distribution and Assignment estimates the following project -generated increase in traffic patterns: • 17 % to/from the North on 1-15 • 20 % to/from the South on 1-15 • 20 % to/from the East along Temecula Parkway • 15 % to/from the East along Rancho California Road • 15 % to/from the North along Diaz Road/Winchester Road No amount of signal timing optimization can take already congested intersections (gridlocked at Peak Periods), that the proposed project will significantly increase traffic volume, and make the impact less than significant. The one thing residents who live in Temecula, and those who live elsewhere have in common, is their disgust for Temecula's existing traffic conditions. Ever! the Ultimate 1-15/Temecula Parkway interchange, years behind the horrible traffic impacts residents have endured, will still not accommodate all the cumulative traffic. In 2005, The Temecula General Plan Update Committee, of which i was a member, reviewed a significant amount of traffic data, by then Public Works Director Bill Hughes. He indicated the Eastern and Western Bypass Routes where absolutely necessary to avoid complete gridlock in Temecula. It is essential the Western Bypass Route is constructed as indicated on the General Plan Roadway Plan. Temecula General Plan, Circulation Element, Goals and Policies, Roadway Circulation: "Roadway congestion is a major concern to local residents and businesses. The City responds to local concerns regarding roadway congestion through the identification of acceptable performance standards for City roadways and intersections, as well as access points to regional highways, such as 1-15. The stated performance standard serves as the foundation for providing a street network that moves people and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City while ensuring that traffic delays are kept to a minimum." Temecula General Plan, Circulation Element, Goals and Policies. Regional Mobility: "Future development within the Planning Area and in surrounding unincorporated areas will create additional travel demand between Temecula and other population and employment centers within the region. Special efforts are needed to adequately and efficiently accommodate regional travel demand." Goal 2: "A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." Policy 2.2: "Develop a bypass system of roadways on the east, west and south sides of the City to accommodate traffic flow from development outside the City and improve center -of -town traffic conditions." Implementation Programs, C-11 Freeway Access improvements and Bypass Route: "Work with the Pechanga Band, City of Murrieta, ROTC, and Caltrans to create additional access points to l-15 and 1-215 to ensure that access to the freeways is provided for future bypass routes on both the west and east sides of the City, in a manner that has the least potential impacts on the environment." The Applicant's proposal to reduce the Western Bypass from approximately 2.7 miles to 1.3 miles defeats the purpose of this roadway to improve center -of -town traffic conditions, which have been planned since 1991. This proposed realignment routes traffic onto Rancho California Road where intersections at Jefferson/Front, I-15 and Ynez are already congested; or along Diaz, which has many existing road intersections and businesses, to Winchester Road where intersections at Winchester, Jefferson, 1-15 and Ynez are also already congested, This is why months of discussion resulted in the current Western Bypass Route alignment that would have limited intersections, and connect to the future French Valley/l-15 Interchange. Additionally, discussions addressed the aesthetic and environmental issues that would result from the General plan alignment of the future Western Bypass. Certainly there are issues to be addressed. Since the western Bypass would primarily be at about the same height along the entire escarpment, it would create visual compatibility along the entire foothill/escarpment. Landscaped roadways and medians would preserve scenic beauty. Use of barriers, such as aesthetic fencing, along the entire Western Bypass will forever protect the wildlife corridor linkage (mountain lion), funneling wildlife safely to the Santa Margarita River, separating wildlife from development/residents. Development is already established on the west side of the Murrieta Creek. The preservation of the escarpment/wildlife corridor maintains the migration of wildlife around development allowing wildlife and residents to coexist. Don't go cheap on this circulation issue. There are not many options left for Temecula to improve traffic, Section 3.13 Transportation and Traffic, General Plan Build Out (2035) Traffic Conditions, Planned Roadway Improvements includes the addition of the Eastern Bypass to accommodate cumulative impacts, however, this route was effectively eliminated when the Pechanga Band lobbied to obtain this land for their golf course. It is even more critical that the Western Bypass be aligned as indicated in the General Plan because the Eastern Bypass Route has been cut off by the Pechanga golf course. The traffic projections presented to the General Plan Update Committee in 2005 are here. Moreover, the east offsite connection to Altair is from First Street/Santiago and Ynez Road, Even though the Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -6 provides funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left turn lane at Ynez Road and Santiago Road, the widening of the Santiago Road Bridge over the 1-15 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes is necessary. A significant amount of to/from Old Town traffic using Santiago Road will be joined by Altair traffic. I believe keeping the existing Western Bypass alignment, widening of the Santiago Road Bridge, along with the above mitigation for wildlife would address my circulation and wildlife corridor issues and would make me in favor of the Altair Specific Plan. Mirk Broderick Executive Director Lynn Cullens Board of Directors Toby Cooper Chair Elizabeth Sullivan ViceChair Ann Hamilton Treasurer Donald Molde, M.D. Secretary Steve Harris Rabbi Joseph Hurwitz Bob McCoy Jonathan Neiman John Taft Chris Tromborg, Ph.D. Honorary Board Robert Bateman Doris pay Sir William Fries n Mr. & Mrs. Gordon P. Getty Marian Heiskell Sandy Lerner Barry Lopez Hon. William Newsom Alan Rabinowitz Robert Redford Nathaniel P. Reed Dr. George Schaller Robert Wagner YEARS OF Savin America`s Lion 1981; — 2016 Poet Office Box 1896 Sacramento CA 95812 www.mountainlion.org in ro®moriu taiit lion.org (916) 442-2666 GIVE TO AMERICA'S LIONS ON THE WEB: mountainlioo.orglgive Attachment: Correspondence to the Planning Commission Hearing 11/1512017 MOUNTAIN LION FOUNDATION Saving America's Lion Novem John H. Telesio, Chair Planning Commission City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula CA 92590 In care of: denise.jacobo@temeculaca.gov RE: Planning Commission Agenda Item 2, November 15, 2017, Altair Project (GPA, Specific Plan, EIR, Development Agreement) Opposition Unless Modified Dear Chairperson Telesio and Members of the Commission, Supplernenlel Inkoneelion Received 11/1512017 Public Hearing Item #2 (Altair Project) COPIE CIRCULATION S.' 77N IeFrt11414$4rfmissioners. Chairperson Toledo Voe'Che tpereon Youmans Cemmfssloner Guan6ero commlaslonnr Tolley-Trep Commissioner IN City Shall: Luke Watson (Director of CD) WO Perera (Sr. Mama* Stuart Flsk (Principal Planter) PatrIck Thomas tOImclor of PW) Steve Chrarette (Aasou. Engr,) Meacela Marroquin (Aril Cly Mornay) Denise .Iacono (Amin Past) Press Copy Petrillo Copy -Mbar() Original to: Fecoont.vProjod Fun_ The Mountain Lion Foundation is grateful for this opportunity to comment on the proposed Altair development as outlined in the Environmental Impact Report and other documents listed above. We are in strong agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, all of whom have carefully delineated the Altair project's many and significant inconsistencies with the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Altair project proposes development in an area allocated by the MSHCP for conservation, rendering this development inconsistent with the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Criteria. The location and extent of the proposed development would significantly constrict both Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. The areas affected are critical movement corridors that connect the highly threatened mountain lion population in the Santa Ana Mountains with important sources of young dispersing lions from the mountain ranges of San Diego County. Reducing this critical corridor would further isolate mountain lions living in the Santa Ana Mountains and could lead to local extinction. Mountain lions are important contributors to the ecosystems in which they live, and negative impacts dealt to the mountain lion population would affect the local environment to its detriment. These corridors are critical to other species as well, and developing into the corridors would have wide ranging negative impacts to the MSHCP Conservation Area. In the Joint Project Review findings, the RCA states that the development of the Altair South Parcel in MSHCP Cells 7355 and 7356 "will significantly reduce the viability of the MSHCP Linkage 10 as movement and live-in habitat for mountain lions." Moving forward on the Altair Project would greatly reduce the mountain lion habitat corridor remaining after development of the South Parcel "where nearly all mountain lion activities (i.e., breeding, hunting, transit) would be affected, which is in direct conflict with what the MSHCP intended for this Linkage" (Section 6.2 Helix MSHCP Consistency Report). To be specific, the proposed development would narrow the width of Linkage 10 from the MSHCP- planned range between 1,200 to 2,700 feet to less than 500 feet at its narrowest point (RCA 2015). As the design stands, narrowing the existing linkages will direct mountain lions into residential areas where there is potential for greater conflict between mountain lions, pets, and humans. Such conflicts — and even our perceptions of conflicts — are one of the leading threats to mountain lions in California. Funneling mountain lions into areas that will be densely populated by people exacerbates many of the problems that the MSHCP was designed to resolve. We are also strongly opposed to the idea — suggested repeatedly by the developer - that the loss of these corridors can be effectively mitigated by study, restoration, or construction of corridors that are miles away. The opportunities for safe passage across Southern California freeways and between developments have become so few that each must stand and be defended on its own merits and not merely as alternatives. The expected $60 million cost of creating a new crossing at Liberty Canyon in the Santa Monica Mountains illustrates the folly of closing existing pathways with the expectation that taxpayers will foot the conservation bill for recreating a corridor once the developers have walked away and the related habitat loss is complete. Finally, we regard the various development proposals surrounding the 55 -acre South Parcel as distractions from the deep flaws represented by Altair's proposed incursion into all of the areas set aside by the MSHCP but remaining within the project's footprint. It should not be possible to negotiate away the acreage shortfall of 140-160 acres, or mitigate corridor loss, by further construction on this parcel which is essential for wildlife. By designating the parcel for civic use, an expectation has been created that human activity on the site is required in order for the parcel to serve a purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. CEQA established the belief of Californians, and the MSHCP records the City's agreement, that preservation of open space and wildlife habitat are vital to the well-being of citizens. We write in support of preserving the aforementioned parcel as natural open space without modification other than wildlife friendly fencing and other exclusionary measures to prevent human entry into the corridor, and habitat restoration and removal of existing infrastructure. Conserving this 55 -acre parcel would benefit the human and wild communities in many ways, including: • Increasing consistency between the MSHCP Cell Criteria and Permittee Responsibilities; Increasing mountain lion and other wildlife habitat connectivity through Proposed Linkage 10; • Maintaining wildlife access and use of the I-15 underpass, thereby protecting wildlife and humans from dangerous roadway collisions; • Reducing the potential for human -wildlife conflict; and • Preserving and reducing encroachment on vital wildlife habitat on the South Parcel. Preserving the 55 -acre South Parcel in a natural state would reduce some of the overall impacts of the entire Altair development. We urge such conservation of the site without modification other than wildlife -friendly fencing and other exclusionary measures to prevent human entry into the corridor, habitat restoration, and removal of existing infrastructure Resolution of all of the issues outlined above will be required in order to proceed with a development luny TMT A [NT r !raj any nun A'TWAT p A r P that meets the needs and demands of Californians forenvironmental quality, and thus we urge that the Temecula Planning Commission defer action and withhold approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report until substantiae refinements have been made in order to adequately disclose the real environmental impacts of the proposed project, effectively mitigate these impacts, and achieve MSHCP consistency. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sins Lynn Cns EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (916) 606-1610 LCu1 lensLrrl.,MountainLion.org POST OFFICE BOX 1896 SACRAMENTO CA 95812 REFERENCE MATERIALS Ernest, Holly B., T. Winston Vickers, Scott A. Morrison, Michael R. Buchalski, and Walter M. Boyce. "Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a southern California puma (Puma concolor) population." P1oS one 9, no. 10 (2014): a 107985. Riley, Seth PD, Laurel EK Serieys, John P. Pollinger, Jeffrey A. Sikich, Lisa Dalbeck, Robert K. Wayne, and Holly B. Ernest. "Individual behaviors dominate the dynamics of an urban mountain lion population isolated by roads." Current Biology 24, no. 17 (2014): 1989-1994 Vickers, T.W., Sanchez, J.N., Johnson, C.K., Morrison, S.A., Botta, R., Smith, T., Cohen, B.S., Huber, P.R., Ernest, H.B. and Boyce, W.M., 2015. Survival and mortality of pumas (Puma concolor) in a fragmented, urbanizing landscape. PIoS one, 10(7), p.e0131490. rru rwlr A TAT T rnr.r cru n.m A MINI D d (I 'x 111 SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY November 15, 2017 John H. Telesio, Chair Planning Commission City of Temecula 41000 Main St. Temecula, CA 92590 denise.lacoboa temeculaca.gov Submitted via e-mail. Dear Chair Telesio and Committee Members: College of Sciences San Diego State University 5500 Campanile Drive, MC -1010 San Diego, CA 92182- 1010 619-594-51421619-594- 6381 This letter is to provide comments by the staff of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) on the Altair Specific Pian (Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2014111029) prepared for the City of Temecula. The Altair project is contiguous with portions of San Diego State University's 4,443 -acre SMER, which is mainly within the City of Temecula. The mission of SMER and of the San Diego State University Field Stations Program is to conserve significant natural areas while promoting scientific research and science -based education. We reviewed with great interest the responses provided in the most recent Altair document to our comments of June 27, 2017. While some of our specific comments were addressed satisfactorily, we still are very concerned that the Altair project in its most recent iteration will have direct and indirect negative impacts on the SMER and the natural and cultural resources that it helps protect. Of particular concern to the SMER are the proposed Nature Center and Residential Units A and G, which are on the southern end of the project and near the confluence of the Temecula and Murietta creeks, where the Santa Margarita River begins. These portions of the development will have significant negative impacts on the adjacent confluence area and the associated biological functions and cultural resources. While the entire Altair development will affect the critical habitat and migration corridor that links the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountain ranges, the proposed Nature Center and nearby residential units would particularly compromise the functioning of this critical linkage. Constricting the migration corridor at the south end of the Altair project would also negatively affect the value of SMER as a key part of the critical regional habitat linkages. 1 Portions of SMER near the confluence and the proposed Nature Center includes part of the village site, boulders, other cultural features, and oaks that are within the Origin Landscapt TCP that is officially listed in the National Register. This area has been subjected to repeated trespass and vandalism, including destruction of rock art and painting of graffiti; adding the Nature Center and residential units nearby will only aggravate these problems. This cultural site is particularly important to local tribal peoples, but is also an important part of the cultural and historical heritage of Temecula and the larger region. As such it deserves the full protection of Temecula's goals of preservation of historic and cultural resources. We respectfully request that for the Altair project to advance, the following should happen: 1. The use of the south parcel should be changed from Civic Use to conservation open space. The Civic Use could then be moved northward to the School site. 2. The residential sections A & G should be locate to the east of the re -aligned Wester Bypass. 3. The Western Bypass, which will then demarcate the boundary between the Altair development and conservation habitat, should include with a high berm and wall to physically separate the development from the habitat, reducing noise and light impacts on the sensitive areas and migration function. SMER already has an emerging nature center some two miles from the proposed Altair Nature Center. With a focus on SMER's North Station, this effort provides training to local schoolchildren and members of the community on conservation and biodiversity, local history, and the significance of Native American cultural traditions. Two similar efforts in relatively close proximity does not make much sense. We urge the Planning Commission to defer a decision on the Altair project until broader issues related to habitat linkage and the MSCP can be worked out, which will hopefully address SMER's specific concerns. With best wishes, Paul Ganster, Ph.D. Director, Field Stations Program cc: Mr. Matt Peters mattpeters@cityoftemecula.org 2 f tie. ,1 SERVICE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 Palm Springs, California 92262 760-322-2070 FAX 760-322-4648 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, California 91764 909-484-0167 FAX 909-481-2945 In Reply Refer To: F W SICDF W -W RJV-15B0192-18CPA0040 November 15, 2017 Sent by email Mr. Matt Peters City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Final Environmental Impact Report for the Altair Project, Temecula, California. State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029 Dear Mr. Peters: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and Game (Department), collectively the Wildlife Agencies, provided comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Altair Project (Project), (State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) on December 9, 2016 (DEIR comment letter, enclosed). The 270 -acre project includes development of up to 1,900 residential units, limited neighborhood -serving commercial, civic/institutional uses, parks, and open space and the revised alignment of the four -lane divided Western Bypass that will connect Temecula Parkway and Rancho California Road. The project site is within Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Criteria Cells, which describe the assemblage and confluence of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14 along Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. The development as proposed will result in an approximately 163 -acre shortage of described conservation. In our DEIR comment letter, we expressed concern regarding impacts to mountain lion and other wildlife movement, inadequate conservation and mitigation measures, the need for adequate fencing measures for the urbanlwildlands interface, identified significant deficiencies in the DEIR, and requested to meet with the City of Temecula, RCA, and the project applicant to discuss our concerns with the proposed project and the DEIR prior to project approval. The Wildlife Agencies have reviewed the City of Temecula's (City) response to the Wildlife Agencies comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). As explained below, the Response to Comments in the Final EIR did not adequately address our comments regarding significant issues, nor was our request for a meeting honored. (We did participate in several public meetings and workshops with City staff and/or City -Elected Officials, but while very valuable, these forums were not the meeting we requested.) Given the City's status as an MSHCP permittee and the inconsistencies between the proposed Project's impacts on MSHCP reserve assembly objectives, it is important that these issues are resolved prior to adoption of the Final EIR. We request that the Final EIR not be adopted until the City and the project have completed MSHCP implementation procedures and have adequately addressed the deficiencies identified in our DEIR comment letter. The City of Temecula is a MSHCP Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 2 permittee and is responsible for ensuring that the discretionary actions it takes, such as project approvals, are consistent with the MSHCP. We appreciate that some of our comments were addressed in the FEIR, however, many of the concerns raised in our DEIR comment letter were not adequately addressed and remain. Our critical outstanding points with the Response to Comments are discussed below. 1) Comment 27-F: Project Subunit Analyses and Impacts on Reserve Assembly. This comment was not addressed adequately and the response does not demonstrate that the project is consistent with MSHCP reserve assembly goals. The project conflicts with MSHCP reserve assembly acreage goals and precludes the conservation described by MSHCP Criteria Cells 7164, 7166, 7264 and 7356. We calculate that the project would result in a reserve assembly shortfall of approximately 163 acres. The presentation and analysis of MSHCP Cell Criteria requirements, MSHCP implementation, and the Project's impacts on MSHCP reserve assembly in the Draft EIR are both incorrect and misleading. Area Plan Subunit Analysis The MSHCP consistency analysis is flawed and incorrect. The subunit concept is mis-applied and used in direct conflict with the procedures provided in the MSHCP. The subunit approach also incorrectly disregards reserve assembly requirements for connectivity, planning species needs, target acreages for vegetation communities, perimeter to arca ratios, configuration of the subunit as a reserve assembly feature, and cell criteria acreage goals (Section 3 of the MSHCP). In Common Response 3.2.3, the FEIR states that "the project does not meet the specific Cell Criteria acreage goals in every Cell, the project would not preclude achievement of the Reserve Assembly target acreages in either Subunit 1 or Subunit 6 due to the availability of other undeveloped and rural residential lands for conservation ... the Draft EIR measured the project's consistency with reserve target acreages on an Area Plan Subunit basis" and concludes that "the project as designed and mitigated is consistent with the adopted MSHCP." This conclusion is demonstrably untrue. The calculations presented in Appendix C3 as an Area Plan subunit analysis identify potential future conservation where none is described. For example, for Cell Group J' the analysis in Appendix C3 estimates that approximately 360 acres are available for conservation in Criteria Cells 7512, 7439, 7352, and 7252, however, the Cell Criteria does not describe any conservation in those cells. During normal project review procedures, a City or County planner would not expect a project to provide any conservation in those cells because none is described. This approach taken in Appendix C3 is disingenuous. (See Map in Appendix C3). We pointed out in our DEIR comment letter that the Draft EIR subunit analysis identified conservation where no conservation was described, and the response to continents fails to adequately address our comment_ The response to comments addresses this issue by stating that the "potential conservation areas outside of the portion of the cell that is targeted for conservation would still have conservation value because of their connectivity with the proposed preserve [reserve] and the existing native vegetation within the preserve, as well as the habitat types found within these potential Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 3 conservation areas are habitats targeted for conservation by the MSHCP." It is true that the areas described have conservation value, however, without a mechanism to achieve that conservation it is misleading to assert that those acres will be conserved through future conservation under the Cell Criteria. The FEIR fails to identify any mechanism by which these areas would be conserved. It is erroneous to assert that the analysis in Appendix C3, which has no relationship to the MSHCP Cell Criteria, demonstrates MSCHP consistency. The other untenable aspect of the approach presented in Appendix C3 is that it shifts the reserve assembly obligation described in the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula to areas in the County of Riverside's jurisdiction. To the best of our knowledge, the County is unaware that the City expects the County to achieve conservation acreage goals shifted to their jurisdiction, or perhaps they are indifferent because as discussed above there is no mechanism to accomplish the undescribed conservation ascribed to the County by the City. Cell Criteria The expectation that every project will implement the Cell Criteria is explicitly stated in Section 11.9 of the MSHCP Implementing Agreement (to which the City is a signatory). "Public and private projects within the Criteria Area are expected to be designed and implemented in accordance with the Criteria for each Area Plan and all other MSHCP requirements as set forth in the Plan and in Section 13.0 of this Agreement. In the event that refinements to the Criteria are appropriate to facilitate Reserve Assembly, the Criteria Refinement Process set forth in Section 6.5 of the MSHCP shall be utilized." Criteria is defined in Section 3.35 of the Implementing Agreement as "descriptions provided for individual Cells or Cell Groups within the Criteria Area to guide assembly of the Additional Reserve Lands." A correct project -specific analysis of MSHCP Cell Criteria and reserve assembly goals has not been done by the City or Project Applicant. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) also concluded that the project is not consistent with the MSHCP Cell Criteria. The Wildlife Agencies request that this analysis be developed and presented for public review in a revised and recirculated FEIR. Given that the Project, as proposed, is not consistent with the MSHCP Cell Criteria (even when selecting the Nature/Cultural Center Use variant of the Project), a Criteria Refinement (as described in MSHCP Section 6.5) is also required and should be included in the revised and recirculated FEIR. 2) Comment 27-G: the MSHCP Implementation Process. This Comment was not addressed adequately, and the response does not demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. The relevant portion of DEIR Received Comment 27-G is: "Consistent with MSHCP section 6.6.2.E, prior to the development of the DEIR the Project information was reviewed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the Wildlife Agencies under the MSHCP Joint Project Review (JPR) process. The RCA found the Project to be inconsistent with the MSHCP (JPR 14-05-27-01 comment letter, enclosed). The Wildlife Agencies concurred with the RCA's determination, and notified the City and the Project Applicant that we consider the Project, as proposed, to be inconsistent with the MSHCP Criteria for reserve assembly in terms of both area and function (JPR 14-05-27-01 continent letter, enclosed)." Mr. Matt. Peters (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 4 The City addressed our comment regarding the MSHCP Implementation Process (i.e., the procedures by which the MSHCP implementation structure determines that a proposed project is consistent or not with the MSHCP Plan) in FEIR Common Response 3.2.7, as shown below: "Commenters have claimed that because there was disagreement between the City and the RCA concerning the project's consistency with the MSHCP during the Joint Project Review (JPR) held on April 2, 2015, that such disagreement automatically renders the project inconsistent with the MSHCP." "._.In the event that disagreements exist with regard to a project's compliance with the MSHCP, there are dispute resolution provisions and specific remedies available to the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies. However, as provided in Section 6.6.2 of the MSHCP, the JPR process "shall not in any way limit the Permittees" local land use authority, prevent a Permittee from approving a project or change the provisions of the HANS process" (MSHCP, p. 6-82). "...the 2015 Consistency Report prepared by the project biologist (after the Joint Project Review) finds that the project as proposed is consistent with the MSHCP." First, the Wildlife Agencies note that it is not the disagreement between the RCA and the City that renders the Project inconsistent MSHCP, it is the failure of the City and project proponent to follow MSHCP implementation procedures that has resulted in the Project's inconsistency with the MSHCP. As discussed above, one cannot achieve MSHCP conservation merely by pointing at areas that could be conserved someday via an unknown mechanism. The Wildlife Agencies do not dispute the fact that the MSHCP does not limit the City's local land use authority or prevent the City from approving a proposed project, whether or not the project is consistent with the MSHCP. However, we reject the contention of the FEIR that the City's land use authority gives the City or the Applicant's project biologist the ability to render the Project consistent with the MSHCP by decree. An analysis of MSHCP implementation procedures is required and that analysis is verified as part of the MSHCP's Joint Project Review process. The analysis provided for the Project by the City and the Applicant was reviewed by the Department, Service, and the RCA and found to be inconsistent with MHSCP implementation procedures. The City of Temecula signed the MSHCP Implementation Agreement (IA) in exchange for receiving its covered species take permits from the Service and the Department. Relevant portions of the IA include the following: "11.9 Criteria Application Process. Public and private projects within the Criteria Area are expected to be designed and implemented in accordance with the Criteria for each Area Plan and all other MSHCP requirements as set forth in the Plan and in Section 13.0 of this Agreement. In the event that refinements to the Criteria are appropriate to facilitate reserve assembly, the Criteria Refinement process set forth in Section 6.5 of the MSHCP shall be utilized." "13.2 County and Cities Obligations. The County and the Cities have the following obligations under the MSHCP and this Agreement: Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 5 "...2) compliance with the HANS process or equivalent process to ensure application of the Criteria and thus, satisfaction of the local acquisition obligation; ..." "D. Participate as a member agency of the RCA as set forth in section 6.6.2 of the MSHCP." "E. Notify the RCA, through the Joint Project/Acquisition Review Process set forth in Section 6.6.2 of the MSHCP, of proposed discretionary projects within the Criteria Area and participate in any further requirements imposed by that section." "G. Carry out all other applicable requirements of the MSHCP, this Agreement and the Permits." The FEIR, DEIR, and the project's MSHCP Consistency Report (MCR) all admit that the Proposed Project (including the NaturefCulture/Sustainability Use alternative) does not comply with the MSHCP Criteria's requirements for the conservation acreage ranges of the Criteria Cells. Likewise, the three aforementioned documents' suggestion that the missing acreage could be made up by conserving land not described for conservation under the terms of the MSHCP (whether inside of the same Criteria Cells or outside of the MSHCP Criteria Area) also conflicts with the MSHCP's reserve assembly requirements. Therefore, the project is not consistent with the MSHCP's Reserve Assembly requirements (Section 3.3)_ Which renders it inconsistent with the MSHCP. Furthermore, the Department, the Service, and the RCA have each determined as part of the MSHCP Joint Project/Acquisition Review Process set forth in Section 6.6.2 that the Proposed Project (including the Nature/Culture/Sustainability Use alternative) is not consistent with the MSHCP. The FEIR contends that the City's land use authority obviates the MSHCP implementation procedures prescribed by MSHCP Section 6.6.2 and by the pertinent sections of the MSHCP Implementation Agreement and gives the City the exclusive right (inside of the MSHCP implementation structure) to render a finding of consistent or inconsistent with the MSHCP, including the power to nullify and cancel out an inconsistent finding made by any of the other Section 6.6.2 implementing parties (the Department, Service, and RCA). We reiterate that the Proposed Project (including the Nature/Culture/Sustainability Use alternative) is not consistent with the MSHCP. If the City approves the Project with a configuration that is not consistent with the MSHCP, the City will be in violation not only of MSHCP Sections 3.3 and 6.6.2, but will also be in violation of its obligations under the permits. As stated in our DEIR comment letter, a Criteria Refinement is needed. Common Response 3.2.4 clings to the assertion that the project is consistent with the MSHCP and therefore a Criteria Refinement is not needed. As stated above, the analysis in Appendix C3 was done incorrectly (asserting that future conservation will be achieved where no conservation is described) and the project must use Cell Criteria Analysis to identify reserve assembly requirements and demonstrate MSHCP consistency. Our estimates indicate that the project creates a conservation shortfall of approximately 163 acres. The FEIR identifies that the project would eliminate 7,700 linear feet of the Western Bypass by terminating its northern alignment (Page 3-332). The covered road width for the Western Bypass is 100 feet (7,700 feet x 100 feet = 770,000 sq ft or 17.7 acres) which rounds to 18 acres for the 7,700 linear feet that will not be constructed. The Wildlife Agencies agreed the project could Mr. Matt Peters (FWSICDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 6 count the acres gained from removing the northern terminus of the Western Bypass. This would result in a conservation shortfall of 146 acres, if the project is credited for the reduction of 18 acres of impacts (this requires a minor amendment to the MSHCP) against the calculated 163 - acre shortfall. The 146 -acre value is based on our calculation of the 163 acres of described conservation that cannot be achieved with the proposed development and the approximate 18 acres that will not be affected by the Western Bypass. We expect that there could be further refinements to this number. Given that there will be a conservation shortfall if the Project is built, a Criteria Refinement is required if the City intends to comply with its permits, the Implementing Agreement and the MSHCP. We were very surprised to read the statement below (p 3-11 of the FEIR): "Finally, despite any possible procedural steps that may be necessary to ensure consistency with the MSHCP, the project applicant and City have been in consultation with the RCA and Wildlife Agencies for almost four years on the design of the proposed project and the acreages necessary to ensure that the project does not conflict with the MSHCP and can ensure that the MSHCP's acreage goals are met for the Subunit." As stated in our DEIR comment letter: "We discussed the proposed Project and its conflicts with MSHCP reserve assembly at several meetings with the Project Proponent, the City and the RCA between March of 2015 and April of 2016. in all of those meetings we expressed strong reservations about the Project's design, and advised that a Criteria Refinement, as described in MSHCP Section 6.5, is needed to accomplish MSHCP implementation with the proposed Project footprint." It seems disingenuous to state in Common Response 3.2.4 that meetings with the Wildlife Agencies have ensured the acreage goals are met for the Subunit when we have been explicit in all of our interactions with the City and the Project Applicant that the Project as proposed is not consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly requirements. The DEIR and FEIR present a determination of a "less than significant" impact (DEIR page 3.3.64) after the discussion of MSHCP reserve assembly procedures based on the Project's use of the factually incorrect information presented in DEIR Appendix C3. The discussion provided in the DEIR above this determination does not identify an impact. Therefore, based on the title of the section in the DEIR, we take the determination to mean that the City has concluded that construction of the proposed the Project will not negatively affect MSHCP goals, objectives or reserve assembly. We find this conclusion to be unsupported. The City is an MSHCP permittee, and the information and analysis in the DEIR regarding reserve assembly are not consistent with the MSHCP's implementation procedures, as described in the MSHCP Implementation Agreement signed by the City and adopted in the City's MSHCP Implementation Ordinance. Additionally, completion of the MSHCP Criteria Refinement Process to mitigate the Project's impacts on MSHCP reserve assembly, (diminishment of the function of planned wildlife corridors) was disregarded in the FEIR. The Criteria Refinement Process was included in the MSHCP specifically to address and mitigate instances where project proponents or MSHCP permittees choose or seek to adopt projects that do not adhere to the adopted MSHCP Cell Criteria. Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 7 3) Western Bypass This Comment was not addressed adequately, and the response does not demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. The project identifies the removal of 55 -acres from reducing the length of the Western Bypass in the northern section of the road alignment as a proposed Project Conservation Feature. There are some issues with this approach. First, there is conflicting information in the FEIR on the length of the road that will be removed: it is identified as either 11,000 linear feet (Page 3-16 of the FEIR) or 7,700 linear feet (Page 2-10 of the FEIR). For consistency, we are using the 7,700 linear feet number. Please provide the correct length of roadway that will be removed. Second, the Western Bypass is a covered road and identified as a secondary road of 100 feet in width. We estimate the 7,700 linear feet of road to be approximately 18 acres. The project identifies a 55 -acre gain from the removal the road; however, only 18 acres can be counted. The other 38 acres of impacts from cut and fill are not part of the covered take for roads and they may be affected by other development in the future. Any such future development would need to comply with MSHCP. Third, in order to count the gain or savings from the change in the Western Bypass alignment the reduction must be memorialized in a minor amendment to Figure 7-1 of the MSHCP_ However, there is contradictory language in Comment 27 -EE and Common Response 3.2.5 regarding the minor amendment. These comments are contradictory and confusing as 27 -EE states that the City will work with the RCA on amending Figure 7-1 to show the proposed Western Bypass alignment while the Common Response 3.2.5 states that a minor amendment is not needed. Please provide clarification on whether a minor amendment will be completed, as required by the MSHCP, to identify the new alignment of the Western Bypass. 4) Urban/Wildlands Interface and Mitigation Measures This Comment was not addressed adequately, and the response does not demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. We requested in our DEIR comment letter that mitigation measures be revised to address edge effects along the urban/wildland interface. The response in the FEIR (MM -1310 3, MM -BIO 7 and Response 27-Q) fails to adequately identify edge effects that MSHCP species are particularly sensitive to, or how the population sizes, distribution, and survival inside the conservation areas would be affected by the development of Village A, Village G and the South Parcel in addition to the constraining of Proposed Linkage 10. As stated in our comment 27-Q, the MSHCP provides Urban Wildlife Guidelines and has fencing requirements that are to be adhered to when development occurs adjacent to or abuts areas already in, or described for conservation. These guidelines and fencing requirements are not only applicable to the Western Bypass and Camino Estribo as currently stated in MM -BIO -7a, MM Bio -7b and MM SIO 7c of the FEIR but are relevant to all development areas including Village A, Village G and the South Parcel. Furthermore, the Wildlife Agencies and the RCA should be consulted regarding the design of any barriers, hydrologic features, and lighting along the edges of existing or described Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-I8CPA0040) 8 conservation areas, MSHCP Proposed Linkage 10, and any project conservation that is counted towards Reserve Assembly. 5) Linkages and Mountain Lion Movement This Comment was not addressed adequately, and the response does not demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. In general, the Wildlife Agencies found that the responses to comment Comments 27-1 through 27-0 which address different aspects of mountain lion movement to be inadequate. The responses rely on weak tools to evaluate project impacts, do not evaluate project impacts relative to existing conditions, and provide inadequate mitigation measures. Our original comments stand. Specific detail on the response deficiencies are as follows: a) Comment 27-I Comment addresses narrowing of the Linkage 10 and the Zone of Negative Influence on mountain lion activity (i.e., breeding, hunting, moving). The response is inadequate because it does not address the Wildlife Agencies concerns regarding the Zone of Negative Influence and relies on faulty arguments to suggest that the project improves the corridor because of the movement of the Western Bypass to the east. The Response to Comments directs the reader to the Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. It then states that the "The reduction in width of Linkage 10 is largely attributable to the Western Bypass, a Covered Activity in the MSHCP. The proposed Project improves the width of the Linkage by modifying the alignment of the Western Bypass, and eliminating the northern portion of the Western Bypass under the previously approved alignment." We concur that the reduction in the length and eastern movement of the Western Bypass will reduce impacts of the road to mountain lion movement. However, the MSHCP requires that roadways in conservation areas have design features to facilitate wildlife movement such as fencing and wildlife crossings. These features allow areas on either side of roadways to maintain their conservation value. It is inappropriate to assume that all potential areas described for conservation to the east of the road would lose their conservation value and would no longer contribute to the corridor. The argument that the corridor is wider with the road and development than the road and conservation area to the east of the road is misleading and wrong. With appropriately designed wildlife crossings, those conservation areas would still be available to wildlife, including mountain lion, if the Western Bypass was built without the project. Further, without the project the Western Bypass could still be moved to the east to reduce the acreage asstrciated with the cut and fill and to reduce impacts along the escarpment. Therefore, the Wildlife Agencies reject the argument that the movement of the Western Bypass to the east with the project is an improved condition for the corridor. b) Comment 27-J Comment addresses loss of rearing habitat, impacts of increased human use at civic site, and impacts to wildlife movement across 1-15. The Response to Comments directs the reader to the Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8 and Appendix A of the FEIR (South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis). Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 9 The Wildlife Agencies find that the comment is not addressed adequately because the response has to be tracked down within Appendix A and it is difficult to tell exactly what part of Appendix A applies. In addition, the Common Responses rely on a comparison of the Nature Center use to a more intensive civic site use rather than to existing conditions. This approach fails to adequately address impacts to the existing linkage. The Wildlife Agencies request this comment be addressed appropriately by evaluating the impacts of the Nature Center on the linkage based on existing conditions not in comparison to the Civic Site. c) Continent 27-K Use of the Corridor Designer model/tool. The Response to Comments directs the reader to Common Response 3.2.8 The Wildlife Agencies find the response to concerns regarding the use of the Corridor model insufficient. The Response to Comments backs away from discussing the merits of using the model and addressing the concerns raised in the comment. Instead it states that the Corridor Model was but one of many tools used to analyze impacts which include multiple visits to the site as well as to key offsite linkage areas, extensive review of mountain lion literature, discussions with mountain lion experts, and to a lesser extent through the preparation of a corridor model. Based on this limited process the Draft EIR concludes that, as designed and mitigated, the project will have less -than - significant impacts on the mountain lion. The response does not directly address issues raised in the comment with the model. The response does not identify what key off site linkages areas were visited nor does it identify what information was garnered from those site visits that contributed to the analysis of impacts to the mountain lion linkage. The response does not identify how an extensive review of mountain lion literature will be useful in evaluating impacts to the mountain lion linkage. Information gleaned from the literature and how it was applied is not provided in the response. The response does not identify what mountain lion experts were talked to, what they said, or who they are, or why they are experts. This response disregards the opinion of Winston Vickers who has examined the project and commented on it critically. While the response in general appears to downplay the relative importance of the Corridor Model in evaluating impacts, the issue raised by the Wildlife Agencies of using appropriate models has still not been sufficiently addressed. The Wildlife Agencies had previously recommended that scientific and peer-reviewed models be used. The FEIR response to comments assertion that these models are not available for use by the project is insufficient and misleading to the public as there are in fact scientific models that can be used on a project basis. The response does specify what mitigation measures reduce the project impacts to less than significant. The Wildlife Agency's find the response entirely inadequate in addressing impacts to the mountain lion movement because the tools used to analyze the impacts appear to be insubstantial and are not well explained. The conclusion of less than significant impacts is wholly unsupported by the cursory analysis provided. d) Comment 27-L The comment is that the project will negatively affect the movement of mountain lions between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges. The Response directs readers to Common Responses 3.2.1 - 4 and 3.2.7 and -8. Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0044) 10 The Wildlife Agencies fmd the response to comments which directs the reader to multiple common responses but does not indicate the relevant portions of the response comment as entirely nonresponsive to the comment. The response fails to demonstrate that the Project will not significantly diminish the function of Linkage 10. e) Comment 27-M. The comment is that DEIR fails to demonstrate how the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the Project impacts to less than significant and that additional mitigation is necessary. The proposed mitigation measures to offset the narrowing of the corridor Linkage 10 and associated habitat loss with increased edge effects are inadequate. The mitigation measure of conserving 82.7 acres needs to be viewed in the context of the 246 acres that were described for conservation within the project footprint. In truth, the conservation of only 82.7 acres reflects a 163 -acre loss of habitat. The net loss of habitat should not be treated as a mitigation measure. The mitigation measure of permeable living walls of vegetation around the development on the outside perimeter of Western Bypass is inadequate and creates a situation where mountain lions and other wildlife may enter the villages and where pets and people can easily enter the conservation area. The MSHCP provides guidelines for the UrbanlWildlands Interface, which is intended to address indirect effects associated with Development near MSHCP Conservation Areas and includes guidelines for lighting, noise, invasive species, toxics, and barriers (Section 6.1.4.) Section 6.1.4 is particularly relevant for this project because of the edge effects from the project. The Wildlife agencies have a role in project review and the evaluation of whether a project is consistent with MSHCP requirements such as Section 6.1.4. Implementation of Section 6.1.4 (along with other policies) is necessary to comply with the MSHCP. Therefore, the project must include mitigation measures that address indirect effects through measures such as fencing to keep pets and people out of conservation areas and the Wildlife Agencies should have the opportunity to review those measures to ensure they adequately protect conservation areas. The Wildlife Agencies restate their previous request that fencing is placed around all edges of the project connected to conservation areas. Where gaps are located, appropriate gates should be placed to control the movement of wildlife, pets, and people_ The Mitigation Measures should be revised with Wildlife Agency review to ensure protection of Conservation Areas. As stated elsewhere, the Wildlife Agencies request pet - proof fencing around the villages on the perimeter of the Western Bypass. The choice of a Nature Center is pointed to as an offsetting measure for project impacts. However, an unfenced, ungated, and unstaffed nature center at night creates a magnet for people to loiter in the parking lot and surrounding area and becomes an attractive nuisance. In addition, the DEIR states that the Nature Center lights will be left on 2 -hours after dusk so it in fact adds light to the area during the night. The Nature Center is not an appropriate mitigation measure for the loss of habitat in the southern parcel in the project footprint. We concur that the retention of Camino Estribo as an unpaved road is preferred to paving the road for facilitating mountain lion movement. We also concur that the reduction in the length and eastern movement of the Western Bypass will reduce impacts of the road to mountain lion movement. However, as discussed above, areas on either side of the Western Bypass would maintain their conservation value and it is inappropriate to assume that all potential conservation areas to the east of the Western Bypass would lose their conservation value. The argument that the corridor is wider with Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 11 the road and development than the road and conservation area to the east of the road is misleading and wrong. With appropriately designed wildlife crossings those conservation areas would still be available to the wildlife including mountain lion if the Western Bypass was built without the project. Therefore, the Wildlife Agencies reject the argument that project with the movement of the Western Bypass to the east is an improved condition for the corridor. f) Comment 27-0 Reliance on mountain lions use of Proposed Constrained Linkages 9, 10, 11, and 12 in place of Linkage -10. The Response to Comments directs the reader to additional information in Common Response 3/.8 The Response states the comment does not accurately summarize the DEIR analysis and that Linkage 10 will not be rendered unusable by Altair and therefore the four western proposed constrained linkages provide avenues for mountain lion movement in addition to Linkage -10. This begs the question, if Linkage 10 will not be impacted by the project then why mention that additional linkage. The Wildlife Agency's concern remains that the large proposed development in the conservation area for Linkage 10 will render the linkage unusable. This response ignores the issue of Linkage 10 becoming impaired by the project. 6) Comment 27-S Pond Turtle The FEIR states that the "presence of steep terrain along the portion of Murrieta Creek bordering the South Parcel, the road to the South Parcel, and Village G likely precludes turtle usage in the area adjacent to the development footprint for either the University/Hospital Use or the Nature Center Use." The RCA's Monitoring Program monitored western pond turtle movement with radio transmitters and tracked turtles in habitat with steep slopes. This information refutes the project assertion that the site is too steep to support upland turtle habitat. Please provide additional information and evidence that supports the project's conclusion that pond turtle do not use the upland habitat near the Project. The Wildlife Agencies disagree that the upland habitat would not provide important nesting habitat for Pond Turtle_ 7) Comment 27-X: Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes. This Comment was not addressed adequately in the FEIR. The FEIR Response to Comment 27-X fails to demonstrate that the Project's proposed changes to the project site are not environmental changes, are insignificant, and are reversible. DEIR Received Comment 27-X (Wildlife Agenciesiune 18. 2016): The analysis in DEIR Section 6.2 "Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes" (SIEC) incorrectly concludes that the use of existing sensitive species' wildlife habitat on the Altair site for conversion to residential, commercial, institutional uses, roads, and site amenities is considered "Less than significant" when compared to other development in a local and regional context. This analysis is flawed because it fails to assess and disclose the significant and permanent harm that the Project will have on the MSHCP (the region's "existing HCP or regional conservation plan" as denoted in the CEQA Appendix G Checklist). Most of the Altair site is located in a place described for reserve assembly and habitat conservation by the MSHCP Mr. Matt Peters (FWSICDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPAOO4O) 12 (Linkage 10 and its associated Criteria Cells), and the permanent loss of conservation area on this scale from the MSHCP is significant. The Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes subchapter should include an analysis of the permanent loss of described conservation lands from MSHCP Linkage 10, and the long-term impacts on mountain lion movement between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Peninsular Range east of Interstate 15. FEIR. Response to Comment 27-X: The FEIR Response to Comment 27-X makes four separate arguments against DEIR Comment 27-X: a) After implementation of the relevant FEIR biological mitigation measures (MM -BIO -6b and MM -BIO -7a, -7h, and -7c), impacts to Linkage 10 and MSHCP Reserve Assembly are less than significant; b) A trivial EIR formatting argument: that the CEQA Appendix G Checklist does not require or suggest that that "conflicts with the provisions of an existing HCP or regional conservation plan" be analyzed in CEQA Section 15126.2(c), and that the sole appropriate place to do so is in the "Impacts to Biological Resources" subsection of the Biological Resources chapter of the EIR, as already done in the Altair DEIR; c) CEQA 15126.2(c) excludes the permanent conversion of sensitive species habitat from being classified as a "significant irreversible environmental change"; and d) That the conversion of sensitive wildlife species habitat to permanent structures and supporting infrastructure (such as an urban residential community, a university campus, or a hospital complex, etc.) should not be considered an "irreversible environmental change." Rebuttal to FEIR Response to Comment 27-X: a) The Wildlife Agencies do not agree with the DEIR and FEIR conclusions that "after mitigation, impacts to Linkage 10 and MSHCP Reserve Assembly" are "less than significant". For a detailed explanation of why, we refer you to our Replies to Response to Comments above, in this letter. b) The Wildlife Agencies consider the FEIR's argument about "where to place this discussion inside an EIR" to be a trivial and an unnecessarily argumentative procedural argument. Contrary to the FEIR's claim, we were not contending that FEIR Response to Comment 27-X "requires" conflicts with an established HCP to be placed into the "Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes" subsection of the EIR. Rather, we were stating that conflict with or harm to an established regional conservation plan through permanent changes in land use (i.c., the conversion of sensitive wildlife species' habitat to residential communities, commercial uses, transportation infrastructure, and a community center or university/hospital, etc. campus) would constitute a "change" that is (1) a change to the environment, (2) significant, and (3) irreversible. We reiterate that we disagree with the City of Temecula's position in the FEIR that "permanent harm to an established regional conservation plan" does not constitute a significant irreversible environmental change. c) The FEIR asserts (in Response 27-X) that CEQA Section 15126.2(c) restricts the nature of the environmental changes that may be deemed "irreversible and significant" in an EIR or a commenting public agency to the example given in CEQA Guidelines 15126.2(c) ("nonrenewable resources", which generally equates to either fossil fuels, or to groundwater lacking a extant Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 13 natural source of replenishment). We disagree. We find no language m CEQA Section 15126.2(c) which restricts or limits the type of environmental changes which EIRs or commenters may deem "irreversible and significant" and wish to discuss or disclose in the SIEC subsection of an EIR. We therefore reject the position of Response 27-X. d) In Response 27-X, the City of Temecula and its Applicant contend that the conversion of sensitive wildlife species habitat to permanent structures and supporting infrastructure (such as an urban residential community, a university campus, or a hospital complex, etc.) should not be considered an "irreversible environmental change". We disagree with the City and Applicant's findings for the following reasons: One of the main direct impacts of the Altair Project on biological resources would be the loss of the habitat of sensitive plant and animal species through the conversion of the habitat into the main constituent components of the Altair Project (urban residential housing, roads, commercial structures, and possibly a university, a hospital complex, a community nature/culture center, or another civic center type of use). The City contends in Response 27-X that such a conversion of habitat should not be considered an "irreversible environmental change." The Wildlife Agencies note that such a conversion would be: dl) "Environmental"_ The nature of the environment would be changed in character, changing from plant/wildlife habitat to built structures supporting a resident human population and significant human occupation and use. The City contends in Response 27-X that the land use changes that will occur on the project site would not affect any aspect of the environment (as defined by CEQA), and therefore, are not "environmental" in nature. We disagree. d2) "Significant" (here used not in the sense of "significant impact", but only in the lay or general meaning of the phrase "significant change", by itself, separate and distinct from the concept of "impacts"). We find that the conversion of habitat to housing communities, roads, commercial buildings, and other potential human built features analyzed in the DEIRIFEIR would result in the loss of foraging and sheltering habitat for all of the sensitive species which currently use the acres proposed by the City for conversion to human housing, roads, commercial structures, and supporting infrastructure. Even if one were to take the extreme position that these environmental changes do not constitute significant impacts, they are still obviously significant changes in the environment, and therefore, arc not excluded from disclosure and discussion in the SIEC subsection of an EIR. d3) "Irreversible". The City contends in Response 27-X that the Altair Project's conversion of habitat to housing communities, roads, commercial buildings, and other potential human built features analyzed in the DEIRIFEIR would be reversible; we disagree. The City's proposition in Response 27-X is that, after the Altair Project has been completely built, the City could reverse the land use from urban residential/commercial/institutional uses back to wildlife habitat. Such a reversal would entail the City using its statutory authorities to expel the residents and lessees of the Altair community from the project site and compelling the landowners to tear down and remove the buildings and all of the Project's infrastructure (and then attempt to re-create the pre- existing wildlife habitat). Such an effort by the City would be legally untenable, politically impossible, and would subject the City to extensive litigation by the future Altair residents and the landowners, litigation that the City would surely lose. So the City's contention (in Response Mr. Matt Peters (FWSICDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 14 27-X) that the main environmental changes proposed by the Altair Project to the wildlife habitat on the project site are reversible is an insupportable contention. The permanent environmental changes proposed by the Altair Project to wildlife habitat (wherever permanent structures or infrastructure will replace existing habitat for mountain lions, endangered plants, and other sensitive plant or wildlife species) are "significant irreversible changes" to the local environment, and therefore, should be disclosed to the public in the SIEC subsection of the EIR. Disclosure and discussion in the SIEC subsection does not preclude the City from approving the Project and making a finding of "Overriding Considerations" in the FEIR in spite of the anticipated significant irreversible environmental changes. 8) Additional Comments and Concerns South Parcel (Nature Center) The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the Project's willingness to consider an alternative to the Civic Site that would reduce impacts to habitat and Proposed Linkage 10. However, there arc still some concerns regarding the proposed Nature Center that are not addressed in the FEIR. The following outlines the portions of the Nature Center analysis that were not included in the FEIR but should be addressed. The Wildlife Agencies have previously expressed to the City (south parcel letter, enclosed) concerns about unmanaged access to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) and impacts to PL -10 conservation areas from pedestrian trespassers and other unauthorized uses, which can lead to habitat loss and degradation, increased fire hazards and spread invasive species. Unfortunately, the City in the FEIR disregarded these concerns, as it maintains a project configuration (trails within the South Parcel) that would direct pedestrians and residents alike towards the SMER and adjacent conservation areas. The Wildlife Agencies acknowledge that the specific location of trails have not yet been fully determined and appreciate the recognition that CDFW will be consulted on all barriers, as stated in Appendix B, and we request that a modification be made to ensure the Wildlife Agencies have approval over all trail locations and barriers. Additionally, the existing and proposed trails that lead towards the SMER are not covered under the MSHCP approved trails and therefore need to be appropriately mitigated for. The Wildlife Agencies recommend that all trails with appropriate buffers be included in the total acreage of the project impacts. We would also recommend removing the existing and future trails (Figure 5 in Appendix B) and reconfigure proposed trails to loop within the vicinity of the Nature Center and not extend towards the SMER. A meeting between the City, RCA and Wildlife Agencies to discuss trail locations, signage, public access points, and final approval on barriers and consistency with the MSHCP is requested prior to the adoption of the FEIR. Appendix B implies that there will be no impacts from lighting due to hours of operation being limited to daytime. However, Chapter 2 of the FEIR states that there would be some security lighting and lighting would extend to two hours after dusk. The Wildlife Agencies understand the need for security lighting but any lighting should follow the UrbanfWildlands Interface Guidelines set forth by the MSHCP. Mr. Matt Peters (FWSICDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 15 Mitigation measures should be developed to the extent feasible in regards to the Nature Center. This should include but not be limited to: proper signage, fencing around the nature center and parking lot to prevent access during unauthorized hours, gates that can be locked/secured during and after hours (this should include the entrance to Camino Estribo to further deter unauthorized trespass), hours of operation to be from dawn to one hour after dusk, and available staff to ensure pedestrians stay on designated trials and deter any trespassing on to the SMER. As described in previous sections pond turtle has been known to use upland habitat within the vicinity of the South Parcel. Since the FEIR fails to provide any scientific evidence to the contrary the Wildlife Agencies recommend that the impacted slopes be restored such that pond turtle that currently do occupy Murrieta Creek are able to use the restored slopes as upland habitat. This could be included as a mitigation measure to count towards lessening the impacts to Proposed Constrained Linkage -13. Conservation Features/Mitigation Chapter 2 of the FEIR clarifies edits that have been done to the Conservation Feature section of the DEIR. The below responses address our comments/concerns as well as appreciations for these changes. The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the Project's willingness to relocate the population of San Diego Ambrosia and request that we be consulted and coordinated with before and during the relocation. As previously stated by the Wildlife Agencies manufactured slopes are not accepted under the MSHCP. Thus the 20 -acres of restored manufacture slopes do not count towards mitigation/conservation and should be included in the total acreage of project impacts. The sale of the 8.97 -acres to the RCA is not conservation as there is a direct benefit to the Project Applicant. This should be removed as a conservation feature unless the project applicant intends to deed the 8.97 -acres to the RCA instead of selling it. Although the Wildlife Agencies appreciated the reduction in impacts by the reconfiguration of the Western Bypass, as stated in sections above, the Project cannot receive acreage credits for the reconfiguration until a MSHCP minor amendment is completed. The project can also only use the approximately 18 acres that are included in the Covered Roads impacts. We find the sum of $500,000 for a scientific mountain lion crossing study with the threat of reduction to $200,000 if the FEIR is challenged highly inappropriate and offensive. It is the City's and Project's responsibility and due diligence to ensure that the proposed project, that is in an area not only described for conservation but also in an area that is to function as a primary linkage to ensure species survival, still maintains its purpose with as little impact from the project as feasible. The offer of funds for a study that would be diminished should agencies, organizations and/or the public not agree with the FEIR is not conservation or mitigation. It also implies that $300,000 is being offered as an inducement to avoid litigation. This language should be removed from the FEIR. Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-18CPA0040) 16 Conclusion We encourage the City to revise the Project and confine all development to the area inside the Western Bypass. The acreage associated with the civic site and Neighborhood G could be used to offset the reserve assembly shortfall from the rest of the project. We understand that the project is proposed for development in phases, and that each phase needs to have a balanced grading plan. The elimination of Neighborhood G would reduce the volume of excess soil that would be deposited on the civic site as fill_ We also encourage the City to fulfill its obligations as an MSHCP permittee and require a proper criteria analysis and criteria refinement as appropriate. The currently proposed Project configuration would result in irreversible significant permanent damage to the MSHCP conservation strategy and reserve configuration and significant impacts to the mountain lion population in the Santa Ana Mountains. We appreciate the opportunity to continent on the FEIR and reiterate our request for a meeting with the City, the RCA and the Project Applicant prior to adoption of the FEIR. We look forward to continuing to working with the City of Temecula and the Applicant on this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments or would like to schedule a meeting, please contact Karin Cleary -Rose of the Service at 760-322-2070, extension 206, or Heather Pert of the Department at 858-395-9692. KARIN CLEARY- ROSE for Kennon A. Corey Assistant Field Supervisor Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sincerely, Digitally signed by KARIN CLEARY-ROSE. Dare: 2017.11.15 12:03.46 -08"00" cc: Charles Landry, Regional Conservation Authority State Clearinghouse Enclosures (3) Leslie MacNair Inland Deserts Region Regional Manager CA Department of Fish and Wildlife e,gional on servation uthority Wr:r .n 14.npl.k <.t,w , • 1 t November 15, 2017 Matt Peters, Senior Planner City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: ALTAIR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PA14-4159, PA14-01601 PA14-0161 Dear Mr. Peters, Thank you for providing the Altair project's Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The Regional Conservation Authority is a joint powers authority formed to oversee implementation of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSHCP). RCA member agencies include Riverside County and all western Riverside County cities, including the City of Temecula. The MSHCP is a federal Habitat Conservation Plan and state Natural Communities Conservation Plan that includes 146 Covered Species. The Altair project was reviewed under Joint Project Review 14-05-27-01. Findings were issued for JPR 14-05-27-01 on April 1, 2015. The findings concluded the project was inconsistent with both reserve assembly and other MSHCP requirements. MSHCP Consistency — Reserve Assembly The project was found inconsistent with reserve assembly in April 2015 because of its conflict with reserve assembly goals for four independent Criteria Cells; Cells 7164, 7166, 7264, and 7356 and due to its foreseeable effects on the function of Linkage 10. The analysis in the MSHCP Consistency Report (Helix, January 2015), the revised version (Helix, October 2015), the Draft EIR and the FEIR all rely on the incorrect assertion that individual project review for MSHCP consistency should rely on Subunit goals, not CeII or CeII Group goals. The RCA findings are based on reserve assembly goals referred to as Cell Criteria. Cell Criteria describe both the purpose of the Cell (reserve feature, vegetation, connectivity) and the specific acreage goals. Each of the applicant's various documents correctly identify the Cell Group and Cell goals affected by the project, but dismiss these goals based on the assertion Subunit goals are the appropriate methodology. Section 3.3.1 of the MSHCP, Criteria Review Consistency Process, (pgs, 3-122, 3-123) describes a top down review process 'Application of the Reserve Assembly guidance provided in the MSHCP is intended to occur sequentially, beginning at the broad, landscape scale and proceeding through the individual Cell Criteria. Section 3.3.1 goes on to state "The process should continue with a review of the specific Criteria for the identified Cell or Cell Group within which the project Matt Peters November 15, 2017 Page 2 site is located." Cell and Cell Group Criteria are the basis for all project review and is used by the RCA and all other Member Agencies. Reserve assembly goals for specific reserve features (Core, Core Extension, Linkage, Non -Contiguous Habitat Block) cannot be met using only Subunit goals. Subunits may contain a portion of a Core or Linkage or may contain multiple reserve features. The Altair project is located in Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) and Subunit 6 (Santa Rose Plateau) of the Southwest Area Plan. These two subunits cover over 14,000 acres with a collective reserve assembly goal of 3,155 acres for four linkages, including Linkage 10 along the escarpment. A single 270 acre project such as Altair cannot be meaningfully evaluated for MSHCP consistency if only broad Subunit assembly goals are considered, The project is not consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly goals for Linkage 10. A Criteria Refinement, or other agreed-upon equivalent process, is required to address conflicts with reserve assembly where a project proposes to use areas described for conservation by replacing the acres that won't be conserved with acres that are not described for conservation and are biologically equivalent or superior. MSHCP Consistency — Other Plan Requirements The project is also inconsistent with other plan requirements, such as the need to prepare a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) for impacts to riparian and riverine resources and to more fully address Urban Wildlands Interface issues. Additional FEIR comments FEIR Chapter 2, pg. 2-7, and Chapter 3, pg. 3-4, list the project's Conservation Features. The following are offered as comments on those features: a. 55 acre reduction in Western Bypass impacts. The RCA acknowledges that the alignment of the Western Bypass was shortened from the alignment mapped in MSHCP Figure 7-1 (General Plan Circulation Element with Criteria Area) and is therefore superior. However, the applicant includes graded slopes in the impact reduction calculation. Graded slopes are not included in Covered road "take" and are specifically not allowed in conservation areas. The stated 20 acres of revegetated slopes do not contribute to reserve assembly. The extent of the Western Bypass on Figure 7-1 from Murrieta Creek to Rancho California Road is approximately 19 acres. The applicant's October 2015 MSHCP Consistency Report asserts a 25.3 acre reduction. The true reduction from shortening the road is approximately 18 acres. b. San Diego ambrosia translocation. The RCA very much appreciates the offer to relocate the population of San Diego ambrosia on site. The species is federally endangered and rare in western Riverside County with only one population in conservation. However, the project is not in a mapped plant survey area (Criteria Species, Narrow Endemics) where surveys and mitigation are required so, while valuable, the relocation is not required and doesn't offset other project inconsistencies. c. Facilitation of the sale of 8.97 acre escarpment parcel. As we have indicated previously, the parcel in question is described for conservation as part of Linkage 10. Matt Peters November 15, 2017 Page 3 Therefore, while we value the addition to the reserve, "facilitating" its sale to the RCA has no meaningful effect on the project's conflict with other areas described for conservation. d. Additional $500,000 funding. Funding is for the purpose of "wildlife connectivity study, engineering feasibility, and/or land acquisition in the special linkage area south of the proposed project." The recipient is not identified, and there is no assurance of specifically what the funding will be used for. We believe the funding should be used to acquire needed replacement land. e. Wildlife CFD. We acknowledge the potentially significant funding the CFD rnay generate for the benefit of wildlife. The introduction of a nature center on the edge of the confluence of multiple wildlife corridors may have negative effects on wildlife movement even with full time staff and patrol. As with the additional $500,000 funding, the recipient is not identified and there is no assurance of specifically what the funding will be used for. Such funding also doesn't resolve the need for replacement land now and agreement on the project's footprint and appropriate Urban Wildlands Interface measures. 2. FEIR Chapter 2, pg. 2-8, asserts that western pond turtle known to be present in Murrieta Creek immediately adjacent to the project are "likely precluded" frorn using the area west of Murrieta Creek in Altair by the steepness of the slopes. The applicant offers no evidence to support that conclusion. Pond turtles are known to occur adjacent to the South Parcel in Murrieta Creek. Radio telemetry data from pond turtles on MSHCP conservation land indicate that adjacent upland areas, including steep slopes, are essential for pond turtle survival. Portions of the South Parcel do appear to be suitable upland pond turtle habitat. FEIR Chapter 2, pg. 2-10, acknowledges impacts to a single mountain lion that will likely discontinue use of the area, the female that uses portions of Murrieta Creek. Collar data from UC Davis Wildlife Health Center's Southern California Mountain Lion Project shows multiple mountain lions using the immediate area. Although acknowledged in the October 2015 MSHCP Consistency Report, the FEIR fails to acknowledge that significant portions of the project are within the zone of negative influence for mountain lions and appears to assign impacts to mountain lion to the Western Bypass and the Temecula Parkway/I-15 interchange which are Covered activities under the MSHCP. The FEIR is assigning mountain lion movement impacts to the Western Bypass and the Temecula Parkway/I-15 interchange since they are Covered activities to avoid acknowledging inconsistent project related impacts. 4. Chapter 2, pg. 2-11, states that with mitigation measures, the project's cumulative impacts are not considerable in light of other Covered Activities. The MSHCP EIR assessed cumulative effects of Permittee activities if they were consistent with the MSHCP. Since the project is not considered consistent, its effect could be cumulatively considerable. Matt Peters November 15, 2017 Page 4 The RCA has been in discussions with the City and the applicant (Chapter 3, pg. 3-11) regarding the Altair project's consistency since the joint project review application was submitted in 2014, however no agreement was reached. The RCA maintains that the project analysis fails to accurately assess the effects of the project on reserve assembly by using incorrect methodology. The conclusions reached in Joint Project Review 14-05-27-01 remain unchanged. We remain committed to working with the City of Temecula. Director of Reserve Monitoring & Management Matt Peters From: Winston Vickers Sent: Thursday, Decem er To: Jeff Comerchero; Maryann Edwards, James Stewart; Matt Rahn; Mike Naggar Cc: Matt Peters Subject: New research findings re Santa Ana Mountains pumas Attachments: BensonetaI.2016SMMLionPVA.pdf Dear Temecula City Council Members: As you consider issues associated with the proposed Altair development, and the final EIR, I want to make you aware of new findings of a Population Viability Analysis (PVA) that one of our research collaborators (John Benson, PhD) has completed for the mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountain Range. The potential risk to the Santa Ana's mountain lion population posed by high mortality rates and lack of genetic connectivity has been clearly documented, but until now there has not been a way to quantify that risk. This new analysis by Dr. Benson does that, and increases our concern for the Santa Ana's mountain lion population even more. Dr. Benson, who did the PVA for the Santa Monica Mountains population of mountain lions (peer reviewed publication attached), is preparing to submit a similar analysis for publication involving the Santa Ana's mountain lions. Although the peer review of this new analysis is not complete, the modeling approach used has been peer reviewed and published (Santa Monica publication), and we should all have confidence that the results are real. The specific results (numbers) will be available once peer review and publication is complete, but the bullet points from the analysis are listed below: 1. Without any change in current migration rates into the Santa Anas (one animal every 5 years), and no negative effects of the current or worsening inbreeding, chance of extinction in 50 years is around 1 in 5 to 1 in 6, a worrisome number for any population of wildlife even without negative inbreeding effects factored in. 2. The current low rate of migration has already produced an inbred population in the Santa Anas that is approaching the level of inbreeding of the federally endangered Florida panther. In the Florida panthers, inbreeding depression and low kitten survival and other issues began to arise at about this point of inbreeding. 3. If inbreeding depression should occur within the Santa Ana's population, and there is every reason to assume that it will if migratory movements are not improved or are further impeded, then the models suggest that this population would go extinct within 50 years, and possibly much sooner. Thus, preventing any further degradation of the ability of animals to use Temecula Creek to transit I-15 is critical. 1 We strongly encourage the Council members to consider this burgeoning body of evidence when making decisions about the use of the southern parcel of the Altair development, and other decisions that could increase human activity and diminish wildlife movement via Temecula Creek beneath 1-15, and on approaches to that highway crossing. Research has clearly demonstrated that the Temecula Creek Bridge is the only safe crossing structure that is likely to be approached and used by mountain lions to move east to west into the major habitat in the Santa Ana Mountains. Based on our modeling the Temecula Creek Bridge is the most statistically likely route that the six mountain lions we have documented as having crossed the freeway during our study would have used. Other approach points do not have viable structures that mountain lions are likely to use without extreme danger, as evidenced by the three mountain lions killed while trying to cross 1-15 at grade south of the Temecula Creek Bridge in the last two years. Though the San Luis Rey River Bridge further to the south allows safe movement under the freeway, corridor modeling does not support a high likelihood of movement from that river into the Santa Ana Range major habitats to the north. Loss of top predators, and decline of other species, due to lack of connectivity can have profound impacts on ecosystems — witness the decline of the Yellowstone ecosystem with the loss of wolves and bears, and the substantial restoration that has occurred as these predators returned. Likewise, ecosystem level function will be negatively impacted by the loss or serious decline of mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountains ecosystem. Development and highway construction decis"rons over the years by many entities, including by the City of Temecula, have brought this situation about. Current decisions on the Altair development, and future development decisions by the Council will impact mountain lion populations in the Santa Ana's. The long-term survival of an entire mountain range's population of mountain lions can be made more or less likely by the decisions of your council. It is our team's hope that you acknowledge the extent to which your decisions on this development and future developments will reverberate beyond the City's borders. Our team asks that you consider the serious mountain range -wide implications of your decisions and define a solution that does not inhibit the functionality of the corridor, that aids in restoration of the existing crossing so functionality is improved, and seeks solutions to creating a system of crossings that mitigate past, current and future impacts to the mountain lion viability. Thank you for your consideration, Winston Vickers T. Winston Vickers, DVM, MPVM Associate Veterinarian Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center, UC Davis Co -PI Southern California Mountain Lion Project twvickers(d,ucdavis.cd u 2 PROCEEDINGS B rspb,royalsocietypublishing.org Research Cross Mark Cite this article: Benson JF, Mahoney PJ, 5ikich JA, Serieys LEK, Polling r JP, Ernest HB, Riley SPD. 2016 Interactions between demography, genetics, and landscape connectivity increase extinction probability for a small population of large carnivores in a major metropolitan area. Proc. 1?. Sac. 8 283: 20160957. htlp:rldx.doi.orgr10.1098/rspb.2016.0957 Received: 5 May 2016 Accepted: 11 August 2016 Subject Areas: ecology Keywords: demographic stochasticity, heterozygosity, immigration, inbreeding depression, Puma concolor, PVA Author For correspondence: John F. Benson e-mail: henson.johnl@gmail.com Electronic supplementary material is available at http:lldx,doi,orgf10,10981rsph.2016.0957 or via http:11rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org. THE ROYAL. SOCIETY PUBLISHING Interactions between demography, genetics, and landscape connectivity increase extinction probability for a small population of large carnivores in a major metropolitan area John F. Bensons, Peter J. Mahoney2, Jeff A. Sikirh3, Laurel E. K. Serieys4'5, John P. Pollinger6, Holly B. Ernest' and Seth P. D. Riiey1,3.6 'La Kretx [enter far California Conservation, Institute of the Envuonment and Sustainalrfity, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA 2Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84231, USA 'National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Thousand Oaks, CA 91302, USA 4Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA sUniversity of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa 60epartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA 'Department of Veterinary Science, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82070, USA JFB, 0000-0002-3993-4340 The extinction vortex is a theoretical model describing the pmcess by which extinction risk is elevated in small, isolated populations owing to interactions between environmental, demographic, and genetic factors. However, empiri- cal demonstrations of these interactions have been elusive. We modelled the dynamics of a small mountain lion population isolated by anthropogenic barriers in greater Los Angeles, California, to evaluate the influence of demographic, genetic, and landscape factors on extinction probability. The population exhibited strong survival and reproduction, and the model predicted stable median population growth and a 15% probability of extinc- tion over 50 years in the absence of inbreeding depression. However, our model also predicted the population will lose 40-57% of its hetemzygosity in 50 years. When we reduced demographic parameters proportional to reductions documented in another wild population of mountain lions that experienced inbreeding depression, extinction probability rose to 99.7%. Simu- lating greater landscape connectivity by increasing immigration to greater than or equal to one migrant per generation appears sufficient to largely main- tain genetic diversity and reduce extinction probability. We provide empirical support for the central tenet of the extinction vortex as interactions between genetics and demography greatly increased extinction probability relative to the risk from demographic and environmental stochasticity alone. Our model- ling approach realistically integrates demographic and genetic data to provide a comprehensive assessment of factors threatening small populations. 1 Introduction Understanding factors that influence extinction in wild populations is a funda- mental challenge for population ecology and conservation biology [1-31. Habitat fragmentation can result in small, isolated wildlife populations within which extinction risk may be elevated by interactions between environmental, demographic, and genetic factors, often referred to as the extinction vortex or small -population paradigm [4-5]. Stochasticity in demography from sampling variance within small populations (demographic stochasticily) causes variation in realized vital rates, even in a constant envimnment, which can greatly increase extinction risk. Small, isolated populations also lose genetic diversity over time, © 2016 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved. Loa Padres National Forest •N MI ■ N ROOM III atritel .lmaraaia], Aaagelc, National l'oreyt • immigrants smaller roads major freeways proiected parkland - urhan development MI agriculture SMM mountain lion range Figure 1. Santa Monica Mountains (5MMs) and adjacent areas in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, California. The blue polygon is the composite home range for mountain lions tracked from 2002 to 2015 within the SMMs. Red circles are locations of mountain lions captured or otherwise sampled in adjacent areas used to simulate immigration in our model. principally through inbreeding and genetic drift, which may further increase extinction risk if demographic performance becomes compromised by inbreeding depression 14,6,71. The importance of inbreeding depression in influencing extinction of small populations is theoretically robust, but empirical support remains scant as few studies have docu- mented the causes of extinction in nature: [3,5,8]. Theory also predicts that when populations become small enough for inbreeding depression to occur, demographic and environ- mental stochasticity are likely to cause extinction before inbreeding will play an important role [5,9,10]. These conflict- ing predictions have led to a considerable debate regarding the relative influence of demographic and genetic factors on the viability of small populations [6,10-12]. There is now substan- tial evidence that inbreeding depression can strongly influence demographic performance of individuals and populations [8,1315]. Fagan & Holmes [1] retrospectively characterized the decline to extinction of 10 wild vertebrate populations providing key insight into the extinction process; however, they could not demonstrate the importance of inbreeding depression and associated demographic consequences directly because they lacked genetic data. Thus, the relative influences of demographic and genetic factors an the extinction of wild populations remain poorly understood and controversial [3,8,16,17]. Modelling dynamics of small populations with empirical demographic and genetic data may be effective to elucidate the mechanisms of the extinction vortex for wild populations [18]. Large carnivores, and specifically mountain lions (Prima ea/tailor), are excellent study species with which to investigate interactions between demography and genetics, and their influence on extinction risk in fragmented landscapes. Large carnivores occupy large home ranges and exist a low density, making them sensitive to habitat fragmentation and anthropogenic barriers to connectivity [19]. Recently, there have been examples of small populations of fetid and canid top predators in North America being pushed to the brink of extinction by negative consequences of low genetic diversity [14,15]. For mountain lions, a relatively small number of males often dominate breeding opportunities in wild populations, which can further reduce the effective population size [14,20]. Recent work showed that major free- ways and development represent substantial barriers to movement of mountain lions between areas of formerly con- nected habitat and documented strong genetic structuring, high rates of inbreeding, and low genetic diversity in isolated populations in southern California [2021]. Another population of mountain lions, Florida panthers (Piwie coticotarcoryi), declined rapidly in the twentieth century owing to overhunting and habitat loss until a small, isolated population of 20-30 animals persisted in south Florida [14]. This population exhibited low genetic diversity and poor demographic performance resulting from inbreeding depression [14]. Detailed research on the near -extinction and subsequent genetic restoration of panthers provided quantitat- ive predictions for (i) levels of genetic diversity at which inbreeding depression may occur in mountain lion populations and (ii) demographic consequences of inbreeding depression for this species [14,22,23]. Mountain Lion populations isolated by habitat fragmentation and major freeways in the greater Los Angeles area have the lowest levels of genetic diversity documented for this species aside from Florida panthers [20,21], causing concern regarding inbreeding depression. We developed an individual -based population model with empirical data from a 13 year (2002-2015) study during which we quantified survival, reproduction, movements, and multi- locus genotypes of individual mountain lions (n 45) within and adjacent to an isolated population in the Santa Monica Mnuntains (SMMs) west of Los Angeles [20] (figure 1). We con- structed a starting population of individuals that reflected the age, sex, and genetic structure of the 2015 population and projected the model forward to estimate stochastic population growth, extinction probability, and measures of genetic diver- sity over the next 50 years. We used genotypes of mountain lions captured or otherwise sampled in areas adjacent to the SMMs to simulate individual -level immigration events and additional gene flow into the SMMs. We used the model to address the following questions. (i) Is the population currently demographically vigorous? (ii) What is the probability of extinction due purely to stochastic demography? (iii) At what rate will genetic diversity decline under a range of immigration scenarios reflecting potential future variation in landscape connectivity? (iv) If the model predicts rapid declines in genetic diversity, how would reductions in vital rates proportionl to those documented in Florida panthers experiencing inbreed- ing depression influence population growth and extinction probability of SMM mountain lions? 2, Mater al and methods :,; (I ipture and i1nil,torjnci We captured mountain lions using Aldrich foot -snares or cable restraints, baited cage -traps, or by treeing them with trained hounds. We deployed global positioning system (GPS) collars (Followit AB, Simplex and Tellus models, Stockholm, Sweden; North Star Science and Technology LLC, Globalstar Tracker model, King George, VA; or Vectronic Aerospace, GPS Plus model, Berlin, Germany) on adults. We also captured three- to five -week-old kittens at natal dens by hand and implanted very high -frequency (VHF) transmitters (Telonics, IMP/200/L, tvfesa, AZ) in their peritoneal cavities (details in (24]). We moni- tored the survival of GPS -collared adult and subadult mountain lions daily via remote download and VHF instrumented kittens greater than or equal to three times per week using ground tele- metry. When we detected mortality, we hiked into the locations to retrieve carcasses and attempted to determine cause of death. Additionally, all carcasses were necropsied by experienced veter- inarians to confirm our field diagnoses and to gain additional information. We monitored reproduction of all collared females, using CPS telemetry to locate natal dens and capture, count, sex, and mark kittens [24]. (b) DNA gentyping We genotyped all captured mountain lions at 54 microsatellite loci using laboratory methods and markers described previously [20]. We also genotyped mountain lions from samples obtained in areas adjacent to the SMMs (figure 1). fc1 Estimating deinoi.ia[lilic parameter, We separated mountain lions tracked within the SMMs into three age classes for parameter estimation: kittens, subadults, and adults. Kittens were dependent offspring with their mothers. Subadults were independent animals prior to reproduction, whereas adults were resident, reproducing animals. Kittens in the SMMs became independent from their mothers at a mean of 408 days (range = 348-515, u = 12). Thus, we considered mountain lions of both sexes to be kittens from 0 to 14 months. We considered females to be subadults from 14 to 25 months (age of youngest known -age female documented breeding). We considered males to be subadults faun 14 to 42 months (age of the youngest known -age male documented breeding). We esti- mated sex and age -class -specific survival rates using the Kaplan -Meier estimator generalized for staggered entry [25] and the Greenwood method for estimating variance implemented in R v. 3.1.3 (R Development Com Team 2015) with the 'survival' package. We pooled sexes for kitten survival estimates owing to relatively small sample sizes (0 r 16). We allowed females in the model to breed in the first month after reaching adulthood. Females raising kittens within the model were not eligible to breed again until they either lost the entire litter to mortality or the kittens became independent, whichever came first. Females in the model bred in the First month following Lass or indepen- dence of kittens as all Females we tracked in the SMMs bred within 25 days (mean 17 days, range 11-25, a = 4) of losing kit- tens to mortality or independence. Mean litter size was 2.88 in the SMMs (range 2-4, n = 8 litters). We estimated the probability of a female having two (0.375), three (0.375), or four (0.250) kittens in a litter based on the proportion of these litter sizes documented in our study. We developed an individual -based population model for moun- tain lions that incorporated demographic and environmental stochasticity, as well as a simple form of density -dependence (figure 2). Individual -based population models differ from clas- sical models in that population -level processes are explicitly modelled as the outcome of the variable performance of individ- uals, which are tracked through time and allowed to differ in important ways [26,27]. We began the model with a startling population that reflected the sex, age, and genetic structure of the current (2015) population and projected the model forward to estimate the demographic and genetic stricture of future populations (figure 2). Specifically, both adult males (including the sole known breeder) and three of the (presumed) four to six adult females residing in the SMMs during 2015 were included in the starting population. Two additional females that had been captured in the SMMs and subsequently died were included as adults. Eight additional mountain lions born in the SMMs during 2012-2015 were included as kittens and subadults (two males and two females of both age classes). Thus, the starting population comprised 15 SMM mountain lions (nine females, six males) with empirical genotypes at 5-1 loci. Offspring produced in the model were assigned geno- types derived through simple Mendelian genetics (i.e. one allele randomly inherited fmm each parent at each loci), We ran simulations consisting of 5000 population projections of 50 years, unless noted otherwise. The population dynamics simulated by the model was a reflection of individual -based demographic processes specified by empirical probability distri- butions estimated with data collected from wild mountain lions in the 5MMs. Population size was updated at each monthly time step by subtracting individuals lost through mortality and adding individuals gained through reproduction or immigration (figure 2). We imposed mortality (survival senescence) on all mountain lions of both sexes in the model that reached 15 years of age as mountain lions have rarely been documented living beyond that age in the wild ]28]. We incorporated density - dependence by imposing a maximum number of adult males (it = 2) and females 01=-6) that could exist in the population at any given time. When all of the adult slots of a given sex were occupied, we eliminated individuals of that sex that would have otherwise transitioned from subadults to adults. This process simulated density -dependent population regulation through death or dispersal. This density -dependence provided an important limitation on population growth, which otherwise would have resulted in population sizes larger than the SMMs could realistically support given the limited space and barriers to movement [20]. Although the upper limits for adult males and females were fixed, the number of adults varied stochasti- cally during model projections owing to variation in survival and reproduction. The sex-specific maximum values reflected our understanding of the size and space limitations of the popu- lation based on intensive monitoring with telemetry, genetic analysis, and remote carneras for more than 13 years. See additional details of the modelling procedures in electronic supplementary material, appendix A. 0 model parameters nuurlirr off projections number of }ears demographic parameters A. survival 8. age of senescence (survival) C. immigration rate D. marimunr no. adult a I. maximum no. adult F breeding probability G. litter size H. sex ratio model initialization age increment testi is immigrant population model outputs population size lambda extinction probability genetic composition update bleeding status (F) stage transitions 4D, E) Figure 2. Flow diagram shows demographic parameters, population model loop (in white boxes) and model outputs. Demographic parameters are labelled with letters (A—H) to indicate which parameters are relevant to each portion of the main population model loop. We generated environmentally stochastic monthly survival prob- abilities by transforming estimated Kaplan -Meier survival rates and their standard deviations into beta shape parameters, using the hetaval function in the R package 'popbio' (29]. At each monthly time step, we drew a random survival value from this beta distribution which was used as the environmentally stochas- tic survival probability for all individuals of the same sex and age class during that time step. We then assessed demographically stochastic survival of each individual, using a Bernoulli trial with the monthly survival probability as the threshold between survival and mortality. We assigned a fixed annual immigratkin rate prior to starting a simulation. This annual rate was transformed into a monthly probability and was assessed stochastically, using Bernoulli trials during each monthly time step. For our main analysis, we restricted immigration to subadult males. hi addition to being more likely to disperse, males are also more likely to undertake longer and riskier dispersal events 130,311. Indeed, the single inunigration event documented into the SMM popu- lation during our study was a radio -collared subadult male that crossed the 101 freeway (20]. Although we expect most immigrants into the SMMs will be males, we also ran sineulations where both subadult males and females immigrated with equal probability to investigate the influence of female immigration. We assigned genotypes to immigrants from mountain lions rap- tured or otherwise genolyped in adjacent areas north and east of the SMMs (ar = 18). The model sampled immigrant genotypes without replacement from the 18 genotypes available. If all gen- otypes were used during a given population projection, the pool of potential immigrants was reset and once again populated with all 18 available genotypes from north and east of the SMMs. Each immigrant was randomly assigned an age from 14 to 42 months (for males) or 14-25 months (for females), Once in the SIAM population, these immigrants were subjected to the same demographic procedures as other subadults in the model. II; ''.err_ I••: Ji!•II We allowed some flexibility in the age that subadults of both sexes transitioned to adults. For females, we incorporated stochasticity into the age of first reproduction (and therefore in their transition to adulthood) by sampling each individual's age of transition from a uniform distribution between 25 and 33 months. Males transitional to adulthood at 42 months if there was thorn for an additional adult male in the population based on our density - dependent limit. However, if there were no adult males present in the population, then subadult males greater than or equal to 36 months of age were eligible lo transition to adulthcxad and begin breeding. We implemented this Flexibility because breed- ing for male mountain lions in wild populations is probably delayed beyond the age of sexual maturity. Thus, when no adult males were present, we assumed younger males would begin breeding sooner. (iv till's°Ilill l `i.illl4 We designated reproductive males and females in the starting population and, thereafter, the model randomly selected breeding animals from subadults eligible to transition to adults when open- ings became available. Males reaching breeding status remained reproductive for the remainder of their lives. Breeding females were eligible to become pregnant throughout the remainder of their lives whenever they did not have dependent offspring. New offspring were produced three months after pregnancy to simulate the gestation period for mountain lions. I 1-r;i':'-' Females produced offspring at any lime of the year consistent with mountain lion reproductive ecology and our documentation of litters throughout the year in the SMMs. When one breeding u e, ro cr ua L6WI.0'FE a.sa male was present in a simulated population, he mated with all adult females. When two males were present, they each mated with half the adult females. When an odd number of females were present, one was designated as a 'floater' that could mate with either mala randomly. Litter size varied stochastically by generating a random, uniform value between 0 and 1 for each reproductive female and comparing the value to a cumulative probability distribution for litter sizes of 2, 3, and 4 based on the proportion of these litter sizes documented during our study. We determined the sex of each offspring using a Bernoulli trial with a pmbabilily of 0.5. We documented either one or two adult males in the popu- lation at any one time throughout the 13 year field study. Thus, the number of breeding males may have fluctuated between one and two males at different times during the study. However, we never confirmed that two males were ever breeding simul- taneously in the population with genetic data. In fact, parentage analysis indicated that only two males were responsible for all known reproduction from 2002 to 2015 with sequential breeding periods that did not overlap. To account for this uncertainty we modelled the two possible scenarios separately: (i) a situation where less than or equal to two adult males could be present but only a single male bred at any one time, and (ii) a situation where less than or equal to two adult males were present and both bred with half of the females present. We present both sets of results because both were plausible and had consequences for the rate at which genetic diversity eroded in our simulations. (f) Model outputs We estimated A at time t as N,IN,_1, where N, - total population size at time f. We estimated A, (stochastic lambda) across time periods of interest with the formula N In (Ar) Nyears We report median A from the distribution of values across all 50 year projections for simulations of interest. We estimated cred- ible intervals for A„ using the highest posterior density (HPD) derived using the R package 'coda' (v. 0.17--1). We estimated prob- ability of extinction as the proportion of projections that went extinct during a given simulation and derived estimates of varia- bility by conducting a non -parametric bootstrapping procedure implemented in the R package 'boot' (v. 1.3-17). We ran 1000 boot- straps of 5000 population projections to estimate uncertainty regarding extinction probability, which we present with 95% HPD intervals. We estimated the effective population size based on a census of the breeding animals in simulated populations using the Formula: We (4 x Nor x NfM)/(Nr . + NSM). Where N., is effective population size, NnF is number of breeding females, and NSM is number of breeding males. (II fit We estimated measures of genetic diversity for starting popu- lations and simulated populations 1-50 years in the future using mean values from genotypes of individuals across all pro- jections in a given simulation We estimated expected (H„) and observed (1-f„) heterozygosity, individual inbreeding coefficient (F;,), the mean number of alleles per loci (NA), and the par portion of polymorphic loci using the R package `adegenet' v. 2.0.0 [32]. I.T Ei.-1,.ti ir+ illri si We investigated sensitivity and proportional sensitivity (elasticity) of A. estimated by our model to small (5%) increases in vital rates [29]. We conducted these analyses with the density -independent model to investigate which demographic parameters had the greatest influence on A, in the absence of density -dependent limit- ations. We calculated sensitivity values (5) for 59'. increases in each demographic parameter following Morris & Doak [29] 5 _ Lug A,(adjusted)-Log 4,(original) - parameter(adjusted)-parameter (original) Where 'adjusted' refers to demographic rates increased by 5% and the resulting value of A,, and 'original' refers to the original demographic rates and resulting value of A¢ prior to these increases. We then calculated elasticity values (E) for each demographic parameter following Morris & Doak [29] parameter,,,,b,„,,t parametcr,,a,„s, ES x (h) Simulating inbreeding depression We simulated inbreeding depression by running population projec- tions with input parameters reduced to reflect proportional changes in age and sex-specific survival rates consistent with differences documented between Florida panthers experiencing inbreeding depression and outbred panthers fallowing the genetic restoration programme [14,22,23]. These adjusted input parameters are provided in electronic supplementary material, table 53. 3. ne';uIts Demographic parameters estimated from SMM mountain bons used to construct the model are summarized in electronic supplementary material, table 51. Density -independent Ag over 25 years was 1.19 11.13, 1.23] and was most sensitive to changes in adult female survival (electronic supplemen- tary material, table 52). Probability of extinction from the density -independent model was 0.009. More realistic, density - dependent simulations predicted stable median population growth (A, = 1.01) over the next 50 years, regardless of the level of immigration (table 1 and figure 3a). However, them was a 15-22% probability of extinction owing to demographic stochasticity with no or low immigration into this small popu- lation (table 1). Moderately higher levels of immigration (one every 2-4 years) reduced probability of extinction due purely to demographic factors to 2-8% (table 1 and figure 3a). With little or no immigration, which reflects our understanding of the current level of isolation of this population [20], heterozygosity decreased precipitously (table 2; figures 3b and 4). However, when we simulated increased connectivity, heterozygosity declined much more slowly and was largely (73-94%) maintained (table 2; figures 3b and 4). Other measures of genetic diversity such as per cent polymorphism, inbreeding coefficient (F,.), and the number of alleles per loci (NA) responded to variation in male immigration similarly (table 2). Allowing both males and females to immigrate yielded similar results, although loss of heterozygosity was slightly greater and extinction risk was slightly higher than when only males immi- grated (electronic supplementary material, tables 53-54). When we simulated inbreeding depression by reducing age-clas_s- spt cific survival rates proportional to reductions documented between inbred and outbred Florida panthers (electronic supplementary material, table S5), the population declined dra- matically (A. - 0.88 [0.76, 0.98]) with an estimated probability of extinction of 99,7% in 50 years and an estimated median extinc- tion time of 14.5 years (4.25, 3025; electronic supplementary material, table 56). (a) 50 40 30 • 20 10 0 50 40 30 1.1 20 0 1Q1 0 - 50 B. 40 . -030 S 20 10, 0- no immigration one immigrant in 13 years one immigrant in 4 years 50 one immigrant in 2 years 0.6 40 . 0.5 • 30 0.4 2 0.3 0 0.2 10 , 0.1 • 0, 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 (h) 0.6 no immigration 0.6 • 0.40.5 - TA 0.3 • m 0.2 • ▪ 0.1• O 0 2 .A 0.6- a' 0.5' f.3 0-4 0.3 • o 0.2 0.1 • 0• one immigrant in 13 years one immigrant in 4 years one immigrant in 2 years year year Figure 3. Results from individual -based population model for mountain lions projected 50 years showing predictions for population size and genetic diversity. Darker and lighter colours in the plots relied highest and lowest probability of predicted values, respectively. to) Population projections showing generally stable population size and growth, regardless of immigration and a 3- 22% probability of extinction. Persistent projections shown in blue, projections going extinct shown in red. (b) Predicted values of observed heterozygosity (Ng) declined rapidly with no or low (one every 13 years) immigration, whereas 1I was largely maintained with moderate increases in immi- gration (one every 2 - 4 years). Red bands indicate the level of H, documented in Florida panthers experiencing inbreeding depression (from Johnson et al. [14]), calculated as proportional loss of heterozygosity relative to outbred pumas (additional details in Discussion). Table 1. Demographic results predicted by individual -based population model for Santa Monica Mountain lions, Southern California. Values are mean (unless otherwise noted) estimates at year 50 based on 5000 population projeetiorts. no imthigratlon one immigrant per 13 years one immigrant per 4 year ane immigrant per 2 years estimate 95% HPD estimate 95% HPD' estimate 95% HPD' estimate 95% NPD' one mak breeding Ab 1.01 (0.91, 1.02) 1.01 (0.92, 1.02) 1.01 (0.95, 1.02) 1.01 (0.99, 1.02) extinction prob. 0.211 (0.200, 0.222) 0.156 (0.145, 0.165) 0.078 (0.07, 0.09) 0.024 (0.020, 0.029) extinction time 30.79 (1213, 49.20) 3037 (12.08, 49.17] 32.44 (12.58, 49.67) 31.87 (11.50, 48.67) adults (n) 5.20 (0, 8) 5.60 (0, 8) 6.23 (0, 8) 6.68 (0, 8) NE 2.91 (0, 3.43) 2.94 (0, 3.43) 3.00 (0, 3.43) 3.09 (0, 3.43) two males breeding A" 1.01 (0.91, 1.02) 1.01 (0.93, 1.02) 1.01 (0.96, 1.02) 1.01 (0.99, 1.02) extinction prob. 0.220 (0.208, 0.231) 0.150 (0.140, 0.160) 0.066 (0.058, 0.072) 0.030 (0.025, 0.035) extinction time 30.79 (12.08, 47.33) 30.37 (12.08, 49.17) 30.48 (12.08, 48.42) 33.55 (12.67, 49.75) adults (n) 5.16 (0, 8) 5.66 (0, 8) 6.30 (0, 8) 6.69 (4, 8) NE 3.95 (0, 6) 4.060 (0, 6) 4,21 (0, 6) 4.45 (0, 6) '95% highest posterior density credible intervals. bMedian stochastic population growth rate. 4. Discussion The SMM mountain lion population is currently demographi- cally vigorous with no indication of inbreeding depression as evidenced by estimated survival and reproductive rates that weir mostly similar or slightly higher than other unhun- ted mountain lion populations across North America [22,23, 28,331. The lone exception was subadult survival, which was 0 mean heterozygosity 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0 10 20 30 no. immigrants 40 50 Figure 4. Relationship between generic diversity and immigration predicted by individual -based model for mountain lions projected forward 50 years. Blue tiend line depicts mean (with 95% confidence interval in grey) relationship between immigration and observed heterozygosity derived by simulating a range of immi- gration (0-50 immigrants over 50 years) reflecting variation in connectivity and gene flow for mountain lions between the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding areas. (online version in colour.) Table 2. Genetk results predicted by individual -based population model for Santa Monica Mountain mountain bons, Southern California. Values are mean estimates at year 50 based on 5000 population projections. one male breeding NA Fis polymorphic (96) two males breeding Ffo NA polymorphic (96) 0.352 0.388 2.220 0.127 0.778 0.352 0.388 2.220 0.127 0.778 0.032 0.143 0.040 0.165 0.123 1.431 0.022 0.191 0.400 0.032 0.156 0.040 0.178 0.123 1.468 0.022 0.186 0.429 0.027 0.032 0.074 0.022 0.027 0.032 0.077 0.018 lower than other populations, likely because dispersal of suba- dults was frustrated and many were killed by adult males [20]. The population has strong growth potential as the den- sity -independent model predicted a rapidly increasing population and an extremely low (less than 1®) probability of extinction over the next 25 years. In the absence of inbreeding depression, and with no or low immigration, the density - dependent model predicted a stable median growth rate and a 15-22% probability of extinction over the next 50 years owing to demographic stochasticity (figure 2a). However, without additional gene flow, the predicted erosion of genetic diversity within 50 years warrants concern regarding inbreeding depression and the potential for rapid extinction. In the context of population viability analysis (PVA), 5-10% reduction in mean heterozygosity has been suggested to be the maximum acceptable loss aver 100-200 years to avoid 0.189 0.217 1.624 0.184 0527 0.206 0.234 1.669 0.179 0,556 0.027 0.033 0.082 0.019 0.028 0.033 0.085 0.019 0.248 0.283 1.882 0.172 0.674 0.276 0.311 1.960 0.168 0.715 0.028 0.034 0.093 0.020 0.028 0.034 0.096 0.020 0.297 0.337 2.098 0.127 0.776 0.328 0.366 2.190 0.159 0.814 0.029 0.034 0.100 0.021 0.029 0.034 0.104 0.021 inbreeding depression in wild populations [34,35]. Our model predicted much greater reduction in heterozygosity (40-57%) over only 50 years. Predicted observed heterozygosity in 50 years with no or low immigration were similar to values reported for inbred Florida panthers prior to genetic introgres- sion [14], although these values may not be directly comparable owing to the use of different microsatellite loci between studies. To account for differences in the panel of loci, we compared the proportion of heterozygosity retained in inbred panthers and SMM mountain lions relative to values quantified for outbred populations using the same loci. In the years prior to genetic introgres.sion, inbred Florida panthers exhrhrited 54-58% of the observed heterozygosity of outbred pumas from Texas released into south Honda during the genetic restoration pro- gramme [14). For comparison, mountain lions in our model at year 50, with no or low immigration, exhibited 39-56% of the observed heterozygosity documented in mountain lions sampled east and north of the SMMs in southern California [20]. Thus, our results suggest mountain lions in the SMMs will lose as much or more genetic diversity within 50 years, rela- tive to outbred populations, than was lost by the panther population that nearly went extinct from consequences of inbreeding depression. Not surprisingly for a population of five to eight adults, the model predicted rapid extinction of SMM mountain lions when we simulated inbreeding depression. More optimistically, our simulations predicted that modest increases in immigration would allow mountain lions in the SMMs to retain 67-87% of the heterozygosity exhibited by outbred mountain lions in southern California. Our model predictions were consistent with empirical gen- etic data collected within this population to date as genetic diversity declined and inbreeding increased from 2004 to 2010 120]. In 2010, the single immigrant documented entering the population arrived, and there was a brief (2 years) increase in genetic diversity and reduction in inbreeding [20]. However, the positive influence of this rare immigration event was short- lived as the immigrant mate began to breed with his daughters and genetic diversity began to decline again [20]. Thus, the low level of immigration occurring under the current landscape con- ditions appears to be insufficient to reduce inbreeding and maintain genetic diversity for the long-term. In addition to con- cern over the absolute loss of heterozygosity predicted by our model, the rapid rate of this loss may further exacerbate extinc- tion probability. Populations experiencing slower erosion of genetic diversity may be more likely to maintain evolutionary potential and n?sponsiveness to environmental change [36,37]. The SMM mountain lion population has persisted at a very small population size for at least several decades and is pre- dicted to exhibit generally stable population growth in the absence of inbreeding depression. Importantly, our model pre- dicts a much lower probability of extinction (2-22%) due purely to demographic and environmental stochasticity corn - pared with the probability of extinction following inbreeding depression (100%). Thus, our results support the central tenet of the extinction vortex that demography and genetics interact to elevate extinction risk in small, isolated populations [4,6], and do not support previous contentions that demographic stochasticity and deterministic factors generally cause extinc- tion before inbreeding depression can negatively influence viability [5,10,111. Our results also provide insight into the one migrant per generation (OMPG) rule, which suggests that OMPG is sufficient to minimize the loss of polymorphism and hetero -zygosity 1381. Simulating Ov1PG (generation time 28-36 months) resulted in the population retaining 76-97% of its observed heterozygosity and 86-105% of its polymorphism over 50 years (table 2 and figure 3). Large carnivores persisting within a metropolitan area as large as los Angeles is extremely rare and our model eluci- dated interactions between inbreeding and demography that substantially elevated extinction probability. However, the interactions themselves are not rare and are likely to become more common in wild populations as activities of the growing human population increasingly isolate populations of wildlife in small patches of otherwise highly suitable habitat. Indeed, wolves (Canis lupus) on Isle Royale appear to be on the brink of extinction following increased isolation associated with decreased frequency of sufficient winter lake -ice forrnation to allow immigration of wolves from mainland populations, which has been linked to global climate change [15]. Florida panthers nearly went extinct from consequences of inbreeding depression after being isolated from other mountain lion popu- lations due to overhunting and habitat loss in eastern North America. Following restoration of genetic variability through an intentional introgression programme, demographic per- formance of panthers improved and the population rapidly expanded numerically [141 Inbreeding depression may be less important in influencing extinction than deterministic fac- tors when populations continue to decline rapidly, because the rate of decline is faster than the effects of inbreeding depression [16]. For example, high mortality in endemic bird populations from introduced predators on islands is a situation where inbreeding depression is predicted to be less likely to influence viability than deterministic factors [39]. However, inbreeding depression can strongly influence extinction in cases where the deterministic decline has been slowed or halted and small populations persist in isolated patches of suitable habitat, as with Florida panthers and SMM mountain lions. Despite wide recognition of the value of explicitly incor- porating interactions between demographic, genetic, and lantsc:ape processes into PVA, and using measures of genetic diversity to improve estimates of extinction probability, these goals have remained elusive [40]. This limitation has persisted despite the increasing availability of detailed genetic data accompanying demographic studies of wildlife populations of conservation concern. Our results provide managers with an opportunity to develop proactive conservation strategies that could prevent inbreeding depression and extinction. A highway crossing structure to facilitate immigration into the SMMs could increase gene flow sufficiently to minimize the loss of genetic diversity, as well as reduce extinction probability date purely to demographic stochasticity. Mountain lions readily use highway crossing structures [41] and are known to traverse areas immediately adjacent to the SMMs [20]. If a crossing structure is implemented, mountain lions entering the SMMs via the structure should be monitored with remote cameras in conjunction with continued demographic and gen- etic monitoring of the population to test the predictions of our model. Alternatively, translocation of mountain lions into the SMMs from other areas could be considered in the future to facilitate genetic restoration or recolonization. However, a crossing structure might eliminate the need for translocation and, importantly, would also benefit other species for whom these freeways represent significant barriers [42]. Furthermore, although genetic rescue through translocation can be an effec- tive short-term solution, previous work has highlighted the importance of addressing environmental Factors that threaten small populations in a comprehensive mariner to achieve long-term genetic restoration and viability [43,44]. Maintaining healthy populations of native top predators within greater Los Angeles, the second largest metropolitan area in the USA, would provide a model for successful large carnivore conservation within highly fragmented, urban land- scapes. This would have broad implications given the rapid rate of global urbanization and importance of carnivores as critical elements of healthy ecosystems [191. We show that demography and genetics can be modelled synergistically within PVA to provide a comprehensive assessment of factors threatening small populations with extinction. This frame- work ramework can be applied globally to other small populations for which detailed demographic and genetic data are available to increase understanding of these processes and improve wildlife conservation in fragmented landscapes. Q Animal capture and handling protocols were approved by the National Park Service Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Data analysed in this paper are accessible through Dryad: http://dx.doi.org/10.5061 / d ryad.82p m0 j451. Designed the study: J.F.B., P.J.M„ Collected data: J.A.S., L.E.K.S., J.P.P., 11.6.E., S.P.D.R. Analysed data: J.F.13., P.J.M. Wrote manuscript: J.F.B. Revised manuscript: J.F.B.. P.J.M., J.A.S., L.F..K.S, J.P,P., li.R.Ti., S.P.D.R. We declare we have no competing interests. References 1. Fagan iWF, Holmes EE. 2006 fivantifying the extinction vortex. Eto1. Lett. 9, 51-60, 2. 0vaskainen 0, Manxh B. 2010 Stochastic models of population extinction. Trends Etat. Evol. 25, 643-652. )doi:10.1016fj.tree.2010.07.009) 3. Wootton Jr, Pfister CA. 2013 Experimental separation of genetic and demographic factors on extinrtmn risk in wild populations. Ecology 94, 2117-2123. (doi:10.1890i12-1828.1) 4_ Gilpin ME, Soule ME. 1986 Minimum viable populations: processes of spedes extinction. In Conservation biology. the science of scarcity and diversity (ed. ME Soule), pp. 19-34. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. 5. Caughley G, 1994 Directions in conservation biology. J. Asim. Eco!. 63, 215-244. (doi:10.2307/5542) 6. Soule ME, Mills LS. 1998 No need to isolate genetics. Science 282, 1658-1659. (doi:10.1126/ science.282.5394.1658) 7. Mills L5. 2013 Conservation of wildlife populations. West 5ussor, UK: Wiley-8ladiwell 8. Blomgvist D, Pauliny A, Larsson M, Flodin L-A. 2010 Trapped in the extinction vortex? Strong genetic effects in a declining vertebrate population. eMC Ewvt Biot. 10, 33-41. (doi:10.1186/1471- 2148-10-33) 9. Shaffer ML, Samson F8. 1985 Population size and extinction: a note on determining critical population sizes. Am. Not 125, 144-151. (doi:I0,1086/2843 3 2) 10. Laude R. 1988 Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241, 1455-1460. (doi:10.1126/science3420403) 1i. Caro TM, Laraenson MK. 1994 Ecological and genetic faders In conservation: a cautionary tale. Science 263, 485-486. (dok10.11261xlence. 8290956) 12. Frankham R, Rails K. 1998 Conservation biology: inbreeding leads to extinction. Nature 392, 441-442. (doi:10.1038/33022) 13. 5acoheri I, Kuussaari M, Kankare M, Vlkman P, Fortelius W, Hanski I. 1998 Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392, 491-494. (doi:10.1038/33136) 14. Johnson WE of al. 2010 Genetic restoration of the Florida panther. Science 329, 1641-1645. (doi:10, 1126fscience.1192891) 15. Hedrick PW, Peterson R0, Vucetich LM, Adams JR, Vuretkh JA. 2014 Genetic rescue in Isle Royale wolves: genetic analysis and the collapse of the The research was suported by the La 1Cretz Center for California Conservation at UCLA, California State Parks, the Santa Monica Mountains Fund, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy/ Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority and the Calabasas Landfill. We thank the many NPS biologists who assisted with fieldwork. We shank R. Wayne, D. L. Fraser, T. Drazenovich for assistance with DNA laboratory work and R. Wayne for reviewing a previous version of this manuscript. population. Cons. Genet. 15, 1111-1121. (doi:10. 1007/s10591-014-0604-1) 16. Jamieson IG, AJlendort FW. 2012 How does the 50/ 500 rule apply to MVPs? Trends Erol £vol. 27, 578-584.(doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.001) 17. Frankham R, Brook 8W, Bradshaw JA, Traill LW, Spielman D. 2013 The 50/500 rule and minimum viable populations: response to Jamieson and Allendort_ Trends Erol. Eval. 28, 187-188. (doi:10. 1016/j.tree.2013.D1.002) 18. Frankham R. 2005 Genetics and extinction. Kiat Conserv. 126, 131-140. (doi:10.1016/j,liiacon.2005. 05.002) 19. Ripple WJ et at 2014 Status and ecological effect of the world's largest carnivores. Science 343, 151-164, fdni:10.1126/science.1241484) 20. Riley SPD, Sedeys LEK, Pollinger 1P Sikich JA, Dalbeck L Wayne RK, Ernest H8. 2014 Individual behaviors dominate the dynamics of an urban mountain lion population isolated by roads. Curr. Biol. 24, 1989 -1994. (dok10.10161j.cub.2014.07.029) 21. Ernest HE, Vickers 1W, Morrison SA, Buchalski MR, Boyce WM. 2014 Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a southem Califomia puma (Puma (oncofar) population. PIoS ONE 9, 1-12. (doi:10. 1371 /journaf.pone.0107985) 22. Hostetler JA, Orrora DP, Nichols JD, Johnson WE, !Welke ME, O'Brien 51, Jansen 0, 06 MK, 2010 Genetic intmgression and the survival al Florida panther kittens. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2789-2796. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.07.028) 23. Benson JF, Hostetler JA, Onorato DP, Johnson WE, Roelke ME, O'Brien SJ, Jansen D, 011 MK. 2011 Intentional genetic introgression influences survival of adults and subadults in a small, inbred felid population. .1. Anim. hot 80, 958-967. (doi:10. 1111/J.1365 -2656.2011.01809.x) 24. Moriarty 1G, Whited L, 5ikich JA, Riley 5PD. 2012 Use of intraperitoneal radiotransmitters to study mountain lion (Puma contolw) kittens. Held/. Soc. Ball. 36, 161-166. (doi:10.1002/wsb.105) 25. Pollock KH, Winterstein 5R, Bunck CM, Curtis PD. 1989 Survival analysis in telemetry studies: the staggered entry design. 1 Kik Manage. 53. 7-15. 4W:10,2307/3801296) 26. Fahse L, Wessel C, Grimm V. 1998 Reconciling classical and individual -based approaches in theoretical population ecology: a pwrocal for extracting population parameters from individual -based models. Am. Nat. 132, 838-852. (doi:10.1086/286212) 27. Grimm V, Railsback SF. 2005 Individual -based modeling and ecology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 26. Logan KA, Sweanor LL. 2001 Desert puma. Washington, DC: Island Press. 29. Morris WF, Doak DF. 2002 Quantitative conservation biology: theory and practice of population viability analysis. Sunderland, Mk Sinauer Associates Inc. 30. Sweanor LL, Logan KA, Harnodrer M. 2000 Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics, and conservation. Conserv. Blot. 14, 798-808. (doi:10. 1046/j.1523 -1739.2000.99079.x) 31. Maehr D5, Land ED, Shindle DB, Bass OE, Hoctor TS. 2002 Florida panther dispersal and conservation. Not Conserv. 106, 187-197. (doi:10.1016/50006- 3207(01)00245-2) 32. Jombart T. 2008 Adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics. 24, 1403 -1405. (ddr.10.1093/ bloinfotmatics/btn129) 33 Vickers TW et aL 2014 Survival and mortality of pumas (Purrs comokor) in a fragmented, urbanizing landscape. PIoS ONE 9, 1-12. 34. Soule ME, Gilpin ME, Conway W, Foose T. 1986 The millennium ark: how long a voyage, how many staterooms, how many passengers? Zoo Riot. 5, 101-113. (doi:1 D.1002/zoo.1430050205) 35. Allendorf FW, Hyman N. 2002 The role of genetics in population viability analysis. In Population viability analysis (eels SR Beissinger, DR McCullough), pp. 50-85. Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press. 36. Frankham P, Lees K, Montgomery ME, England PR, Lowe EH, Briscoe DA. 1999 Do population size bottlenecks reduce evolutionary potential? kill!, Conserv. 2, 255-260. (dol: 10.1111/)1469-1795. 1999.tb00071.x) 37. Day 58, Bryant EH, Meffert LM. 2003 The influence of variable rates of inbreeding on fitness, environmental responsiveness, and evolutionary potential. Evolution 57, 1314-1324. (doi:10.1111/jj. 0014-3820.20031b003391) 38. Mills L5, Allendorf FW. 1996 The one -migrant -per - generation rule in conservation and management. Conserv. Biot. 10, 1509-1518. (doi:10.1046/j.1523- 1739.1996.10861509.x) 39. Jamieson 16.2007 Has the debate over genetics and extinction of island endemics truly been resolved? Anim. Conserv. 10, 139-144. (do 1:10.1111/).1469- 1795.2006.00095.x) u 40. Frankham R, Bradshaw CJA, Brook BW. 2014 42. Genetics in conservation management: revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and papulation viability analyses. 8iof. Conserv, 170, 56-63. (doi:10.10161j.bio con.2013. 12.036) 43. 41. Clevenger AP, Wahho N. 2005 Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating movement of large mammals. Bial. Conserv. 121, 453-464. [doi:10.10161j.biocan. 44. 2004.04.025) Riley SPD, Pullinger 1P, Sauvajot RM, York EC,. Bromley C, Fuller TK, Wayne RK. 2006 A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Md.. fol. 15, 1733-1741. [do i:10.1111 /j.13 65-29 4X.2 006.0290 7. xj Hedrick PW, Fredlckson R. 2010 Genetic rescue guidelines with examples from Mockan wolves and Florida panthers. Conserv. Genet. 11, 615-626. Id ai:10.1007ts10592-009- J 5) Adams JR, Vucetich LM, Hedrick PW, Peterson R0, Vucetich A. 2011 Genomic sweep and potential genetic rescue during limiting environmental conditions in an isolated wolf population. Proc. R. Soc. toed. 8 278, 3336-3344. (dai:10. 1098/rs p b, 2011.0 26l ) 45, Benson JE, Mahoney PJ, Sikich 34, 5erieys LEK, Pullinger JP, Ernest HB, Riley SPD. 2016 Data from: Interactions between demography, genetics, and landscape connectivity increase extinction probability fora small population of large carnivores in a major metropolitan area. Dryad Digital Repository. (do I:10.5061/drya d.82pm0) 10 6wysiignddlauos1edoy gdsi L56O9l07 `FR2 Fi xs" '8 'x° c Matt Peters From: John Rose <JRose@biologicaldiversity.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:37 AM To: Maryann Edwards; Jeff Comerchero; Mike Naggar; Matt Rahn; James Stewart Cc: Matt Peters Subject: Letter from Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Cougar Connection re Altair Attachments: CBD SC Cougar Connection Altair Comment Letter 12-6-17.pdf Dear Mayor Maryann Edwards and City Council Members, Attached please find a comment letter from the Center for Biological Diversity, San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Cougar Connection regarding the Altair project. A hard copy of the comment letter has been mailed to you along with a disc containing the references. --J.P. John P. Rose Urban Wildlands Staff Attorney CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 660 5. Figueroa Street #1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Office: (213) 785-5406 Irose@biologicaldiversity.org 1 December 6, 2017 SIERIP, CLUB i OU I)I l! Via Electronic Mail and FedEx (w/attachments) Mayor Maryann Edwards and City Council City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Cougar Connection Re: Altair Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2014111029 Dear Mayor Maryann Edwards and City Council: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the "Center"), the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Cougar Connection (collectively, the "Conservation Groups") regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Altair Specific Plan (the "Project"). The FEIR does not cure the City's failures in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") to adequately analyze a range of environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives; and to adequately describe the Project, its impacts, and mitigation. Indeed, the vast majority of the Conservation Groups' comments on the DIER have not been effectively addressed in the FEIR and responses to comments. Some of the continuing errors are detailed below but most other issues raised in the Conservation Groups' DEIR comments remain outstanding and so those comments are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the related project approval documents released by the City demonstrate further inconsistencies between the Project and state and federal laws. I. Background on the Conservation Groups. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with 1.5 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Riverside County. The Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization of over 800,000 members dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; to educating and enlisting humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful Alaska • Arizona . California . Hooch,. NMrnncsota • Ncv.Liaa • ,VL;v Mexrco. IVc w Ycrh . C.7.cgon • Vc:mont . Washington DC P.U. U:ix 7 10 • tutson, AL Fib /02,6/1 tet 6r_'_`7,`_,?�.:�/ t, e. (320) b i'J /9/ :v: vv.. BwlogrcaiDvets,(v.org means to carry out these objectives. The Sierra Club reports that over 180,000 members reside in California. The San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club focuses on issues within the inland empire, including Riverside County. Cougar Connection is a non-profit, public interest organization that is dedicated to the preservation of Puma concolor, Cougar populations, open space, wildlife connectivity, and public education. II. The Development Agreement Is Unenforceable Because It Is Contrary To Public Policy. California law provides that the object of a contract must be lawful and not contrary to public policy. (Russell v. Soldinger (1976) 59 Ca1.App.3d 633, 641-642, citing Civ. Code, §§ 1607, 1608, 1667, 1596.) Courts will void any contract that is contrary to public policy or otherwise illegal. (Id. at 642.) In enacting the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the legislature set forth a policy that public agencies shall regulate activities "so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage..." (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000.) Towards this end, CEQA sets forth a policy of ensuring public participation in the environmental planning process. (See Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, 949 ("CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process.").) Furthermore, CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.), the State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code § 65300 et seq.) both provide for judicial review of agency actions through Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and/or 1085. The Development Agreement clearly is designed to subvert this framework for public participation and judicial review in the CEQA and Planning and Zoning law process. In particular, the Development Agreement reduces the amount of funds designated for mitigating the Project's impacts in the event that anyone seeks judicial review of the Project's approval documents. (Development Agreement at p. 30.) III. The Development Agreement Violates The First Amendment Rights Of The Public. The Development Agreernent violates the United States and California constitutions because it is designed to frustrate the "right of access to the courts," which is one of the "most precious" liberties protected by the First Amendment. (See BE&K Constr. Co. v. NLRB (2002) 536 U.S. 516, 524-525.) Courts have further recognized that "government action designed to keep a citizen from initiating legal remedies sometimes infringes upon the First Amendment right to petition the courts." (Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lennes [In re Workers' Compensation Refund] (8th Cir. 1995) 46 F.3d 813, 823.) The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals further noted: 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 2 This right of court access cannot he impaired, either directly or indireectly...Indirect impairment may include "retaliatory action [taken] against an individual designed either to punish him for having exercised his constitutional right to seek judicial relief or to intimidate or chill his exercise of that right in the future. (Id. at 823, emphasis added.) Here, the Development Agreement seeks to punish any person—specifically persons with environmental concerns—who attempt to petition the courts to enforce California laws. The Development Agreement does this by preventing certain conservation activities from occurring if such a petition is brought_ The Development Agreement attempts to require stakeholders to make a false choice between (1) enforcing California's environmental laws against the City and Project; and (2) ensuring adequate funds associated with the project go towards conservation.' The Development Agreement also improperly seeks to prevent courts—including the California Courts of Appeal and California Supreme Court—from ever reviewing the legality of the project or interpreting state law as applied to the project. The City and Ambient's offensive scheme to prevent the public from seeking enforcement of the law is unconstitutional, contrary to public policy, and has no place in a democratic system governed by the rule of law. The City needs to immediately remove this provision from the Development Agreement. W. The FEIR's Responses To Comments Are Inadequate. CEQA provides that where "continents from responsible experts or sister agencies disclose new or conflicting data or opinions that cause concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, these comments may not simply be ignored. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response." (Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813, 820.) CEQA further requires that when there is a difference expert opinion, the EIR needs to summarize the main points of disagreement and explain the agency's reasons for accepting one set of judgments instead of another. (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Ca1.App.4th 1383, 1391; CEQA Guidelines § 15151.) In addition, an EIR may not rely upon conclusory or evasive responses to comments or fail to support its statements with scientific or objective data. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1371.) The Supreme Court has likewise held that "there must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response [to the comments received]. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1124.) ' As a related issue, the City cannot rely upon any mitigation based upon the $500,000 payment since the City is claiming that such payment will be significantly reduced in the event that any litigation is filed or other settlement reached regarding the various Iegal deficiencies with the Altair project. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 3 Unfortunately, the FEIR consistently fails to address the comments submitted by various stakeholders, including environmental and citizens groups and expert agencies. For example, Winston Vickers and Dr. Kathy Zeller sent a detailed letter explaining how the Project would be harmful for the Santa Ana mountain lions. (See FEIR Comment Letter 17.) Mr. Vickers and Dr. Zeller offered their "scientific opinion that the proposed Altair development will not only negatively impact mountain lion and other wildlife connectivity between the Santa Rosa Plateau and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Linkage 10 – upland linkage) and Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek connection), but will also negatively impact Constrained Linkage 14 (start of Santa Margarita River -- Temecula Creek – Pechanga Creek connection) which is critical to mountain lion movement between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Palomar Mountains east of Interstate 15 (I-15)." (Comment 1 7-D.) In responses to comments, the FEIR does not directly respond to the analysis offered by Mr. Vickers and Dr. Zeller, and but instead generally refers to various "mitigation measures" in the FEIR. Similarly, the FEIR does not directly respond to the expert opinions offered by the Wildlife Agencies, and instead merely refers the reader to general responses. Mr. Vickers and his team at the UC Davis Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center submitted another letter on November 14, 2017, which noted that the responses in the FEIR to their comments were inadequate. (See UC Davis Letter at 2.) Likewise, the City has not published any response to the November 30, 2016 letter submitted by the Conservation Groups. Notably, the Planning Commission staff materials reference a "technical memo" (Attachment 12) that purportedly responded to the issued raised in the November 30, 2016 letter submitted by the Conservation Groups. However, Attachment 12 is merely a cover page stating "TECHNICAL MEMO ON DEIR COMMENTS AND NATURE CENTER TO BE PROVIDED." Because the technical memo appears not have existed at the time the Planning Commission decided to recommend approval of the Project, it is unclear how the Planning Commission could have "reviewed and considered the entire record" including "staff reports" and "technical studies," as the Planning Commission resolution claims. Indeed, based on the available information, it is not even clear that the Planning Comrnission even read or considered the letter submitted by the Conservation Groups, despite having over a year to do so. V. The FEIR Does Not Contain A Stable Project Description. The FEIR and staff materials vacillate between stating that the South Parcel will include a "nature center" or some other "institutional land use." (See, e.g., FEIR at 1-2.) By refusing to identify what the actual project under consideration is, the City fails to include a stable project description in the FEIR, thereby violating CEQA. Because there is no stable project description, the impacts of the Project—and appropriate mitigation measures to alleviate those impacts—are not identified in a manner that encourages informed decision-making and public participation. Moreover, as long as the FEIR and conditions of approval leave open the possibility that the South Parcel may be subject to some more "intense" civic/institutional use, the FEIR needs to disclose all impacts of such use, and adopt all feasible mitigation measures. The FEIR has not done this. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 4 VI. The Science Is Clear That The I-15 Corridor Crossing Is Critical To The Survival Of The Santa Ana Mountain Lions. The Santa Ana mountain lions have the lowest genetic diversity of any population in California and show signs of inbreeding. (Zeller 2017.) This means there is a more critical need for connectivity between this population and other mountain lion populations. (Id.) In April 2017, the Royal Society, Open Science published a study that confirmed that the Interstate 15 corridor is vital to the continued survival of the Santa Ana mountain lions. (Gustafson 2017.) The study noted that large residential developments—including Altair—"are proposed to be constructed within the two primary puma travel corridors between the Eastern Peninsular and Santa Ana Ranges." (Id.) The study concluded that these developments are "likely to further degrade the ability of pumas, especially dispersing males who are essential for gene flow, to move between the Eastern Peninsular and Santa Ana Mountain Ranges." (Id.) The study urged that the successful migration, reproduction, and long-term persistence of the Santa Ana mountain lions be considered in the planning process for any development near these crossing points. (Id.) The 2017 study is consistent with earlier research showing that Interstate 15 and associated development "have created a nearly impermeable barrier to puma movements, resulting in severe genetic restriction and demographic isolation of the small puma population." (Vickers 2015.) Despite this peer reviewed scientific evidence, the City disclaims responsibility for addressing the serious wildlife movement problems which will be caused and exacerbated by the Project, claiming that a wildlife crossing for Interstate 15 is a "regional issue." The City's position is striking because the City is insisting upon $28 million of "regional infrastructure" highway as part of the Project. (Staff Report at 14.) The City cannot on the one hand claim it has no money to address the wildlife connectivity problems caused by the Project while also stating that the Project will involve a $28 million highway, which will undoubtedly cause further wildlife movement problems. It is precisely this "build first, ask questions later" attitude to development and freeway building that has generated the sprawl, air pollution, wildlife connectivity problems that we have today in Southern California. The science shows that this Project may be the final straw that sets the Santa Ana mountain lions on a permanent path towards extinction. The City cannot move forward with business as usual in light of these profound and permanent impacts on California's wildlife. VII. The City's Claim That A Nature Center Is Needed Is Misleading. The Conservation Groups strongly support nature centers and other civic amenities designed to increase public appreciation and access to the outdoors. The Conservation Groups also understand that Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER") and San Diego State University ("SDSU") already operate an interpretive center to educate the community. In addition, the Conservation Groups have been informed by the SMER reserve manager that additional funding has been secured for upgrades and improvements to increase capacity at the interpretive center. The South Parcel – a critical wildlife corridor – is not an appropriate location for development. Mr. Vickers and the team at the UC Davis Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center submitted their expert opinion, which directly contradicts the findings of Ambient's consultant: 12./6/201 7 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 5 It is our opinion that prohibiting development of any kind of the southern parcel, with adequate fencing and other measures employed to prevent human intrusion into and impacts on the linkages and SMER, remains the best method to assure that these linkages function as well as possible. (UC Davis letter at 2.) The Specific Plan would fundamentally transform approximately half of the South Parcel, which is already a very constrained wildlife corridor subject to development pressure on all sides. The Specific Plan (at 3-70) shows that in addition to the actual development pad, a significant portion of the property would be "revegetated open space with trails..." (See also FEIR at Figure 2-1.) The City has not demonstrated that "revegetated open space with trails" will have the some species and wildlife movement benefits as undeveloped open space. Moreover, the `pedestrian circulation" diagram shows that virtually every corner of the South Parcel will be impacted with trails, roads, parking, and development. (See Specific Plan at Figure 3-38.) The FEIR later states that these trails will be ten feet wide, which is very wide for a walking trail (and wide enough for vehicles). (Appx. A at A-16.) Again, while the Conservation Groups strongly support nature centers, it is unwise and unnecessary to site a nature center and trail network in a regionally -significant wildlife corridor that is already under intense pressure from human development and related activities. This is particularly true when the Santa Ana mountain lion population is hanging on by a thread and needs a functional wildlife corridor in this area if it is to survive. Moreover, numerous stakeholders have informed the City that sensitive areas on the South Parcel and SMER already suffer from trespass. Adding a network of trails, a parking, and development to this area will likely increase such trespass. This is especially true given that the City and Ambient have thus far refused to agree to fund or implement 24-hour ranger service of the area to prevent trespass. In any event, the "Nature Center" option is not even a proposal to necessarily build a nature center. Buried deep in the FEIR (Table 1-2) is the striking admission that the permitted uses for the "Nature Center" option include "Conference Rooms, Library, Museum and Galleries, Restaurant, Offices, Parking Lot." (FEIR at 1-6.) These additional uses—particularly restaurants—will have impacts above and beyond a mere nature center, including attracting higher numbers of visitors, and visitors during evening hours. Nonetheless, the FEIR's Appendix A only analyzes impacts to aesthetics, air quality, GHGs, biological resources, and other areas in relation to a "nature center". For example, the FEIR states that "[t]he Nature Center use does not propose nighttime activities, and there would be no impacts from lighting in the conserved area adjacent to the South Parcel other than lighting needed for security." (Appx. A at A-24.) Restaurants, galleries, and offices could all involve night-time activities. CEQA requires that any "reasonably foreseeable" impacts be analyzed and mitigated – here, if the FEIR authorizes the development of any of the above listed types of development, than the FEIR needs to analyze the impacts of each type of development. In addition, the FEIR is misleading because while it repeatedly claims there would be no "night-time uses," the FEIR elsewhere states that operating hours would extend to "two hours after dusk..." (FEIR at 1-5.) "Night" begins at dusk or shortly thereafter. The FEIR also misleadingly refers to the Nature Center option as a "low intensity" use (FEIR at 3-9) even though the FEIR estimates that it will draw approximately 7,000 visitors per month. (Appx. A at A-37.) 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 6 The "Nature Center" option would not preserve any more of the South Parcel area than the originally proposed Civic Center use — Appendix A of the FEIR states that the Nature Center option would only preserve 37.24 acres of the South Parcel as natural open space, which "is the same as provided under the Civic Site use." (Appx. A at A-5.) The FEIR further concedes that the grading footprint of the Nature Center is only 0.7 less acres than the Civic/Institutional use. (Appx. A at A-13.) The FEIR concludes: "As concluded by the Draft EIR, given the distance of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 from the project site (approximately 1,800 feet) and its location (east of I-15), similar to the Civic/Institutional use, the Nature Center use would have no direct or indirect effect on this linkage." (Appx. A at 18.) This assertion is at odds with the expert opinions of the Wildlife Agencies and the wealth of evidence demonstrating that human activities can interfere with wildlife behavior (some of this evidence is discussed above and below). The Nature Center would reduce the width of Proposed Linkage 10 to only 980 feet and further impair the usability of the corridor. (Appx. A at A-18 and A-19.) Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 would be reduced to only 255 to 450 feet. (Appx. A at A-19.) Such narrow linkages will certainly impair the usability of these corridors for mountain lions and other species. The FEIR similarly states that the Nature Center would not generate "noise that exceed[s] residential noise standards." (Appx. A at A-25.) The FEIR fails to acknowledge that wildlife using the South Parcel may be adversely impacted by noise that is far below "residential noise standards" and that even small amounts of noise can deter wildlife from using the corridor. Similarly, the document authored by Helix consulting attached to the FEIR claims that the "hiking trails are expected to have minimal impact on overall wildlife movement, especially with the limitation of no nighttime use of the Nature Center." (Appx. B at 6.) The FEIR does not provide any evidence to support this claim, which is undermined by the admission that the development will be open at two hours after dusk. A. Development adjacent to habitat is known to impact wildlife behavior, particularly for mountain lions. There is a wealth of evidence documenting the known effects of human activity on wildlife behavior. (See, e.g., Slabbekoorn 2008.) Field observations and controlled laboratory experiments have shown that traffic noise can significantly degrade habitat value for migrating songbirds. (Ware et al. 2015.) This finding followed a lab results indicating that subjects exposed to 55 and 61 dBA simulated traffic noise exhibited decreased feeding behavior and duration, as well as increased vigilance behavior. (Id.) Such behavioral shifts increase the risk of starvation, thus decreasing survival rates. By including development in and adjacent to wildlife habitat, the Project will significantly increase noise in the area, both during construction and through increases in off-site traffic. A recent study also highlighted the detrimental impacts of siting development near areas protected for wildlife. The study noted that "Anthropogenic noise 3 and 10 dB above natural sound levels ... has documented effects on wildlife species richness, abundance, reproductive success, behavior, and physiology." (Buxton, et al.) The study further noted that "there is evidence of impacts across a wide range of species [] regardless of hearing sensitivity, including direct effects on invertebrates that lack ears and indirect effects on plants 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 7 and entire ecological communities (e.g., reduced seedling recruitment due to altered behavior of seed distributors)." (Ibid.) Moreover, human transportation networks and development resulted in high noise exceedances in protected areas. (Ibid. ) There also is strong evidence documenting the effects of human activity specifically on mountain lions. One study found that mountain lions are so fearful of humans and noise generated by humans that they will abandon the carcass of a deer and forgo the feeding opportunity just to avoid humans. (See Smith 2017.)2 The study concluded that "non - consumptive forms of human disturbance may alter the ecological role of large carnivores by affecting the link between these top predators and their prey." In addition, the study found that mountain lions respond fearfully upon hearing human vocalizations. Another study demonstrates that mountain lions exposed to other evidence of human presence (lighting, vehicles, dogs) will impact mountain lion behavior. (Wilmers 2013.) Other studies documented diet shifts in mountain lions near human development, and recommended minimizing any development in mountain lion habitat. (Smith 2016; see also Smith 2015.) Additional studies similarly documented that mountain lions avoid "urban, agricultural areas, and roads and prefer[] riparian areas and more rugged terrain." (Zeller 2017; see also Vickers 2015.) One study found that over half (55 percent) of radio collared mountain lions in urban areas did not survive, and the majority were killed by humans either by vehicle strikes or using depredation permits. (Vickers 2015.) There is therefore strong evidence that the Project as proposed will have significant impacts on the wildlife corridors in the Project area. CEQA defines an impact as "significant" where the Project may "substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community..." (CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(1).) Here, all of the experts that have weighed in on the issue (except for the developer's consultant) agree that the Project may threaten to eliminate an animal community the Santa Ana mountain lions. The FEIR has failed to acknowledge, analyze, or mitigate this profound impact of the Project. B. The FEIR needs to disclose that development on the South Parcel is included in the FEIR as a means to accommodate dirt generated by the Altair development. Over the last few weeks, it is come to the attention of the Conservation Groups that there are no actual plans or funding to construct a nature center on the South Parcel. Instead, the Conservation Groups now understand that the FEIR allows for unspecified future development on the South Parcel so that Ambient can store massive amounts of dirt generated by the project, thereby avoiding the need for Ambient to spend money to transfer the dirt to an offsite location. Stockpiling hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of dirt on a wildlife corridor in order to reduce costs of a residential and highway development project is an egregious abuse of California's natural resources. The FEIR needs to be honest with the public and decision -makers about the true impacts of the Project and why certain development is being proposed. 2 See also Sean Greene, "How a fear of humans affects the lives of California's mountain lions," Los Angeles Times (June 27, 2017), available at http:itbe;ta.Iatinies.c:ombieienceisciencenow/la-sci-:sn-pumas-human-noise-20170627- story.htrn1. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 8 Whether or not anything is ever built on the South Parcel, stockpiling dirt will harm the ecological values of the South Parcel. If the City and Ambient cannot afford to dispose of the dirt generated by the Project in a responsible manner, then the City and Ambient should downsize the project so it produces less dirt, including by removing the Western Bypass and/or Village G. In short, the City cannot hide by an empty promise to build a "nature center" while pillaging a wildlife corridor to accommodate a highway project. In any event, the FEIR concedes that the Nature Center option will have similar impacts on MSHCP conservation areas as the CiviclInstitutional uses. (Appx. A at A-26.) These impacts are impermissible under the MSHCP for the same reasons the Civic/Institutional uses are impermissible. The FEIR similarly claims that "overall human activity" will be reduced with the Nature Center, but does not provide any evidence that this is actually true. In addition, the FEIR removes the 10 -foot high berm and "living walls" from the Nature Center option even though such features are likely to reduce impacts in either the Civic/Institutional or Nature Center options. (See FEIR at 3-16 & 17.) Moreover, as noted by the Wildlife Agencies, the FEIR fails to compare the Nature Center option to "baseline" conditions and instead compares it to the Civic/Institutional use alternative. If a component of the Project is the Nature Center, than the FEIR needs to analyze impacts of the Nature Center in Iight of existing (baseline) conditions. The "comparison" analysis misleads the decision -makers and public. VHI. The FEIR Fails To Analyze or Mitigate Impacts To the Western Pond Turtle. The FEIR fails to include sufficient mitigation for the western pond turtle ("WPT")—a species of special concern. CDFW defines a species of special concern as a species that, among other things, "is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status." (California Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Species of Special Concern (last visited Oct. 9, 2014), http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc/.) CDFW aims to "achieve conservation and recovery of these animals before they meet California Endangered Species Act criteria for listing as threatened or endangered." (Id.) CDFW states that species of special concern "should be considered during the environmental review process." (Id.; CEQA Guidelines § 15380(b)(B).) An impact to wildlife is significant where it "substantially reduce[s] the number or restrict[s] the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) CDFW interprets this provision to apply to species of special concern, such as the WPT. (California Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Species of Special Concern, supra ("[Section] 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, which address how an impact is identified as significant, are particularly relevant to SSCs.").) The City must mitigate significant effects whenever feasible. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080.5(d)(2)(A).) WPT are listed as species of special concern because their numbers have decreased due to increasing habitat destruction and disturbance, especially from farming operations, and depredation from invasive species, such as bullfrogs and bass. (Jennings et al. (1994); Spinks et al. (2003); Pilliod et al. (2013).) WPT make wide-ranging use of their aquatic habitat, sometimes migrating more than one kilometer per year. (Pilliod et al.) WPT are known to nest as far as 400 meters away from streams (Id.). Other studies have found that WPT spend as much as seven months in terrestrial habitat and can be found overwintering up to 500 meters from 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 9 aquatic habitat, as well as migrating over l km. (Holland 1994). WPT that inhabit non -permanent bodies of water exclusively overwinter in terrestrial habitat, whereas aquatic overwintering occurs in populations inhabiting permanent ponds (Zaragoza 2015.) Here, the City has claimed that "steep terrain" will ensure that WPT stay in Murrieta Creek and are not impacted by development in the Project area. (FEIR at 3-336.) This claim is inconsistent with the studies cited above. Notably, no surveys have been conducted during breeding season to assess whether the City's speculative claim has any merit. The City needs conduct proper surveys for WPT and/or limit the development to areas outside of the dispersal zones for WPT. IX. The FEIR's San Diego Ambrosia Plan Is Inadequate. The FEIR contains the same inadequate San Diego ambrosia mitigation measure as the DEIR. Even if the FEIR did not impermissibly defer development of mitigation, the proposed mitigation measure may still not be effective. A report submitted to CDFW concluded that a mere 32 percent of translocation efforts were successful. (Fiedler 1991.) The report concludes that agencies should be "extremely cautious" in any mitigation agreement allowing for translocation. (Ibid.) A CDFW comments document entitled "Plant Translocation Database Summary" similarly stated that "translocation appears to be an unsuccessful form of mitigation."3 The document further stated any translocation activities "should always establish biologically justifiable success criteria and long-term monitoring plans." (Id.) A similar CDFW comment document stated that "CDFW, in general, does not recommend translocation of rare plants as a mitigation/minimization measure to reduce adverse effects from a project. Successful implementation of translocation is rare with minimal documented success. Even if translocation is initially successful, translocated species typically fail to persist over time."4 The City has not offered any evidence or analysis that translocating San Diego ambrosia is an effective mitigation measure. The FEIR needs to either (1) avoid development in areas containing San Diego ambrosia or (2) provide a plan for translocation with success criteria and a contingency plan in the event that successful translocation and establishment of the new population does not occur. Such a plan needs to acknowledge that existing studies X. The Project Is Still Inconsistent With The MSHCP. The Wildlife Agencies have already repeatedly informed the City in detail about the various ways in which the Project violates the MSHCP. Accordingly to the Wildlife Agencies, the currently estimated acreage shortfall for the Project is 163 acres, although the exact amount could be slightly higher or lower. The FEIR's responses to comments on these issues are completely inadequate. If the City approves the Project as proposed, it will be in violation of the MSHCP, which is a permit issued pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act ("NCCP") (Cal_ Fish & Game Code §§ 2800-2840.) Accordingly, the City will also be in violation of both these laws if the City approves the Project as proposed. 3 See email chain re Tri Valley Land Exchange at PDF p. 151. 4 Id. at PDF 147. 12/6/2017 Continent Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 10 If the City wishes to approve a project that is inconsistent with the conservation goals in criteria cells outlined MSHCP (as is the case here), the City needs to obtain approval of a Criteria Refinement or amendment to the MSHCP, and undergo appropriate public process and CEQA review of such an activity. The Criteria Refinement process requires the preparation of (1) Project Information and (2) an Equivalency Analysis. Project Information must contain: (1) a description of the planning area for the project; (2) a narrative and graphic description of the project; (3) a narrative and graphic description of biological information, including vegetation mapping and species surveys; (4) a narrative and graphic description of the project's efforts to be consistent with the MSHCP Criteria and an explanation as to why consistency is infeasible; and (5) a quantification and characterization of the effects/benefits of the proposed project with the proposed Criteria Refinement on habitats, species, and overall MSHCP Conservation Area design and function, among other items. Moreover, the Equivalency Analysis must address the effects of the project on: (1) Habitats; (2) Covered Species; (3) Core Areas; (4) Linkages and Constrained Linkages; (5) Non -Contiguous Habitat blocks; (6) MSHCP Conservation Area configuration and management; (7) Ecotones and other conditions affecting species diversity. (AR 003641.). The Equivalency Analysis must also demonstrate equivalent or greater acreage contributed to the MSHCP Conservation Area. If a project is determined to be "biologically equivalent or superior," then no amendment to the MSHCP is required; if the project is not determined to be "biologically equivalent or superior," then the project is an "unacceptable deviation" from the MSHCP such that an amendment to the MSHCP is required. Among other qualities, for substitute MSHCP acreage to be "biologically equivalent or superior," it must have similar wildlife connectivity values. The FEIR does not acknowledge or abide by this process — a process to which the City agreed when it became a permittee of the MSHCP. Instead, the FEIR misleadingly refers to such substantive revisions to conservation requirements and acreage in the MSHCP as "possible procedural steps." (FEIR at 3-11.) Given that the Criteria Refinement process implicates discretionary decision-making by agencies, it should undergo appropriate CEQA review. This would necessarily require circulating a revised EIR to addresses these issues, as discussed further below. XI. The Project's Inconsistency With The MSHCP Renders The Project Inconsistent With The General Plan. In addition to violating the MSHCP (and by extension the state and federal Endangered Species Acts and the NCCP Act), the Project violates the General Plan. One of the components of the General Plan is consistency with the MSHCP: The City will continue to participate in multiple -species habitat conservation planning efforts in western Riverside County, and will ensure that City land use policy and decisions are consistent with the recommendations of adopted habitat plans (General Plan at LU -40, emphasis added.) More specifically, OS -9 states: "Require development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and NISNCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 11 and Game, and the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, to provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts, and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance." (General Plan at OS -34, emphasis added.) The General Plan further provides in OS -35 that development -associated impacts must be reviewed for consistency with MSHCP reserve and buffer requirements, as well as various other MSHCP policies and requirements, including MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines. (See General Plan at OS -35 – 36.) Here, the City has refused to respect the MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the Wildlife Agencies, as well as other MSHCP policies outlined in previous letters by the Wildlife Agencies. Even if the MSHCP were merely a "recommendation" as referenced in LU -40 (which it is not), the General Plan requires that land use decisions are consistent with such "recommendations." Here, the Project is inconsistent with such "recommendations," as well as other MSHCP policies. Because the Project is clearly inconsistent with policies described in the General Plan (and General Plan EIR), the City has violated California law. (See Pfeffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1552, 1562-1563; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336; Gov. Code, § 65300 et seq.) XII. The City Should Consider Recirculating The FEIR After Revising The FEIR To Demonstrate Consistency With The MSHCP. The Conservation Groups understand that there is a possibility that the City will substantially revise the FEIR prior to December 12 in order to "cure" some of incorrect analysis and conclusions in the FEIR regarding the MSHCP. The Conservation Groups fully support the City revising the EIR to cure these and other defects in the FEIR. However, the Conservation Groups respectfully urge the City to recirculate the FEIR for public review after such revisions, or—at a minimum—delay the December 12 hearing to allow the environmental community, the Wildlife Agencies, and other stakeholders to adequately assess such revisions and provide comments and feedback. Such major revisions to the FEIR without recirculation may be inconsistent with Public Resources Code section 21092.1. This section states that "[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 2I092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report." CEQA Guideline 15088.5 further clarifies that "As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information." Significant new information includes "a disclosure that (1) a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or a new mitigation measure; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted; (3) a feasible alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the project's significant impacts but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; or (4) the draft EIR 'was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 12 precluded." (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors, 216 Cal. App. 4th 614, 654-655.) Applied here, if the FEIR is revised to truthfully disclose the inconsistency between the proposed project and the MSHCP, then the revised FEIR likely would disclose a "substantial increase in the severity of an environment impact," given that inconsistencies with applicable plans are significant impacts under CEQA. Similarly, the Draft EIR's serious errors regarding MSHCP consistency—and a myriad of other topics—arguably rendered the Draft EIR (and current version of the Final FIR) so "inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." In addition, the FEIR has already been revised such that conservation requirements in the DEIR have now been removed— such as a donation of a conservation easement for 269.6 acres for conservation. While courts have not required recirculation in some instances in which additional studies were added to support the analysis in an EIR, this is not the case here—the EIR is in need of major revisions, thereby militating in favor of recirculation. The Wildlife Agencies joined in this request in their most recent letter of November 14, 2017: A correct project -specific analysis of MSHCP Cell Criteria and reserve assembly goals has not been done by the City or Project Applicant. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) also concluded that the project is not consistent with the MSHCP Cell Criteria. The Wildlife Agencies request that this analysis be developed and presented for public review in a revised and recirculated FEIR. Given that the Project, as proposed, is not consistent with the MSHCP Cell Criteria (even when selecting the Nature/Cultural Center Use variant of the Project), a Criteria Refinement (as described in MSHCP Section 6.5) is also required and should be included in the revised and recirculated FEIR. Moreover, as discussed above, a Criteria Refinement or amendment to the MSHCP are arguably discretionary projects necessitating CEQA review. In addition, the MSHCP functions as a permit under both the ESA and the NCCP Act. Notably, the NCCP Act expressly states that projects undertaken within an NCCP area are not exempt from CEQA, and the NCCP Act does not alter the applicability of the CEQA. (Cal. Fish & Game Code § 2826.) Even if CEQA did not require recirculation, the City can demonstrate it is making a good faith effort to address the problems with the Project by recirculating the FEIR. At a minimum, the City should delay certification of the FEIR for at least 30 days so that the public, the Wildlife Agencies, and the environmental community can participate in the process by providing comments and feedback. XIII. The FEIR Fails To Accurately Disclose The Project's Impacts On Water Supply. The FEIR does not remedy the DEIR's failure to address the impacts of the Project on water resources. As noted by the Conservation Groups' letter of November 30, 2016, the DEIR did not analyze how the impact of adding 4,000 people to the service area of the Rancho California Water District ("RCWD") will affect its ability to supply adequate water. (Conservation Groups' Comment letter on DEIR, 11/30/16, p. 24.) Adding 4,000 new residents to Southern California will increase the strain on California's extremely limited water resources, and the City must analyze the impacts therefrom. The California Supreme Court has held that 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 13 that "Et]he ultimate question under CEQA, moreover, is not whether an EIR establishes a likely source of water, but whether it adequately addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project." (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412, 434, emphasis added.) The FEIR does not provide information regarding the supply challenges posed by a growing population. The Project's strain on RCWD's supply capabilities has been magnified as the FEIR states that RCWD serves 185,105 people, revised up from the DEIR's number of 134,000. (FEIR at 2-23.) The FEIR provides an accounting of its current supply, but offers no information concerning how it will supply an increased service population other than a brief reference to water transfers exchanges to "help alleviate water shortages in the region." (FEIR at 2-24.) The recent drought in California has highlighted the perilous nature of Southern California's water supply system. The FEIR summarizes the origins of RCWD supply, with 36% coming from groundwater in the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin ("TVGB"); 58% imported by Metropolitan Water District ("MWD"); and 6% coming from recycled water. (FEIR at 2-24.) The FEIR does not address the current status of the TVGB, nor its capacity to maintain pumping into the future. Nor does the FEIR address the possibility of water imports from Metropolitan Water District being curtailed, which occurred in 2015, and could occur in the near future given the pressure on California's water supply from climate change and population increase. (DEIR, Appx. J at ES -10.) The DEIR notes the RCWD Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which demonstrates the district's ability to meet demands under a supply shortage of up to 50%. (DEIR, Appx. J at ES -10.) However, the FEIR fails to address whether this plan would be adequate given the increase in RCWD's service population from what was listed in the DEIR. (FEIR at 2-23.) The Project would increase the strain on an already stressed water supply system in the Temecula area. The FEIR fails to adequately assess the impact on limited water supplies by the Project's increased population. The Project's environmental documents rely on a continuation of the water supply status quo, failing to consider a future where decreased precipitation in the State will constrain water deliveries and further exhaust groundwater stores. XIV. The FEIR Does Not Adequately Analyze Project Impacts On Air Quality. The FEIR's air quality impacts analysis is flawed because it fails to take into account all sources of air quality impacts resulting from the Project and fails to adopt all feasible measures to reduce the Project's significant air quality impacts. The Project will further degrade the region's air quality by generating considerable emissions from the construction phase, ongoing operations, and the many miles of vehicle trips generated by the Project. The FEIR does not address the air quality impacts that will be felt by residents living in homes next to the proposed four -lane Western Bypass. The FEIR relies on the DEIR finding of no significant impacts due to exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants ("TACs") emitting sources, the significance level determined by being within 500 feet of freeways with 100,000 or more vehicles per day. (DEIR at 3.2-29.) The DEIR found no significant impact because the Project site is not within the zone of influence of a major TACs source, but it did not consider the Bypass to be a major source of TACs, nor did it analyze the impact of the Western Bypass in 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 14 regards to other pollutants. The FEIR incorrectly finds no significant impact based only on analysis of a single pollutant, without further assessment of Bypass -related emissions. The Bypass Project development may occur within 45 feet of the "centerline of the Western Bypass." (DEIR at 3.10-45.) Numerous studies have documented the air pollution and health impacts associated with siting expressways and freeways in close proximity to residential development, particularly upon sensitive receptors such as children and the elderly. (Lin 2012.) A review of 700 studies concluded that pollution causes asthma attacks in children, the onset of childhood asthma, impaired lung function, premature death and death from cardiovascular diseases, and cardiovascular morbidity.5 The study concluded that the most affected area was 300 to 500 meters from the highways (984 feet to 1640 feet). Other studies have reached similar conclusions. (Anderson 2011.) Living near expressways also increases the likelihood that residents will suffer from dementia. (Chen 2017.) The University of Southern California's Environmental Health Centers have also collected data and studies showing risks and health impacts to pregnant women, babies, children, teenagers, adults, and seniors of living by a freeway.° Based on this research, the 500 it threshold cited by the DEIR is insufficient to properly assess the air quality threats posed by the western bypass to the Project area. The FEIR does not include analysis or attempt to quantify the significant impacts of reactive organic gases ("ROGs") and oxides of nitrogen ("NOx") emissions that the DEIR claims are `unavoidable." (DEIR at 3.2-24.) The Project is located within an air basin that is already out of attainment for ozone, the Project would only exacerbate the problem. Despite the severe health effects of such pollutants on sensitive receptors, there is no attempt to implement mitigation measures to lessen the impact. The DEIR only recommends that individuals stay indoors on unhealthy days to escape the health hazard to which the Project will directly contribute. The FEIR fails to offer appropriate mitigation measures, in addition to ignoring the possibility of alternatives that do not site an expressway in close proximity to sensitive receptors such as children and the elderly. The FEIR analysis is also deficient in that it does not properly analyze construction impacts. The DEIR applies Localized Significance Threshold ("LST") to assess project impacts. (DEIR at 3.2-15.) This is improper as the LST methodology is meant for projects of 5 acres or less, as noted in the Conservation Groups' Comment Letter at page 5. The FEIR clarifies its use of the LST methodology, saying the 5 -acre emissions limit will be used as a screening tool for projects larger than 5 acres, as emissions below the 5 -acre LST threshold would clearly be acceptable from a site greater than 5 acres. (FEIR at 3-276.) If a project emits more than the 5 - acre LST threshold, the FEIR indicates a "refined analysis" will be performed. (FEIR at 3-276.) Aside from an improper implementation of the SCAQMD methodology, the FEIR also fails to describe in any detail the "refined analysis" of pollutant emissions. Without a clearly established method for assessing the air quality impacts of Project construction, the FEIR does not satisfy its 5 Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic -Related Air Pollution, Traffic -Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects. Health Effects Institute: Roston (2010). 6 See httn:IlcnvhcaIthcentcrs.usc.edulinfographics/infographic-Iiving-near-buv-roads-or-traffic- pollutionireferences-Iiving-near-busy-roads-or-tratiic-pollution (collecting studies); see also hito://www.IEFtimcs.cornfprojccl til la -mc -freeway -pollution/. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 15 mandate as an informational document. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 201.) XV. The FEIR Alternatives Analysis Does Not Comply With CEQA. CEQA mandates that significant environmental damage be avoided or substantially lessened where feasible. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), 15126(d).) Moreover, although "an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project ... it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision decision-making and public participation." (Guidelines § 1 5126.6(a).) Additionally, the "key to the selection of the range of alternatives is to identify alternatives that meet most of the project's objectives but have a reduced level of environmental impacts." (Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1059, 1089.) The CEQA process "is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project," it must allow for revision based on unforeseen revelations during the investigative process. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199.) The FEIR fails to include a reasonable range of alternatives while lacking sufficient analysis of those proposed alternatives. The FEIR and responses to comments "fixed" the results of the alternatives analysis by including a civic center and elementary school as project objectives, limiting the range of alternatives considered. (FEIR at 3-346.) "Fixing" the analysis in such a way by unreasonably narrowing the range of alternatives is a violation of CEQA. (See Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1456-57.) The FEIR, in defending its narrow choice of alternatives, asserts that CEQA guidelines have been satisfied because the alternatives "would feasibly attain most of the Project Objectives." (FEIR at 3-346.) This interpretation is based on the assumption that the civic center and elementary school are legitimate project objectives, though in reality such uses are more likely to be concessions to the local authorities overseeing the approval of a proposed residential development project. By including these objectives, the FEIR does not analyze alternatives with a smaller footprint, a transportation - oriented design built around existing transit nodes, or a mixed-use development combined with greater habitat preservation and enhancement for wildlife. The FEIR and responses to comments provides insufficient comparative analysis of the proffered alternatives, failing to satisfy the CEQA requirements. The absence of a quantitative, comparative analysis of data prohibits meaningful consideration of an alternative in the CEQA process. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 735.) The FEIR relies on the alternatives comparison in table 5-3 of the DEIR. (DEIR at 5-18.) This table lists impacts of each alternative and whether the impact is reduced, similar to, or increased relative to the proposed Project. (DEIR at 5-18.) Such a lack of empirical specificity is hardly a quantitative and meaningful comparison of the alternatives. The goal of CEQA's alternative analysis is to best inform the decision -maker of potentially less -harmful alternatives, this task is made unreasonably difficult when levels of harm are not clearly quantified. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 16 XVI. The FEIR Fails To Demonstrate That A Smaller Project is Infeasible. CEQA provides that a lead agency cannot "simply rely on evidence proffered by the project's proponent regarding infeasibility; instead, the agency 'must independently participate, review, analyze and discuss the alternatives in good faith.'" (Sierra Club v. Tahoe Regi Planning Agency (C.D.Cal. 2013) 916 F. Supp. 2d 1098, citing Save Round valley Alliance v. Cnty. of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1460.) In addition, whether a project is economically unfeasible "is not measured by increased cost or lost profit, but upon whether the effect of the proposed mitigation is such that the project is rendered impractical." (Uphold Our Heritage v_ Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 600 (internal citation omitted).) Moreover, in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180, the Court agreed with the trial court that the record did not contain analysis of the project alternatives in terms of comparative costs, comparative profit or losses, or comparative economic benefit to the project applicant or the community at large. The Court held that the "scant figures" in the record were insufficient to demonstrate that the additional costs of downsized project rendered it infeasible to proceed with the project. (Id. at 1181.) Here, the City and Ambient have rejected smaller versions of the project on "feasibility" grounds. Yet, neither the City nor Ambient have offered any evidence that a smaller version of the Project is infeasible, as required by the above authorities. To the extent Ambient is claiming that the large size of the Project is mandated in order to fund the Western Bypass, then the City should consider removing the Western Bypass from being a condition of the development. What the City and Ambient cannot do is play a "shell game" in which each claims its hands are tied in downsizing the scale of the project. XVII. The FEIR Should Incorporate Rooftop Solar And Demonstrate Compliance With Other GHG Policies. The Conservation Groups appreciate the revisions to the FEIR, which strengthen MM GHG 1. However, the Conservation Groups again request that at least 75 percent of the Project's energy generation needs be offset by onsite renewable energy and/or energy efficiency measures. Furthermore, the City and Ambient have an opportunity to be a leader in fighting climate change by including a project requirement of zero net energy ("ZNE") for GHG emissions. ZNE projects intend to achieve that goal through reducing onsite GHG emissions to the greatest extent practicable, but also by offsetting any other emissions through local emissions reductions projects.' The Project should implement such measures because CEQA requires the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. Such measures could include more robust EV charging requirements, more onsite renewable energy, and a program to offset the remaining GHG emissions locally. See, e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newhall Ranch Resource and Development Management and Development Plan, Final Additional Environmental Analysis, Appendix 2.1, available at http:iltal<«ming.lacaunty.guv,iasNetsitiplicasc/tr 53148 appendix-2-0-cdlw-final-aca-excerpts.pdf. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 17 If the City approves the Project with a ZNE requirement, any associated offset program must ensure "additionality." California law establishes specific standards for greenhouse gas offset credits used in the AB 32 cap -and -trade system. Health and Safety Code section 38562(d) requires, in relevant part, that: (1) The greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable by the state board. (2) For regulations pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with Section 38570) [i.e., regulations implementing the market-based cap -and -trade system], the reduction is in addition to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that otherwise would occur. (3) If applicable, the greenhouse gas emission reduction occurs over the same time period and is equivalent in amount to any direct emission reduction required pursuant to this division. In particular, the two-part definition of "additional" under subdivision (d)(2) requires not only that credited reductions are not otherwise legally required, but also that credited reductions would not otherwise occur in the absence of the offset project. This definition of "additional" also applies in the CEQA context, as the regulatory history of the relevant CEQA Guidelines makes clear. The CEQA Guidelines specify that only GHG reductions that are "not otherwise required" may be used to offset project emissions. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (c)(3).) However, as the California Resources Agency's Final Statement of Reasons for adopting this Guideline explains, the "not otherwise required" language was intended to make clear that only "additional" emissions reductions—that is, reductions not otherwise required by law or likely to occur anyway—may be used to generate offsets for CEQA mitigations The Final Statement of Reasons explicitly interprets CEQA's mitigation requirements, including requirements governing use of offsets, as "consistent with the Legislature's directive in AB32 that reductions relied on as part of a market-based compliance mechanism must be 'in addition to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that otherwise would occur."' (Ibid.) There are key GHG policies and plans that should be analyzed in a recirculated FEIR (or at least in an addendum). For instance, there does not appear to be any analysis of consistency with Executive Order ("BO") S-3-05. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 497, 515 ("SANDAG") stated that it is not dispositive whether EO S-3-05 is an "adopted GHG reduction plan" or accepted threshold of significance. Instead, SANDAG observed that EO S -3-05's "goal of reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels expresses the pace and magnitude of reduction efforts that the scientific community believes necessary to stabilize the climate. This scientific information has s California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97 at 48, 87-90 (December 2009). 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 18 important value to policymakers and citizens in considering the emission impacts of a project like SANDAG's regional transportation plan." (Ibid.) SANDAG also approvingly cited a letter from the California Attorney General noting that infrastructure and land use decisions "may lock in transportation inefficiencies and preclude any realistic possibility of meeting the Executive Order's goal of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions." (Id. at 509, emphasis added.) A recirculated FEIR should analyze and disclose whether the Project will lock in such transportation inefficiencies and potentially frustrate the state's ability to meet the long-term goal in EO S-3-05. Similarly, the FEIR does not appear to analyze how the Project meets the state's 2050 GHG targets set forth EO B-16-2012, which (1) directs state agencies to facilitate the rapid commercialization of zero -emission vehicles and (2) establishes a goal of an "80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector in California by 2050 as compared to 1990 levels." (Bay Area Citizens v. Association of Bay Area Governments (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 966, 980.) The FEIR also does not consider whether the Project is consistent with Health & Safety Code § 38566. This section states: "In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state board shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030." Applied here, this section indicates there is a state-wide policy that all projects must demonstrate at least a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions by December 31, 2030. Accordingly, the City must consider whether the Project is consistent with Health & Safety Code § 38566, the various scoping plans published by the California Air Resources Board, and the various plans and policies discussed in the other letters submitted by the Conservation Groups. In addition, applying the principles set forth in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 225, the City not demonstrated that any purported "project -level" reduction in GHGs associated with the Project is consistent with the state-wide goal of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent by December 31, 2030. Finally, the FEIR does not appear to comply with the guidance in Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1012 (Nov. 16, 2017) ["Cleveland IIP']. Cleveland III held that an EIR that did not include an alternative that could significantly reduce total vehicle miles travelled did not comply with CEQA. (Id. at 26- 27.) Here, because all of the studied alternatives involve the same site location—the VMT for each alternative is likely to be very similar. The FEIR does not disclose specific VMT figures for each alternatives. Such an omission of an alternative with a significantly reduced VMT is "inexplicable given ... that the state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on -road transportation will not succeed if the amount of driving, or vehicle miles traveled, is not significantly reduced." (Id. at 27.) XVIII. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is Conclusory And Inadequate. The Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC") fails to provide substantial evidence supporting its claim that the Project's benefits outweigh impacts on air quality GHGs, noise, and traffic. The SOC merely contains the bare statement that such impacts are outweighed 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 19 without any analysis. (See SOC at 2.) The SOC contains a similar conclusory claim that all feasible mitigation measures have been adopted. CEQA requires substantial evidence supporting this claim with respect to each area of significant impacts. XIX. Other Problems Remain With The Project. The environmental community and other stakeholders have submitted numerous letters describing various other problems with the Project. Some of the villages suffer from inadequate fencing around all areas adjacent to wildlife habitat, which will lead to conflicts between people and wildlife. While language in the Specific Plan might call for fencing, the Project lacks specific and enforceable measures requiring such fencing as a condition of project approval. The City should coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies to development specific conditions of approval/mitigation measures to require the fencing called for by the Wildlife Agencies. XX. Conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Project. In light of many significant, unavoidable environmental impacts that will result from the Project, we strongly urge the Project not be approved in its current form. We ask that the City and Ambient work collaboratively with stakeholders to scale back the size of the Project to alleviate the impacts on wildlife corridors. In furtherance of that goal, we request that the City postpone the hearing set for December 12 so that the City can work Ambient, the Wildlife Agencies, and the environmental community to develop an acceptable solution. Sincerely, J.P. Rose, Staff Attorney Ileene Anderson, Senior Scientist Center for Biological Diversity 660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California, 90017 (213) 785-5400 jrose cr,biologicaldiversity.org Kim F. Floyd Conservation Chair San Gorgonio Chapter Sierra Club Is/ Vicki Long President, Cougar Connection 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 20 References (Attached en CD) Andersen, Z.J. et al., Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Long -Term Exposure to Traffic -related Air Pollution: A Cohort Study, Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 183: 455-461 (2011). Benson, J.F., J.A, Sikich, S.P.D. Riley, Individual and Population Level Resource Selection Patterns of Mountain Lions Preying on Mule Deer along an Urban-Wildland Gradient, PLoS ONE 11(7): e0158006 (2016). Buxton, R. T. et al., Noise Pollution is Pervasive in U.S. Protected Areas, Science 356, 531-533 (2017). California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDWF), Department Bulletin: Policy and Procedures for Conservation Translocations of Animals and Plants (Nov. 2017). California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97 at 48, 87-90 (December 2009). Chen, H. et al., Living near major roads and the incidence of dementia, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis: a population -based cohort study, Lancet, 389: 718-726 (2017). Email chain re Tri Valley Land Exchange (2014). Fielder, P.L., Final Report: Mitigation Related Transplantation, Relocation and Reintroduction Projects Involving Endangered and Threatened, and Rare Plant Species in Cal fornia, (1991). Greene, S., How a fear of human affects the lives of California's mountain lions, LA Times (2017). Gustafson, K.D., et al., A single migrant enhances the genetic diversity of an inbred puma population, R. Soc. Open Sci. 4: 170115 (2017). Holland, D.C., The western pond turtle: habitat and history. Final Rep. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power Adm. Proj. 92-068, Contr. DE-BI79-92B62137 (1994). Jennings, M. et al., Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California, CAL. DEP'T. OF FISH &WILDLIFE 101, 102 (1994). Lin, S. et al., Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic, Environmental Research Section A, 88: 73-81 (2002). Pilliod, D. et al., Terrestrial Movement Patterns of Western Pond Turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in Central California, 8 HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION &BIOLOGY 207, 207 (2013). 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 21 Slabbekoorn, H. and E_ A. Ripmeester, Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation, Molecular Ecology 17, 72-83 (2008). Smith, J.A. et al., Fear of the human `super predator' reduces feeding time in large carnivores, Proc. R. Soc. B 284: 20170433 (2017). Smith, J.A., Y. Wang, C.C. Wilmers, Spatial Characteristics of Residential Development Shift Large Carnivore Prey Habits, Journal of Wildlife Management. 80(6):1040-1048 (2016). Smith, J.A., Y. Wang, C.C. Wilmers, Top carnivores increase their kill rates on prey as a response to human -induced fear, Proc. R. Soc. B 282: 20142711 (2015). Spinks, P. et al., Survival of the Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata) in an Urban California Environment, 113 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 257, 257 (2003). Vickers, T.W. et al., Survival and Mortality of Pumas (Puma concolor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape, PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490 (2015). Vickers, T.W. and K.C. Drayer, Wildlife Health Center, Letter re Planning Commission Agenda Item #2, Altair Project Final EIR (Nov. 15, 2017). Ware, H. E. et al., A Phantom Road Experiment Reveals Traffic Noise is an Invisible Source of Habitat Degradation, PNAS 112, 12105-12109 (2015). Wilmers, C.C. et al., Scale Dependent Behavioral Responses to Human Development by a Large Predator, the Puma, PLoS ONE 8(4): e60590 (2013). Zaragoza, G. et al., Terrestrial habitat use by western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in the Sierra foothills. Journal of Herpetology, 49(3):437-441 (2015). Zeller, K.A. et al., Sensitivity of resource selection and connectivity models to landscape definition, Landscape Ecol, DOI 10.1007/s10980-017-0489-8 (2017). Zeller, K.A. et al., Multi-level, multi -scale resource selection functions and resistance surfaces for conservation planning: Pumas as a case study, PLoS ONE 12(6): e0179570 (2017). 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 22 Matt Peters From: Aaron Adams Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 8:19 AM To: Luke Watson; Peter Thorson; Randi Johl; Matt Peters; Patrick Thomas Cc: Greg Butler Subject: FW: Altair and Western Bypass Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Original Message From: MusicMan [mailto: Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 7:50 PM To: James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jeff Comerchero <jcomerchero@citycouncil.org>; Mike Naggar <mnaggar@citycouncil.org>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@citycouncil.org>; council.assistant@temecula.gov; Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>; Greg Butler <greg.butler@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Altair and Western Bypass Dear Council members and planning commission, I have real concerns about the Altair Project. I have lived in this area for more than 40 years. I have seen what over development has done. Years ago the city council said it would construct ample infrastructure to alleviate road gridlock. That didn't happen. Adding this many homes and cars to the area will just make the quality of life for residents in this area worse. There will be more congestion and poorer air quality. The project will have an impact on the wildlife by impinging on the wildlife corridors at Temecula Creek underpass. When is enough, enough? This is not about a better quality of life. This is not about creating jobs either after the construction more people will move in and the job market won't keep up with the increasing population. This will cause more competition for the jobs that become available in our area. I thought you members were here to represent the public not developers. Please reconsider this project if any of you want my vote in the future. Sincerely, Carol Scott 1 Matt Peters From: City Council Assistant Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 7:38 AM To: Aaron Adams; Greg Butler; Luke Watson; Matt Peters Subject: FW: Altair Disposition MCC/Staff: FYI From: Mike Wakshull [mailto:mikew@quality9.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 5:40 PM To: Council Assistant <counci[.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Altair Disposition Council Assistant, Although I do riot live in Temecula proper (in unincorporated Riverside County), development in Temecula affects me and all people who come to Temecula daily to shop, attend events, go to the theater, and participate in other activities. When people ask why I live in Temecula, my answer is this is an untapped gem in Southern California. Although I knew the job at Abbott would be short lived, my wife and I decided to make Temecula our permanent home and purchased a house. We have never regretted the decision. Below are some of my concerns and possible solutions for the Altair project. Subject: Altair Disposition At the Nov. 15th, 2017, planning commission meeting, a disturbing decision was made to rubber-stamp the adoption of the proposed Altair housing development. The Commissioners ignored the basic quality of life arguments and even the legal irregularities that make this site untenable. As a (resident, tourist, shopper, commuter, school -kid, ---), my concerns are many and includes: • Too dense, including a 5 -story apartment house; • Old Town becomes wedged in between the freeway, homes and another freeway destroying its tourist appeal; • Creates poorer air quality due to more cars idling on the Western Bypass, side -streets, and 1-15; • Clogged intersections at Rancho California Rd., Winchester, Ynez, etc. • Trapped wildlife, impingements on wildlife corridors 10, 13 and 14; • Wildlife crossing degradation with more trespass, trails, and Nature Center; • Ignoring requirements of the Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan and the Fish and Wildlife Agencies; • Escarpment and green -hili destruction making Temecula into an LA suburb. Solutions: 1. Base Case: no development at the proposed site according to the presently assigned Zoning; 2. Redesign the presently submitted Altair proposal using a lower density development; 3. Change to 2 -lane, not 4 -lane, Western Bypass that accommodates reduced density and is located lower on the hillside; 4. Implement minimum human impact from the development outside the Western Bypass boundary, particularly on the civic site and Village G; 5. Redesign the proposed facility to protect the wildlife corridor and 1-15 wildlife crossing that includes barriers, law enforcement and conservation of the civic phase parcels without trails, structures, etc.; a minimum human impact. The Altair development is beautiful as shown on paper, but it doesn't fit in the proposed western slot of land. The environmental impacts, degradation of the quality of life and diminishing resources in Temecula precludes our City Council accepting the presently proposed ALTAIR development plan. 1 Thank you for taking time to consider these comments. Sincerely, Mike Wakshull Forensic document examiner Q9 Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 892965 Temecula, CA 92589 https://quality9.com Blog https://quality9.com/forensic-blog/ v a@document_exarn Member of Scientific Association of Forensic Examiners National Association of Document Examiners Forensic Expert Witness Association National Speakers Association Books Authored Line by Line, Forensic Document Examination — A Strategy for Legal Professionals The End of the Zodiac Mystery Matt Peters From: City Council Assistant Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 7:57 AM To: Aaron Adams; Greg Butler; Luke Watson; Matt Peters Subject: FW: AltAir Project - Opposed FYI From: Matt Nelson Sent: Thursday, Novem er , . To: James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gova; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jeff Comerchero <jcomerchero@citycouncil.org>; Mike Naggar <mnaggar@citycouncil.org>; Maryann Edwards c Ma rya n n.Edwards@citycouncil.o rg> Cc: Council Assistant council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: AltAir Project - Opposed Dear Temecula City Council Members, I am deeply concerned about the impact of the Altair Development on the city of Temecula. For so many reasons, we have no need for this project. The fact is that Temecula is at capacity and any additional growth is only a detriment to those of us that already live here. The idea of an additional 4-6000 vehicles entering the bypass from via Moraga in its current form is downright troubling. Even as it is now the intersection is backed up in all directions for a significant distance during hours of commute. Due to the housing development being planned for the northern part of the property, it stands to reason that via Moraga will be at least as heavily impacted as the 79S interchange, if not more. !cannot imagine an additional few thousand cars using that small street and turning lane (both to and from Rancho Calif Rd) currently large enough to suit only a few cars. 'Optimization of traffic signals' as a tool to satisfy the planning commission/city council is an absolute joke - es if that is not being done already?! The idea of a western bypass is a poor one, which will only result in more air and noise pollution, especially for the residents of the development, if it continues as planned. 1 understand the road will have a 55 mph speed limit, which translates to a realistic 65 or more mph raceway for anyone trying to 'shoot' across the bypass in lieu of using the clogged freeway. It will be unbelievably loud, as cars can accelerate up to nearly freeway speeds just before slamming on the brakes at the other end of the bypass, a mere mile or so in distance. It does not help that a significant number of Temecula residents no longer believe that a muffler is a necessary part of a vehicle. The developers claim that the 'Mountain Lion Fee' of $431unitlyear will yield 'millions and millions of dollars' to the goal of improving migration routes is absurd at best. For those of us who can do math, it amounts to about $70,000 per year assuming full occupancy of the development. It takes many, many years to make 'millions and millions' at that rate. I don't pretend to claim these funds will actually accomplish much of anything, however 1 particularly dislike being lied to - and the developers claims about this fund are just that. The ozone non -attainment issue has also not been discussed. In an area of non -attainment, how does more development help push us in the right direction? It should also be noted that the inversion layer that often sits over the valley puts the ozone at roughly the same elevation as the development. Ozone is particularly damaging to human health, so why was this glossed over so quickly? The air quality has deteriorated significantly in the past 10 years - what a shame. Are any considerations being made to combat this problem? Above all, this is an issue of when is enough enough? Yes, AltAir supporters are definitely going to make money on this project - thats for sure. But what about those of us who still call this area home? There are certainly more of us who will have to put up with the traffic, air quality, crowding and noise than those who will benefit financially. Unfortunately there seems to be nothing that serves to organize people quite like money and the show put on at the last meeting makes this very apparent. Unfortunately it is not as easy to put a dollar figure on the loss that the rest of us will experience if this project passes. More and more time spent in traffic, waiting in longer and longer lines for a table at an old town restaurant, looking over the ever increasing layer of smog across the Valley - these are the things that another development project brings for the rest of us. Please think of the whole as you consider this project - I have no doubt how this will impact the majority. If this project was put up for a vote I have little doubt about Temecula residents would stand. 1 This is a project for Menifee - surely you've seen the impending disaster in that neck of the woods... If any member would care to take the time to reply to this email, I would appreciate hearing your point of view on these issues. Sincerely, a Temecula area resident since 1989, Matthew Nelson 2 Matt Peters From: Aaron Adams Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:40 AM To: Luke Watson Cc: Matt Peters; Greg Butler Subject: FW: Altair Project Pis provide a response on my behalf. Thanks Aaron Adams City Manager City of Temecula (951)694-6419 as ro n . a da ms (@Teme cu l aCA. g ov TemecuiaCA.uov 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 Nolan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:07 AM To: Aaron Adams raaron.adams@temecu!aca.gov> Subject: Altair Project Dear Aaron: My name is Cynthia Nolan and 1 am a resident of Rainbow Canyon Villages and Estates. I have recently read the scope of the Altair Project including the number of residences planned and the number of 5 story buildings being added to our Landscape in Southern Temecula. The traffic in our end of the Temecula community has to already be at or near capacity. Adding another -3000 cars to our small streets on a daily basis will be catastrophic. While realizing we cannot stop progress in our city, I am wondering if this was part of the original overall planning for Temecula that we were impressed with when we bought our home here 17 years ago? 1 cannot imagine the impact of adding this number of residences to our community. 1 implore you and the city council to reconsider the impact to our community and to place a limit of 4 stories on each of the buildings and not to approve this project at maximum density. Thank you! Cynthia Nolan 1 IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not use its contents for any purpose, advise the sender immediately by reply e- mail and delete this message and any attachments without retaining any copy. 2 Matt Peters From: City Council Assistant Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 4:15 PM To: Aaron Adams; Greg Butler; Luke Watson; Matt Peters Subject: FW: Altair Project FYI From: Mary Lou Rosczyk Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2017 4:05 PM To: James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemecuIaCA.gov>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jeff Comerchero cjcomerchero@citycouncil.org>; Mike Naggar cmnaggar@citycouncil.org>; Maryann Edwards <Ma rya nn. Edwa rds@citycou nci I.org> Cc: Council Assistant ccouncil.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Altair Project Honorable Council Members Stewart, Rahn, Comerchero, Naggar and Edwards, Am I the only person concerned that the Fee A payment of $500,000 to the City of Temecula may be reduced to $200,000 if the EIR is challenged? (See EIR pp. 3-5,3-6 and the slide presentation to the Planning Commission on Nov. 15, 2017.) Does "challenged" mean in a court of law? Would the payment be reduced if Council Members, Public Agencies or the general public push for changes to the EIR before approval? I request that the city's legal department and Members of the City Council insist that the Altair Project developers clarify in writing how they define "challenged". Without clarification the City might easily be giving away $300,000. This money could well be used to improve wildlife access to the Interstate 15 under crossing. Improvements to the under crossing as well as access to the under crossing should be among the first monies spent. The best chance of encouraging wildlife to use the Interstate 15 under crossing would be if the under crossing itself and the approaches to it be attractive to wildlife. Leaving access and under crossing improvements for the end of the development virtually insures that wildlife will not consider using that path. if City Council feels that the benefits of the Altair Project outweigh the fact that it does not meet the legal requirements of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the Council should at least limit housing development to the area within the Western Bypass. This would only mean eliminating Village G. The plan for a Nature Center is certainly an improvement over a hospital or other more intensive development. However, I think there should be no trails except for a small trail around the Nature Center. This would discourage people from walking into areas where wildlife would feel threatened by human presence. Finally, there should be no outdoor lighting at the Nature Center to ensure that human activity be restricted to between dawn and dusk. Respectfully, Mary Lou Rosczyk 1 Matt Peters From: City Council Assistant Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:26 PM To: Aaron Adams; Greg Butler; Luke Watson; Matt Peters Subject: FW: Please reject Altair project as proposed FYI From; Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:18 PM To: Council Assistant ccouncil.assistant@temeculaca.gova; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jeff Comerchero cjcomerchero@citycouncil.org>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@citycouncil.org>; Matt Rahn cmatt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Mike Naggar <mnaggar@citycouncil.org> Subject: Please reject Altair project as proposed November 30, 2017 Subject: Proposed Altair Project Dear Honorable Council Members, Comerchero, Edwards, Nagger, Rahn and Stewart: At the Nov. 15th, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, a disturbing decision was made to approve the adoption of the proposed Altair housing development. The Commissioners ignored the basic quality of life arguments and even the legal irregularities that make this site untenable. As a person who has worked for years to protect wildlife and valuable habitat, my concerns are many and include: • Trapped wildlife, impingements on wildlife corridors 10, 13 and 14; • Wildlife crossing degradation with more trespass, trails, and Nature Center; • Ignoring requirements of the Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan and the Fish and Wildlife Agencies; • Escarpment and green -hill destruction making Temecula into an LA suburb. Solutions: 1. Allow development at the proposed site according to the current City zoning regulations. 2. Redesign the presently submitted Altair development proposal using a lower density development design. 3. Provide mitigation that protects the corridors and 1-15 wildlife crossing, to include: change to 2 -lane, not 4 -lane, Western Bypass that accommodates reduced density and is located lower on the hillside. The Altair development as designed doesn't fit in the proposed narrow western slot of land. The environmental impacts and degradation of the quality of life and diminishing resources in Temecula must preclude the City Council from accepting the proposed Altair development. 1 Please reject this development proposal and require the developer to work with staff and the community to produce a plan that is environmentally sensitive and conforms to City zoning requirements. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Mary H. Clarke Oceanside, CA 2 Matt Peters From: City Council Assistant Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 7:54 AM To: Aaron Adams; Greg Butler; Luke Watson; Matt Peters Subject: FW: stop growth FYI From: Lesley Gregory Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 10:24 PM To: Council Assistant acouncil.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: stop growth What is wrong? There is already to much traffic in Temecula. We do not need more housing tracks, (Altair development) unless you desire the crime rate to go up??? Lesley Gregory i Matt Peters From: Luke Watson Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 9:48 AM To: Matt Peters Subject: Fwd: Altair Project - VOTE NO For record Luke Watson Director of Community Development City of Temecula 951-694-6415 Begin forwarded message: From: Aaron Adams <aaron.adanis(a]temcculaca.gov> Date: December 1, 2017 at 9:32:28 AM PST To: Luke Watson duke.watson(cr;temecuiaca.gov>, Peter Thorson <pthorson(cl rwglaw.corn>, Greg Butler <st-rea.buticr c@temeculaca. ;ov>, Patrick Thomas <Patrick.Thomas(u?temecul aca.gov> Subject: FW: Altair Project - VOTE NO Aaron Adams City Manager City of Temecula (951) 694-6419 aaron.adams@TerneculaCA.gov Tem culaCA.gov 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: Mark B. Sent: Thursday, Novem er , M To: Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Altair Project - VOTE NO The Altair project is bad for Temecula residents. No building in this development should be taller than 4 stories. The Temecula General Plan, Open Space/Conservation Element states features such as the western escarpment (hillside behind Old Town) should be protected from insensitive development. The Community Design Element states that new development should not obstruct views such as hillsides and the Community development Dept may place height limits on projects that would have the potential to block views. Density is too much for the area. Wolf Creek has 1700 homes over 570 acres. Altair wants to do the same on 270 acres. On the west side of the 15 Fwy, traffic near the on/off ramps are at or near their capacity. Rancho Calif Road„ Ynez, Temecula Parkway, and Santigo Road will be jammed beyond repair if the density is approved. Please don't destroy our hillsides or our city. Vote no Mark Berg 2 Matt Peters From: Luke Watson Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 9:49 AM To: Matt Peters Subject: Fwd: Altair project (western hills/bypass) For record Luke Watson Director of Community Development City of Temecula 951-694-6415 Begin forwarded message: From: Aaron Adams <aaron.adatns r temeculaca.gov> Date: December 1, 2017 at 9:34:01 AM PST To: Luke Watson <Luke.watson{cr�},temeculaca.gov>, Peter Thorson <pthorson@rwglaw.com>, Greg Butler <greg.buticr@temecuiaca.gov>, Patrick Thomas <Patrick.Thomas c ten-ieculaca.gov> Subject: FW: Altair project (western hills/bypass) Aaron Adams City Manager City of Temecula (951) 694-6419 aaron.adams@TemeculaCA.gov TenneculaCA.gov 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: Irene Powell Sent: Thursday, Novem er 0, 2017 3:2 PM To: Aaron Adams <aaron.adamsgtemeculaca.gov> Subject: Altair project (western hills/bypass) I'm disappointed that everyone from the City has agreed this is a good idea. Temecula is a lovely place. I've lived here for more than 30 years and I understand it can't be kept static. I've seen the amazing growth. I think overall, the City managers have done a pretty good job of handling growth, until now. This Altair project is what I see as very self-serving. A way to get the western bypass done at the expense of the Altair projects. A bypass, that as far as I'm concerned is of little to no value to anyone except maybe Front Street traffic. What we need is a bypass around Temecula by freeway. Our commuter traffic is horrific. Even day-to-day traffic is pretty awful. How will the bypass plus hundreds of more cars help this?? It's still the same highway access that's already insufficient. I was hopeful when I attended earlier meetings that the pleas of the environmental experts would speak to the decision makers. We have so little opportunity to help the native threatened and endangered species but we can with the western hills. The Altair project is not worthwhile to me. I don't need the extra traffic or the bypass. I 1 would be proud to say we kept the wildlife corridor open and protected as well as worked with making a pathway between the Santa Ana Mountains and Palomar Mountains. That's something Temecula could tout with pride! Sincerely, Irene Powell 2 Matt Peters From: Luke Watson Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 8:05 AM To: Matt Peters Subject: Fwd: Altair project For the record Luke Watson Director of Community Development City of Temecula 951-694-6415 Begin forwarded message: From: Aaron Adams <aaron.adams cr temeculaca.gov> Date: December 4, 2017 at 7:59:40 AM PST To: Luke Watson <1uke.watson ci temcculac gov>, Peter Thorson cpthorson@rwglaw.com>, Greg Butler <greg_butler@ temeculaca.gov>, Patrick Thomas <Patrick.Thomas r[.�.terneeulaca.gov> Subject: FW: Altair project -----Original Message Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2017 2:05 PM To: Aaron Adams <aaron.adams(d?temeculaca.gov> Subject: Altair project Dear Sir, You work for the citizens who live here NOW. Do your job for US. We who already LIVE here DO NOT want a project of this size. I know we don't know anything as it's just OUR quality of life that will be impacted. This development WILL affect all public services that are stressed already, According to the statements made in the past by the city. It will make getting TO the freeway and OFF the freeway even more dangerous and arduous. You will ruin the ascetics of old town. Again why is it you folks never work FOR or think OF what's best for your citizens who are already living here and are invested in the community today. Sincerely, Beverly Kenyon Sent from my iPad 1 Matt Peters From: Luke Watson Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 9:50 AM To: Matt Peters Subject: Fwd: Altair Specific Plan/Please make this an official part of the record For record Luke Watson Director of Community Development City of Temecula 951-694-6415 Begin forwarded message: From: Aaron Adams <aaron,adamsatterneculaca.gov> Date: December 1, 2017 at 9:35:22 AM PST To: Peter Thorson <pthorson(rwglaw.com>, Greg Butler <gret;.but1er@tenneculaca.gov>, Luke Watson <luke.watson rc,terneculaca.gov>, Patrick Thomas <Patrick.Thomas cr,terneculaca.gpy> Cc: Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov> Subject: FW: Altair Specific Plan/Please make this an official part of the record Aaron Adams City Manager City of Temecula (951)694-6419 aaron.adamsi TemecuIeCA.gov TemeculaCA.gov 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: Mark Broderick Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:57 PM To: Maryann Edwards cMaryann.Edwards@citvcouncil.org>; Matt Rahn <matt,rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; James Stewart EJames.StewartpTemeculaCA.gov>; Jeff Cornerchero <lcomerchero@citvcouncil.org>; Mike Naggar <mnaggar@citycounc l.org>; Aaron Adams caaron.adams@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Altair Specific Plan/Please make this an official part of the record Dear councilmembers and city manager, This project takes a density (correction -total number of dwelling units per site, 2028 du's) similar to the Wolf Creek Development (557 acres) and crams it into the Altair site of only 270 acres (1750 du's). The only way to accomplish this is constructing 5 story buildings with a max. height of 75 feet, plus an extra 15 feet for antennas and such. This absolutely violates the Land Use, Open Space/Conservation and Community Design Elements of the City General Plan, that mandates the preservation of "spectacular views" of the "western hillsides", and specifically the "western escarpment" behind Olt Town and along the remaing western hillside. This certainly is not the small-town atmosphere you have pledged to protect. 1 The regional access to the Altair site is from the 1-15, which is gridlocked more than the standard AM and PM Peak Periods. Your own studies show that a majority of Temecula residents commute, and of course the Altair residents will be parked on the 1-15 as well. The Altair site constraints provide only 3 offsite existing connector roadways for Altair residents to access the City east of the 1-15. Temecula Pkwy, Rancho California Road, and First Street to Santiago to Ynez Road, Your own traffic counts (years old) show these roadways at, or above, the Maximum Two -Way Daily Roadway Volume. They are gridlocked at certain times of the day. The same times Altair residents will want to use them. Furthermore, eliminating more than half of the "Western Bypass" route alignment that has been planned in the General Plan RoadwayPlaniMap for decades, forever removes a crucial puzzel piece of the overall Circulation Plan. How do the Mitigation Measures improve gridlock? Signal Timing Optimization of gridlock equals gridlock. Whether some councilmembers refuse to believe traffic gridlock concerns of residents never materialized, just shows how out of touch they are with their constituents. Voting by district will surely be welcomed. Even worse, the Pechanga Resort is increasing their hotel room capacity from 560 rooms to 1128 rooms in Dec. of this year! Additionally, the Casino will open a new 4.4 acre Pool complex, new Events Center, new Spa, and restaurants. The regional access to the casino is the gridlocked 1-15 to Temecula Parkway to Pechanga Pkwy. The "1-15/Temecula Pkwy Ultimate Interchange" will do nothing to improve the Peak Period traffic on the 1-15. How do you force more vehicles onto a stopped freeway, or gridlocked roadway? The Altair Project at maximum density (total number of du's) must not be approved. The height of the buildings must be lowered to comply with the City General Plan's mandate for preservation of the spectacular views you have said you would protect. The developer must build the bridge over Murrieta Creek and the Western Bypass just to provide access for their future residents, or there is no project. Combining the traffic from the huge number of Altair dwelling Units with the existing gridlocked 1- 15, and existing offsite connector roadways will require more Mitigation Measures not less, if the combined traffic can be mitigated to less than significant at all. The Altair Project must not be approved if the current traffic gridlock on the 1-15 and Local roadways, combined with project traffic impacts can't be reduced. The project traffic studies seem very optimistic, considering the existing gridlock on Temecula's roadways today. Mark Broderick 2 Matt Peters From: Aaron Adams Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 11:39 AM To: Peter Thorson; Randi Pahl; Matt Peters; Stuart Fisk; Lynn Lehner; Patrick Thomas Cc: Luke Watson Subject: Fwd: Position paper: ALTAIR Project Attachments: imageo0l.png; image002.png; image0o3.png Sent from my iPad Aaron Adams Begin forwarded message: From: City Council AssistanteCityCouncil.Assistant(4TemcculaCA.gov> Date: November 28, 2017 at 11:23:13 AM PST To: Aaron Adams <aaron.adars temecu1aca.gov>, Greg Butler <greg.butler(a tetneeulaca.gov>, Luke Watson <luke.watson catemeculaca.gov> Subject: FW: Position paper: ALTAIR Project FYI From: Sierra Club, Santa Margarita Group Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 11:18 AM To: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temecu_ laca,gov> Subject: Position paper: ALTAIR Project )[l A Santa Margarita Group EXPLORE, ENJOY, AND PROTECT THE PLAN 1 November 28, 2017 Honorable Maryann Edwards, Mayor, Honorable Council Member Dr. Matt Rahn, Mayor Pro -Tem Honorable Council Member Michael Naggar Honorable Council Member Jeff Comerchero Honorable Council Member James Stewart Subject: Altair Disposition At the Nov. 15th, 2017, planning commission meeting, a disturbing decision was made to rubber-stamp the adoption of the proposed Altair housing development. The Commissioners ignored basic quality of life arguments and even the legal irregularities that make this site untenable. As a (resident, tourist, shopper, commuter, school -kid, ---}, my concerns are many and includes; • Too dense, including a 5 -story apartment house; • Old Town becomes wedged in between the freeway, homes and another freeway destroying its tourist appeal; • Creates poorer air quality due to more cars idling on the Western Bypass, side- streets and 1-15; • Clogged intersections at Rancho California Rd., Winchester, Ynez, etc. • Trapped wildlife, impingements on wildlife corridors 10, 13 and 14; • Wildlife crossing degradation with more trespass, trails and Nature Center; • Ignoring requirements of the Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan and the Fish and Wildlife Agencies; • Escarpment and green -hill destruction making Temecula into an LA suburb. Solutions: 1. Base Case: no development at the proposed site according to the presently assigned Zoning; 2. Redesign the presently submitted Altair proposal using a lower density development; 3. Change to 2 -lane, not 4 -lane, Western Bypass that accommodates reduced density and is located lower on the hillside; 4. Implement minimum human impact from the development outside the Western Bypass boundary, particularly on the civic site and Village G; 5. Redesign the proposed facility to protect the wildlife corridor and 1-15 wildlife crossing that includes barriers, law enforcement and conservation of the civic phase parcels without trails, structures, etc.; a minimum human impact. The Altair development is beautiful as a shown on paper, but it doesn't fit in the proposed western slot of land. The environmental impacts, degradation of the quality of life and diminishing resources in Temecula precludes our City Council accepting the presently proposed ALTAIR development plan. Respectfully, Pam Nelson, Chair Sierra Club, Santa Margarita Group (2017 ManiereAA :sovi ik s l ;:24f17 Pahl Drive, fiernucuin, (;af fornia 92!0;! Web Version Forward Urisubscribe Powered by Mad Mimi® A GoDaddy® company Matt Peters From: Luke Watson Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 8:0O AM To: Matt Peters Subject: Fwd: why you should reject the Altair project FYI - for the record. Luke Watson Director of Community Development City of Temecula 951-694-6415 Begin forwarded message: From: Greg Butler <greg.butler(dtemeculaca_gov> Date: November 22 2017 at 7:53:23 AM PST To: ,Teff Du Cc: Luke Watson duke.watson(temcculaca.gov>, Aaron Adams <aaron.adams(i4temeculaca.gov> Subject: RE: why you should reject the Altair project Mr. & Mrs. Dunn, Your statements regarding the proposed Altair project have been shared with the City Council and the City Clerk so they are part of the record. FYI — The Council will be holding a public hearing on the project and considering the approval of the proposed project and related documents on December 12, 2017 beginning at 3:OOPM. Regards, Greg Butler Assistant City Manager City of Temecula (951) 506-5168 g req. butt a raT a mec ulaCA.gov TemeculaCA.gov 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: Jeff Dun Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:36 PM To: Greg Butler <greg.butier@temeculaca.gov>; Aaron Adams <aaronadams@temeculaca.gov> Subject: why you should reject the Altair project Dear Sirs: While the rest of Temecula's infrastructure may handle the expansion properly, any additional impact to freeway traffic on the 1-15 will only cause additional gridlock on all Temecula roadways close to the freeway. It is already ridiculous during rush hour(s) in the morning and the afternoon, and soon it will be impossible to do anything in this fine city during those times unless you are willing to go away from the freeway somewhere. 1 While we are not anti-growth, we need to have better infrastructure BEFORE we add more residents, as most need the freeway to get to work or even go across town if they don't work. While we appreciate that the city cannot help the freeway expand, it can help prevent further overloading the already overloaded freeway as it exists today. Vote no against Altair! Regards, Jeff and Dee Dunn 2 Matt Peters From: noreply@civicplus.com Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:11 PM To: Stuart Fisk; Matt Peters Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact the Planning Department Contact the Planning Department Message am deeply concerned about the impact of the Altair Development on the city of Temecula. For so many reasons, we have no need for this project. The fact is that Temecula is FULL and any additional growth is only a detriment to those of us that live here already. The idea of an additional 4-6000 vehicles entering the bypass from Moraga in its current form is frightening. Even as it is now traffic is backed up the hill (Rancho Cal Rd) for a significant distance during hours of commute. Optimization of traffic signals is an absolute joke. The idea of a western bypass is a poor one, which will only result in more air and noise pollution, especially for the residents of the development, if it continues. I understand the road will have a 55 mph speed limit, which translates to a 65 or more mph raceway for anyone trying to 'shoot' across the bypass in lieu of using the clogged freeway. It will be unbelievable loud, as cars can accelerate up to nearly freeway speeds just before slamming on the brakes at the other end of the bypass. The developers claim that the 'Mountain Lion Fee' of $43/unit/year will yield 'millions and millions of dollars' to the goal of improving migration routes is absurd at best. For those of us who can do math, it amounts to about $70,000 per year assuming full occupancy of the development. It takes many, many years to make 'millions and millions' at that rate. The ozone issue has also not been discussed. In an area of non - attainment, how does more development help push us in the right direction? It should also be noted that the inversion layer that often sits over the valley puts the ozone at roughly the same elevation as the development. A morning drive down from De Luz to Temecula with the windows down will make this very clear. Ozone is particularly damaging to human health, so why was this glossed over so quickly? Above all, this is an issue of when is enough enough? Yes, those yellow -pin wearers are definitely going to make money on this project - thats for sure. But what about those of us who still call this area home? There are certainly more of us who will have to put up with the traffic, air quality, crowding and noise than those who will benefit financially. Unfortunately there seems to be nothing Address (if known) that serves to organize people quite like money and the show put on tonight puts that on full display. Unfortunately it is not as easy to put a dollar figure on the loss that the rest of us will experience if this project passes. More and more time spent in traffic, fighting for a table at an old town restaurant, looking over the ever increasing layer of smog across the Valley - these are the things that another development project brings for the rest of us. Please think of the whole as you consider this project - I have no doubt how this will impact the majority. Assessor's Parcel Number Field not completed. (if known) First Name Last Name Phone Number Email Address Matt Nelson Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 2 COMPLI14LY Honorable Maryanne Edwards City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Dear Mayor Edwards, RECEIVED CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Old Town Temecula is one of my favorite places. I visit and support the local businesses here on a regular basis. The Altair Project will provide improved traffic flow, bike paths and walkways, parks, a community space and a safer environment for wildlife and human interaction. As I understand it, a residential development like Altair has been part of the vison for Old Town for decades. I am excited that Ambient Communities has been working to develop this type of community while preserving the views, the hillside and the charm of Old Town. Please expedite the approval process for the Altair Project and bring it to City Council for immediate consideration and approval. Thank you. My Name: Tony Vetturelli CC: Ambient Communities TEMECULA VALLEY Unified Sckool Dl&trlct SUPERINTENDENT Timothy Ritter November 16, 2017 Matt Peters Planning Department City of Temecula 45000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Board of Education Lee Darling Julie Farnbach Kevin Hill Sandra Hinkson Dr, Kristi Rutz -Robbins SUJBECT: Response to Comment on Altair Specific Plan Dear Mr. Peters: Thank you for forwarding a copy of the final EIR for Altair, which contained Ambient's response to the Temecula Valley Unified School District's previous comments. Ambient is correct in stating that despite our comment that the amount of statutory facilities mitigation funding is inadequate to accommodate the development's students, under CEQA legislation, school districts have to accept statutory fees as adequate, and cannot object to new development based on lack of adequate school facilities. I do not feel however that the developer adequately addressed the District's concern that the district lacks an adequate fleet of buses or funding to transport students to middle and high schools. The walking distance exceeds the District's standard walking distance, and includes the need to cross the 15 freeway, which is a safety concern. The response that "Student transportation from the project site to existing and future district schools will be per school district transportation policies in place at the time of project completion," does not address the lack of transportation resources to serve those students. The City has included a Smart Shuttle to provide transportation of Altair residents to the Old Town area as part of the mitigation of the development. We would like to explore whether the same services could transport students to and from school as well. A less comprehensive alternate would be to provide funding for purchase of additional buses to transport the students, though even that would not cover ongoing fuel, maintenance and labor costs. Thank you for including our comments in the record. Sincerely, .(rd anet Dixon ihj Director of Facilities Development Cc: Lori Ordway -Peck, Assistant Superintendent of Business Support Services, TVUSD Jason Osborn, Director of Transportation, TVUSD 31350 Rancho Vista Road 1 Temecula, CA 925921(951) 676-2661 Denise Jacobo From: Winston Vickers Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 1:07 PM To: Denise Jacobo Subject: Fwd: Comment to the Planning Commission re Altair Development FEIR Attachments: UCD FEIR response Nov 15 2017.pdf: Zeller et al 2017 conservation network_pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged l iello Ms. Jacobo, Please forward that attached letter to the Planning Commissioners for their consideration. I have also attached to this email and a following one the scientific papers referenced in the letter. More detailed Supplemental Information Received 11115/2017 Public Hearing Item 112 (Altair Project) CIRCULATION COPIES: Planning Commisslonors: Chairperson Teleslo Vice•Cheirperson Youmans Commissioner GUernelo Commissioner Turley-Trejo Commiesluner Walls City Staff; '4rdre Watson (Dlrecior of CD) Malt Peters (Sr. Planner) Stuart Fisk (Principal Planner) Patrick Thomas (Director of Pini) Steve Cherege (Assoc Engr.) Mandela Marroculn (Asst City Attorney) DaNse Jacobo (Admin Assl.) Press Copy PANG Copy Dthar(s) Orlginat to: FtocOtds/Ptojoct Filo_ modeling results and GIS layers have been forwarded to Matt Peters previously. Thank you, Winston Vickers T. Winston Vickers, DVM, MPVM Associate Veterinarian Wildlife Health Center, UC Davis Co -PI Southern California Mountain Lion Project Hazing Lead, Oiled Wildlife Care Network twvickers@ucdavis.edu, T. Winston Vickers, DVM, MPVM Associate Veterinarian Wildlife Health Center, UC Davis Co -PI Southern California Mountain Lion Project Hazing Lead, Oiled Wildlife Care Network twvickers@ucdavis.edu, 1 This page intentionally deft b1ink John Telesio, Chair Planning Commission City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 In care of: denise.iacobo@temecula.gov November 15, 2017 RE: Planning Commission Agenda Item #2, November 15, 2017 Altair Project Final EIR Dear Chairman Telesio and Members of the Commission: Our group at the UC Davis Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center has been doing mountain lion (Puma canco!or) research in southern California since 2001. Our research, along with that of our collaborators, has confirmed that mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountains are seriously genetically restricted (Ernest et al_ 2014, Gustafson et al. 2017), and have low annual survival rates (Vickers et al. 2015), putting that population at risk. Peer-reviewed corridor modeling (Zeller et al. 2017) suggests that the Pechanga Creek / Temecula Creek area is the most likely location for mountain lions to approach 1-15 for crossing, and is the only location where a mountain lion might do so safely without restrictions imposed by the crossing structure itself, and have direct access to wild lands on either side. Based on genetic analysis, seven mountain lions were detected as having crossed 1-15 (three east to west and four west to east) during the period of our study. With one exception (a GPS -collared mountain lion), exact crossing locations are not known. At least four mountain lions have been killed on 1-15 while trying to cross at grade during that same period, all in the Riverside County portion of the Interstate south of the Temecula Creek Bridge. It is our team's opinion that for mountain lions to safely cross 1-15 between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges to the east, that the Temecula Creek Bridge crossing is critical to maintain, and even improve. Thus any development or increase in negative impacts by humans on the function of linkages in that area should be avoided. We commented extensively on the draft EIR (DEIR) for the Altair Development, with a focus on the linkages that we felt would be impacted. We do not feel that all of the issues raised in our comments on the DEIR have been adequately addressed in the Final EIR (FEIR) that you will be reviewing and taking comment on in tonight's meeting. Some issues that we believe were inadequately addressed in the FEIR include: We agree with the CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority that the Altair Project as currently conceived is not in full compliance with the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). We recommend that the FEIR not be approved until such point that this issue is resolved. Replies in the FEIR to our comments and concerns relating to the impact of development on the south parcel primarily referenced a third option for use of that parcel that consisted of a Nature Center and trails. Though we agree that a Nature Center and trails would have less deleterious impact on wildlife movement in the area than the other two proposed uses (hospital or university), there is no assurance in the FEIR that a Nature Center would actually be built, as opposed to one of the other two options. Thus, merely proposing the Nature Center as one of three possible structures, and thereby declaring that negative impacts to wildlife movement in the adjacent linkages will be "less than significant", is not supportable. Due to the numbers of citizens expected to come and go from either of the other two structure options (hospital or university), mitigation measures proposed to minimize impacts of those two types of uses are not adequate to minimize or eliminate significant impacts on the adjacent linkages. Mitigation measures proposed in the FEIR to allow use of a portion of the south parcel for a Nature Center would be adequate only if accompanied by very strict enforcement of anti -trespassing measures relating to the adjacent Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER), and by continuation of that strict enforcement into perpetuity. It is our opinion that prohibiting development of any kind of the southern parcel, with adequate fencing and other measures employed to prevent human intrusion into and impacts on the linkages and SMER, remains the best method to assure that these linkages function as well as possible. In our opinion, having a large human population eventually residing immediately adjacent to or nearby these linkages will impact their function negatively to a greater degree than acknowledged in the FEIR_ This is due to factors that cannot be entirely mitigated such as light, noise, and other vestiges of human residential development such as barking dogs, etc. As noted in the FEIR draft, mountain lion movement for some demographic groups and activities is inhibited to some degree as far as 600 meters (>1,800 feet) from human development, thus it is not possible to characterize impacts on mountain lions by the Altair development as a whole as "less than significant", and certainly not in the narrowest portions of the linkages adjacent to the development. Thus, currently proposed mitigation listed in the FEIR may not be adequate to fully compensate for negative impacts on wildlife use of the adjacent linkages that we would expect to arise from the Development. The reply to our comments relating to the Helix modeling that was utilized as a basis for some "less than significant" findings of impacts on linkage function was unsatisfactory. Clearly the modeling utilized was inappropriate for that use as pointed out by the original developer of the model, Paul Beier, in his testimony before the City Council. The FEIR statement that "Given the limited scope and role in determining the functionality of the linkages, the values used, and the scope of the model are considered appropriate." does not fit the facts. A flawed model such as the Helix model should not have been used at all to achieve the conclusion by the developer of "no significant impacts" on the adjacent linkages, thus the supporting evidence for that conclusion should be better spelled out in the FEIR. We urge the Temecula Planning Commission to defer action and withhold approval of the FEIR until MSHCP consistency is achieved, and negative impacts of the project on wildlife movement and use of the adjacent and nearby linkages are more adequately mitigated. Sincerely, T. Winston Vickers, DVM, MPVM Associate Veterinarian Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center University of California, Davis, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 twvickers@ucdavis.edu, www.wildlifehealthcenter.org d► PLOS Check for updates ONE l6 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Zeller KA, Vickers TW, Ernest HB, Boyce WM (2017) Multi-level, multi -scale resource selection functions and resistance surfaces for conservation planning: Pumas as a case study. PLoS ONE 12(6): e0179570. hitps:lldoi.org! 10,1371/journaI.pone.0179570 Editor: Mark S. Boyce, University of Alberta, CANADA Received: March 28, 2017 Accepted: May 31, 2017 Published: June 13, 2017 Copyright: ® 2017 Zeller et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: Genetic data are available from the Dryad database (Dol: 10.5061; dryad 1 kh2it). Telemetry data are available on the Figshare database (DOI:10.60841m9.figshare. 4983095). Funding: This work was supported by the California State Department of Parks and Recreation (WMB: httpJ :: r:n:.parks.ca.ggvi), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (WMB: Kips :fiwww.dfg.ca.govl), The Nature Conservancy (WMB, TWV, SAM, HBE: htip ?i+v.vw.nature.org/), RESEARCH ARTICLE Multi-level, multi -scale resource selection functions and resistance surfaces for conservation planning: Pumas as a case study Katherine A. Zeller' •, T. Winston Vickers2, Holly B. Ernest3, Walter M. Boyce2 1 Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, United States of America, 2 Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America, 3 Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, United States of America kathyzeller@gmail.com Abstract The importance of examining multiple hierarchical levels when modeling resource use for wildlife has been acknowledged for decades. Multi-level resource selection functions have recently been promoted as a method to synthesize resource use across nested organiza- tional levels into a single predictive surface. Analyzing multiple scales of selection within each hierarchical level further strengthens multi-level resource selection functions. We extend this multi-level, multi -scale framework to modeling resistance for wildlife by combin- ing multi -scale resistance surfaces from two data types, genetic and movement. Resistance estimation has typically been conducted with one of these data types, or compared between the two. However, we contend it is not an eitherfor issue and that resistance may be better - modeled using a combination of resistance surfaces that represent processes at different hierarchical levels. Resistance surfaces estimated from genetic data characterize tempo- rally broad -scale dispersal and successful breeding over generations, whereas resistance surfaces estimated from movement data represent fine -scale travel and contextualized movement decisions. We used telemetry and genetic data from a long-term study on pumas (Puma concolor) in a highly developed landscape in southern California to develop a multi- level, multi -scale resource selection function and a multi-level, multi -scale resistance sur- face. We used these multi-level, multi -scale surfaces to identify resource use patches and resistant kernel corridors. Across levels, we found puma avoided urban, agricultural areas, and roads and preferred riparian areas and more rugged terrain. For other landscape fea- tures, selection differed among levels, as did the scales of selection for each feature. With these results, we developed a conservation plan for one of the most isolated puma popula- tions in the U.S. Our approach captured a wide spectrum of ecological relationships for a population, resulted in effective conservation planning, and can be readily applied to other wildlife species. PLOS ONE j httpsaldol.org110.1371/journal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 1 120 r ' • PLOS I ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning The McBeth Foundation (WMB, TWV; http:// mcbethfoundation.comf), The Anza Borrego Foundation (WMB: httpJ/theabtpr, The Nature Reserve of Orange County (1WV, HBE, WMB; httpJlwww.naturereserveoc.org-I), The National Science Foundation (WMB; httpj/www.nst.govl), The FoothilVEastern Transportation Corridor Agency (1WV, WMB, PRH; httpsJ/wwnw. thetollroads.com/), San Diego County Association of Governments Environmental Mitigation Program (TWV, WMB; http!tvm.sandag.org/index.asp7 class id =17& project id=263 &f u seactio n=projects. detail), The San Diego Foundation (TWV: littpli www.sdfoundaiior orgi), Felidae Conservation Fund (WMB, TAN; httpJlwww.felidaetund.orgl), The Mountain Lion Foundation (TWV; HttpJ/www. mountainlion.orgl), the Santa Rosa Plateau Foundation (TWV; httoJ/www.srpf.orgl), the Institute for Wildlife Studies (TWV; httpfiwwwaws. org}, and private donors. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Introduction Almost 40 years ago, Johnson [1] establisher) a hierarchical framework for examining wildlife habi- tat use. Ile proposed ordering habitat selection from Level I (i.e. selection of the geographical range of a species) to Level IV (i.e. selection of feeding sites) and argued that, "This his hierarchy of selection has a unifying nature. habitat usage studies and investigations of feeding are no longer qualitatively distinct; they are simply of different orders". Johnson's hierarchical framework set the stage for much of the recent research, thinking, and understanding of how wildlife use habitat [2]. Examining selection at these different hierarchical levels encourages wildlife habitat use to be understood as a cascading process conditional upon higher levels of selection. For example, avoidance of human development may be weak at one level of selection but strong at another [3-5]. Instead of using the outputs from each hierarchical level independently, DeCesare et al. [4] proposed integrating the predictive surfaces from resource selection functions (RSFs; [5]), across levels of selection. DeCesare et al. [4] referred to these integrated predictive surfaces as Scale Integrated RSFs. Following the nomenclature of McGarigal et al. [2] we will hereafter refer to these as Multi-level RSFs (ML-RSFs). These ML-RSFs provide the relative probability of habitat use at a lower level, for example Level III, conditional upon the relative probability of habitat use at a higher level, for example Level II. In addition to being conceptually appealing, ML-RSFs offer a number of advantages. First, they may reveal differences in selection at different hierarchical levels, which is useful for con- servation and management of wildlife. Second, they provide a single surface that synthesizes habitat use across different levels, making it easier for managers to digest and use [4]. Third, they are relatively simple to derive since the hierarchical conditional probabilities collapse into a simple equation that is the product of the two relative probability surfaces. Studies that are unable to use the same data for each hierarchical level, but produce RSFs for different levels of selection and obtain their product, are not truly conditionally nested, but are conceptually sim- ilar and approximate hierarchically nested levels (e.g. [5-7]). We expand the concept of ML-RSFs to resistance surfaces. Resistance surfaces quantify how environmental parameters affect wildlife movement and are the basis for most connec- tivity and corridor models [8]. Resistance surfaces are conceptualized as the union of three processes, (I) the willingness of an organism to cross a particular landscape feature, (2) the physiological cost of moving across a landscape feature, and (3) the reduction in survival due to crossing a landscape feature [8, 9]. However, in practice, it is difficult to estimate resistance for these three processes simultaneously. Typically, one of two data types are promoted as the gold standards for estimating resistance for wildlife: movement data or genetic data [10-13]. Movement data have been promoted as an effective way to estimate resistance at fine scales, both temporally and spatially, through context -dependent analyses of animal pathways [10, 13, 14]. Resistance surfaces from movement data approximate the first resistance concept, the willingness of an individual to cross a feature. Genetic data, as used in landscape genetic analy- ses, estimate resistance by correlating environmental variables with estimates of gene flow. Through this process, variables that minimize fitness costs, increase survival, and result in suc- cessful dispersal and breeding are identified [12]. `Ilius, resistance surfaces derived from genetic data approximate the second two resistance processes, physiological and survival costs. Previous studies have attempted to determine if movement data can be used to predict genetic connectivity, and vice versa [ 10, 15). To date, the results have been equivocal. Cushman and Lewis [10) found many similarities between the resistance surfaces derived from these two data types for black bears in Idaho. Resistance surfaces between genetic data and an early sea- son movement model had a correlation coefficient of —0.4 and shared the same variables with the same relationship to movement. However, correlation between the genetic resistance PLOS ONE 1 https://doi.org110.1371/journal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 2 / 20 • () PLOS I ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning surface and the resistance surface derived from the late season movement model was much lower at —0.1. In other analyses on roe deer in France, Coulon et al. [15, 16] found an avoid- ance of woodland with movement data and a preference for woodland with genetic data. Instead of trying to compare resistance surfaces derived from these two data types, we argue their hest use may he by combing them into a multi-level resistance surface (ML -RS), akin to the ML-RSFs described above. Genetic data reflect movement, dispersal and breeding over generations which is analogous to a higher organizational level that represents broader scales and longer temporal windows. Pathway data, on the other hand, represents movement over much shorter temporal periods and reflect real-time movement decisions by individuals, which is analogous to a lower organizational level. Just as it is difficult to discern Level III habi- tat selection by using a home range selection function, so too is it difficult to discern fine - scaled movement patterns with a landscape genetic analysis. Conversely, it is difficult to iden- tify variables that result in successful dispersal and breeding using only movement data. By integrating these surfaces, all three resistance processes can be estimated. Analyzing species habitat use and movement across hierarchical levels and integrating the results captures selection and behavioral processes at different extents and results in stronger inference and predictive abilities than using a single level alone [2, 4, 6, 17]. Multi-level selection and movement models can be improved upon conducting multi -scale analyses within each hierarchical level. Not only do individuals select for environmental variables at different scales within a hierarchical level [18-21], individuals may also select different scales for the same envi- ronmental variable among hierarchical levels [5, 7]. These scales of selection are most often rep- resented by summarizing each variable of interest with ecological neighborhoods of varying sizes [22]. The scale that produces the highest model performance for each variable is often referred to as the `characteristic scale' of selection [23]. For example, in our previous work, we have shown that in Level III selection, pumas respond to human development variables at coarse scales and to natural features at finer scales [21]. Bauder et al. [5} found different scales of selection for multiple environmental variables for eastern indigo snakes across Levels II and III selection. Developing multi-level, multi -scale models captures a wide spectrum of ecological relationships for a population resulting in more meaningful conservation plans. As a case study for developing a multi-level, multi -scale conservation plan, we use data from a long-term study on pumas (Puma concolor) in a highly developed region of southern California. Over 20 years ago, Beier [24, 25] concluded that the coastal Santa Ana Mountains puma population was becoming isolated due to increased urbanization and long-term popula- tion viability was dependent on maintaining permeability to the eastern Peninsular Ranges. More recent genetic analyses have shown that the Santa Ana Mountains population not only has the lowest genetic diversity of any population in California, but also shows signs of inbreeding [26), indicating a heightened need for connectivity. This is complicated by low adult survival rates in the Santa Ana Mountains population (55.8%), with humans (mostly via vehicle strikes) causing the majority of puma deaths [27]. A detailed puma conservation plan accounting for connectivity between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges is needed and will directly inform conservation preserve design in northern San Diego County. We present a multi-level, multi -scale approach to conservation planning for pumas in northern San Diego and southern Riverside and Orange Counties. Materials and methods Study area and GPS collar data The study area was located across much of the Peninsular Mountain Range in southern Cali- fornia spanning from southern Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties in the north to the PLOS ONE l https://doi.org110.1371Cournal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 3 / 20 r_•`PLOS ONE • �� Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning U.S.—Mexico border in the south (Fig 1). Interstate 10 and the Salton Sea approximately defined the eastern boundary and the Pacific Ocean was the western boundary. The region is defined by a Mediterranean climate with hot dry summers and mild, wetter winters. Elevations range from sea level to 3200 m. Outside of urban areas vegetation is primarily composed of chaparral, coastal scrub, grasslands, and oak woodlands. Between 2005-2015, pumas throughout the study area were captured and fit with GPS collars under California Fish and Wildlife Scientific Collecting Permit number 9875 and Uni- versity of California Davis Institutional Care Use Committee authorization number 17233. Please see Vickers et al. [271 for capture details and protocols. Collar acquisition interval varied from five minutes to six hours. To avoid the use of data that may have large spatial errors, we removed two-dimensional fixes with a Position Dilution of Precision > 5 [281. GIS data and predictor variables We used predictor variables that have been shown to influence puma habitat use and move- ment. These included: elevation, percent slope, terrain ruggedness (calculated as total curva- ture in DEM Surface Tools; [291), roads, urban areas, and land cover types aggregated for the study area [13, 30-32]. Variable details are provided in fable 1. All variables were represented with a 30 m spatial resolution. Level 11 resource selection: Home range selection function Because our study area is well within the geographic range of pumas [3 31, we assumed that probability of use was 100% for Level I selection. Therefore, we focused only on Levels II and III for our resource selection analyses. Sib Conservation network boundary Puma GPS locations A Puma genetic sample locations — Palomar linkage area Primary & secondary roads Urban areas 25 N !meters San Diego Fig 1. Southern California study area and conservation network sub -area with puma GPS telemetry and genetic sample locations used in the analysis. httpsild oi. orgl10.13711jo a rna I. pon e.0179570. g 00 PLOS ONE 1 https:lldoi.org/10.1371Cournal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 4120 • �d PLOS I ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning Table 1. Predictor variables used in the puma resourceselection, movement selection, and land- scape genetic analyses. Variable Source/Derivation Year _ 2009 Topographic features Elevation USGS National Elevation Dataset _ Percent Slope Derived from National Elevation Dataset Terrain Ruggedness Total curvature derived from National Elevation Dataset with DEM Surface Tools k9] Land cover type Agriculture Aggregated agricultural classes from CalVeg 2014 Chaparral Aggregated chaparral classes from CalVeg 2014 Coastal Scrub Aggregated scrub -type classes from CalVeg 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 Coastal Oak Woodland Aggregated woodland classes from CalVeg Grassland Aggregated grassland classes from CalVeg Barren/Open Water Aggregated barren and water classes from CalVeg Desert Aggregated desert classes from CalVeg Riparian Aggregated riparian classes from CalVeg Human development Urban National Land Cover Data 2011 Floads; Classified as Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary U.S. Census Bureau TIGER 2014 Roads; Classified as Primary, and Secondary U.S. Census Bureau TIGER 2014 Roads; Classified as Primary U.S. Census Bureau TIGER 2014 httpsJ/d oi. org110.1371 fjou mai.pon e.0179570.t001 All data analysis was conducted in the R software environment [34]. i -tome Range Selection Functions (IIRSFs) were conducted in the same `used' and `available' framework typical of RSFs [35], where points distributed within empirical home ranges are the `used' data and points distributed within a buffer around the empirical home ranges are the `available' data. To estimate puma home ranges, we used pumas with at least five months of data. Based on prior analyses by Grigione et al. [36] and our observations of pumas in the study area, there is little variation in home range size among seasons, therefore we are confident five months is a sufficient amount of time to capture the full home range utilization of individuals. Data were visually examined to determine if individuals moved from their original home ranges to new home range areas during the study period. if home range shifts were identified, we excluded these individuals from the analysis. This resulted in a total of 31 pumas for the HRSFs (Males = 12, Females = 19) with collar duration ranging from five months to 32 months (mean = 10.87 months). We followed the recommendations of Borger et al. [37], Bauder et al. [38], and Fieberg [ 39] to estimate puma home ranges and standardized our sampling regime among individuals by using only points from the longest collar fix interval (six hours) to reduce home range estima- tion bias. This subsetting resulted in a total of 24,911 locations with a per -individual mean of 811 points (range =. 284-1535). We used the ks package in R [40] to estimate kernel density home ranges using the refer- ence bandwidth and an unconstrained bandwidth matrix. The unconstrained bandwidth matrix has been shown to produce a single volume contour, to encompass most of the input points, and to be less sensitive to fix rate and sampling duration than other home range estima- tors [38]. We identified our final home range boundaries as 90% of the entire utilization distri- bution for each individual. PLOS ONE 1 https://doi.org110.1371Cournal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 5120 • () PLOS I ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning For our used data, we randomly distributed points throughout the each puma home range. The number of points selected equaled the number of points used to estimate the home- range kernels. For our available data, we first calculated the maximum distance between points for each home range and identified the 95th quantile of this distribution. We then buffered all used home range points by this distance (43 km), which constituted our available area. Unique available points were randomly distributed throughout this available area in a 1:1 ratio with the used points. We developed multi -scale HRSFs using a two-stage, pseudo -optimized approach [2]. We calculated our used and available data within 10 ecological neighborhoods of varying sizes (50 m, 100 m, 200 in, 500 m, 1000 m, 2000 m, 4000 In, 6000 m, 8000 m, 10000 m). These neighbor- hoods were weighted by a Gaussian kernel using the `kernel2dsmooth' function from the smoothie package in R [41.]. In the first stage, we ran univariate logistic regression models to identify the characteristic scale of selection for each landscape variable as indicated by the low- est Akaike Information Criterion value corrected for small sample size (AICs; [42]). In the sec- ond stage, we combined the optimal scales for each landscape variable into a multiple logistic regression model (omitting the lesser performing variable of any pair that had a correlation greater than 0.6). Because we thought all the variables would have some influence on puina habitat use, we then used the `dredge' function in package MuMin [43] to run all variable sub- sets and identify the best model. Level III resource selection: Point selection function We used the same individuals and GPS point locations in the Point Selection Function (PSF) as we used to estimate puma home ranges. We estimated the used data as the proportion (for categorical data) or mean (for continuous data) of each predictor variable within a 30 m uni- form buffer around each GPS location. We estimated the available data within a larger ecologi- cal neighborhood around each used point weighted by a Pareto kernel. The Pareto kernel was derived from our empirical movement data (see Zeller et al. [21,] for details). The used and available data were analyzed in a paired, or conditional, logistic regression framework [44]. Therefore, each used point was paired with a biologically relevant available area. This approach, also referred to as a context -dependent PSF, estimates habitat selection at each loca- tion across the study area based on its location and surrounding environment and allows us to model Level III habitat use [5, 21]. We examined multiple scales by varying the size of the Pareto kernel for estimating avail- able. Nineteen different sizes of the Pareto kernel were determined by using the 5 -min data to create empirical movement distributions. Specifically, we used the 5 -min GPS data to calculate movement distances over a 5 -min time period and fit a Pareto distribution to this empirical distribution using thegPdtest package [45]. We then subsetted the data at progressively longer time periods up to 6 -hr and re -fit the Pareto to each of these empirical distributions of move- ment distances. This resulted in 19 Pareto kernels with the following distances representing 95% of the distribution: 241 rn, 408 m, 681 in., 915 m, 1123 m, 1317 m, 1602 m, 1850 m, 2049 m, 2298 m, 2312 m, 2797 m, 3044 m, 3104 m, 3479 m, 3819 m, 3994 m, 4099 m, and 4461 rn. The available data were calculated as the proportion (for categorical data) or mean (for con- tinuous data) of each predictor variable around each used point weighted by each Pareto ker- nel. Movement time periods and estimated Pareto distribution parameters are provided in S1 Table. We developed our multi -scale models using the same two-stage approach as described for the HRSFs. We ran the paired logistic regression models with the `coxph' function in the Sur- vival package [46]. We had attempted to run these models in a mixed -effects framework to PLOS ONE1https://cloi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 6 / 20 • 41) PLOS I ° N E Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning account for individual variability, but had model convergence issues. To compensate for the lack of an individual level mixed -effect, we used robust standard errors, which are calculated by combining data into clusters such that the clusters are not autocorrelated [47-49]. Robust errors are often used to control for the individual level effects in paired regression models [47, 501. We ranked the models using AICc and arrived at our final model by averaging any models that had a dAICc < 2 from the best model. We used the robust standard errors when calculat- ing confidence intervals for the model -averaged coefficients. Estimating resistance from movement data We performed Path Selection Functions (PathSFs) to estimate the relative probability of move- ment for pumas across the study area. Our previous work has shown that PathSFs are sensitive to fix interval and that, for pumas, biases are introduced with fix intervals of 1 -hour and greater [13]. Therefore, for this analysis we used data from individuals with either a 5 -min or 15 -min fix interval for at least a 2 -week duration. We created paths for each individual by con- necting consecutive points for each 24-hour time period. This resulted in a total of 39 pumas (Males = 20, Females = 19) and 1,076 daily paths for the PathSF analysis (mean per individ- ual = 30 days, median = 22 days, range = 14-106). We used the same resource selection approach as for the PSFs above, but instead of points as our unit of inference, we used daily paths. The previously described scales and two-stage approach were used to develop multi -scale PathSFs. Estimating resistance from genetic data Between 2001-2016, blood or tissue samples were collected from 146 captured or deceased pumas across the greater study area. Nuclear DNA was extracted and characterized at 44 microsatellite loci, which met the assumptions of I Iardy-Weinberg proportions and linkage equilibria as described in Gustafson et al. [51]. Of the 146 individuals, 139 were located in the study area and used for this analysis (Fig 1). Landscape genetic approaches aim to correlate observed genetic distances among individu- als or populations with geographic distances. These geographic distances are calculated as the least -cost distance or resistance distance among individuals across resistance surfaces defined a priori. We explored a number of different resistance hypotheses for each of our predictor var- iables. Specifically, we represented each variable with four ecological neighborhoods (100 m, 500 m, 2000 m, and 6000 m) weighted by a Gaussian kernel. Computational capacity limited us from testing a wider range of scales; therefore, we selected an array of scales we thought was biologically appropriate for this analysis. We then applied each of seven functions to transform the scaled variable into a resistance value of 1-100 (Fis 2). Positive or negative transformation functions were used to represent increasing or decreasing resistance with increasing values of that variable, respectively. We also used the inverse Ricker transformation to account for vari- ables that might have a low resistance at moderate values. Therefore, for each variable we tested a suite of 28 a priori resistance surfaces. With the adegenet package [52], we calculated pairwise genetic distances among all 139 individuals using Nei's genetic distance [53]. We calculated pairwise geographic distance by calculating the least cost path distance between all sample locations across each a priori resis- tance surface with the gdistance package [54]. We then compared all the a priori resistance sur- faces for a variable by running univariate linear mixed effects models that accounted for the pairwise structure of the distance matrices following the maximum likelihood population - effects (MLPE) method [55, 56]. This method has recently been shown to outperform other PLOS ONE 1 https://doi.org110.1371Cournal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 7/ 20 • () PLOS I ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning correlational methods in landscape genetics such as Mantel tests or multiple regression with distance matrices (57]. We used AICc to identify the most appropriate resistance surface for each variable. We assessed correlations among variables and removed variables from correlated pairs with higher AICs values. We then ran multiple regression models with all uncorrelated variables and fit all possible subsets of the variables. We ranked the multiple regression models using AICc and identified our top model. Multi-level resource selection function and resistance surfaces We predicted the relative probability of use across our study area from the HRSF by using the fol- lowing formula w (x) exp(fl1 x1 + y32x2 -I- fl3x3 + ... + J`ipxp) as recommended by Johnson et al. (35). We predicted the relative probability of use from the PSFs and PathSFs in the paired framework described by Zeller et al. [131. This approach requires `used' and `available' to be calcu- lated for every pixel in the study area. We first calculated the proportion or mean of each variable within a 30 m fixed -width buffer at each pixel in our study area We then calculated the proportion or mean of each variable at each pixel weighted by the Pareto kernel at the appropriate scale for that variable. This is akin to the `used' and `available' in the paired regression models and allows for a unique relative probability of movement to be identified for each pixel in the study area. We converted the relative probabilities of the PathSF surface to resistance by subtracting the relative probabilities of movement from one and multiplying by 100. For the landscape genetics analysis, we derived our resistance surface by surnming the resistance surfaces for the variables in the final model and restating from 1-100. We multiplied the predictive surfaces from the Level II HRSF and the Level III PSF and rescaled the surface from 0-1 to obtain a single multi -scale ML-RSF. We quantile re -scaled the landscape genetics and PathSF resistance surfaces, multiplied them, and rescaled the surface from 1-100 to obtain a single multi -scale ML -RS. Resource use patches and corridors The greater Northern San Diego County area (including parts of southern Orange and River- side Counties) was the focal landscape for our conservation plan. All further analyses were conducted on this subset of our original study area (Fig 1; Conservation Network Boundary). Resi stance 0 e 0 - Positive Monomolecular Convex Positive Linear Positive Monomolecular Concave 0 20 40 60 Original Value 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Original Value Fig 2. Functions used to transform the environmental variables to resistance, with a range of 1-100, for use in the landscape genetic analysis. httnsi/doi.ora/10,1371 Aou mal.tlone.0179570. q 002 PLOS ONE 1 https://doi.org/10.1371Cournal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 8120 • () PLOS I ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning To identify resource use patches, we first smoothed the ML-RSF surface using a Gaussian kernel with a bandwidth of 500 m. We then identified patches on this surface that had at least a 60% probability of resource use and were at least as large as the minimum observed female home range size. To model corridors, we first probabilistically distributed 2000 source points on the ML- RSF surface within the resource -use patches. We then used UNICOR software [58] to identify resistant kernel corridors [9] across our ML -RS surface from the source points. Resistant ker- nels allow the identification of a maximum dispersal distance, which we set to 100 km for puma [27]. We identified landscape corridors by taking the top 75% of the resistant kernel surface. We calculated the percent overlap between our conservation network (resource use patches and corridors) and the current and proposed protected area network to highlight gaps in pro- tection for pumas and identify areas for future conservation attention. Current protected areas were identified from the California Protected Areas Database [59_]. We considered Department of Defense, Native American Reservation, and large Water and Irrigation District lands as par- tially protected and included these as a separate category in our calculations. Proposed pro- tected areas were lands designated as Pre -Approved Mitigation Areas by Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. Results Level II resource selection: Home range selection function Home range sizes varied from 41-497 km2 (Mean = 231 km2; Female mean = 188 km2; Male mean m 316 km2). Characteristic scales differed across predictor variables (Table 2), but pumas generally selected for coarser scales when establishing home ranges. Due to convergence errors, we were unable to fit the models for primary roads. We identified a single best model for puma home range selection (Table 3). This model indicates pumas select for home ranges with more rugged terrain, naturally barren areas, chaparral, coastal scrub, and grassland than the surrounding landscape and fewer areas of agriculture, desert, woodland, and urban. Level III resource selection: Point selection function Univariate model results indicate pumas had a mostly bi-modal response to landscape features at the third order of habitat selection (Table 2). Pumas responded to elevation, percent slope, chaparral, and coastal scrub at fine scales and responded to the other variables at coarse scales. Due to convergence errors, we were unable to fit the models for desert and primary roads. After removing correlated variables, the global model was identified as the top model. Pumas preferred slightly more rugged terrain, riparian areas and woodland while avoiding high elevation, high slopes, agriculture, barren, chaparral, coastal scrub, grassland, urban, and primary, secondary, and tertiary roads (Table 4). Estimating resistance from movement data Pumas selected for more landscape variables at finer scales during movement than during resource selection (Table 2). After removing correlated variables, four top models were identi- fied and beta coefficients were averaged. Pumas also showed more tolerance of landscape variables during movement than during resource -use events. Pumas avoided steep slopes, agri- cultural areas, urban areas, and roads during movement, but showed a preference for all other landscape variables in the final model, especially riparian and woodland areas ("]able 5). PLOS ONE 1 https:lldoi.org11O.1371Cournal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 9 / 20 2000 10000 6000 Level 11 selection function Scale (m) Sign 2000 8000 10000 6000 4000 500 + 10000 + 10000 4000 8000 10000 • PLOS NE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning Table 2. Characteristic scales of selection for each predictor variable from the Level 11 and tions, and landscape genetic analysis. Pius or minus indicates preference or avoidance of that tance transformation for the landscape genetic analysis are indicated by IR = inverse Ricker, NL= NMCv = negative monomolecular convex, PL = positive linear, PMCc = positive monomolecular c cells indicate model convergence failures. Variable Topographic features Elevation Percent slope Terrain ruggedness Land cover type Agriculture Chaparral Coastal Scrub Coastal oak woodland Grassland Barren/Open water Desert Riparian Human development Urban Roads; Classified as Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Roads; Classified as Primary, and Secondary Roads; Primary only https JldCorg110.13 71 flou rn al. p ane,0179570. t002 Level 111 selection functions, the Path selection func- variable for resource use or movement. The selected resis- negative linear, NMCc = negative monomolecular concave, oncave, PMCv = positive monomolecular convex, Blank Level 111 selection Landscape genetics analysis Path selection function function Scale (m) Sign Scale (m) Trans -formation/ Sign Scale (m) Sign 241 241 4461 4461 241 681 4461 4461 3994 3497 6000 IR 100 NMCc+ 500 IR 6000 6000 500 + 2000 500 100 6000 + 500 4461 - 4461 4461 PL NMCc + NMCv + NMCv + 241 2797 681 + 3819 3104 241 241 PMCv - 2797 NL+ 3104 PMCc NMCv + 500 500 2000 500 1317 PMCv- PMCv- PL- PMCv - 241 3819 4461 Estimating resistance from genetic data The linear mixed effect models resulted in identifying the characteristic scale and transforma- tion for each variable in relation to the genetic distances among individuals (Table 2). Vari- ables whose resistance increased with increasing values were agriculture, grassland, urban, and roads. Variables whose resistance decreased with increasing values were chaparral, percent Mope, riparian, coastal scrub, and coastal oak woodland. Resistance for elevation and rugged- ness were represented by an Inverse Ricker transformation, which decreases until middle val- ues are reached, and then increases for the remaining values, indicating dispersal is facilitated at mid -elevation and mid -ruggedness values. Table 3. Standardized beta estimates, robust standard errors, and 95% robust confidence intervals for the multivariate Level!! Home Range Selec- tion Function model variables. Variable Beta estimate Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Terrain ruggedness 0.95 0.01 0.94-0.96 Agriculture -0.04 0.01 -0.05 -0.03 Barren 0.19 0.01 0.18-0.20 Chaparral 0.17 0.02 0.15-0.18 Coastal oak woodland -0.05 0.01 -0.06 -0.05 Coastal scrub 0.15 0.02 0.14-0.16 Desert -1.26 0.04 -1.28 --1.23 Grassland 0.11 0.02 0.1-0.12 Urban -0.68 0.03 -0.70 -0.66 https://doiorg/10,1371/joumal.pone.0179570/003 PLOS ONEIhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 10120 PLOS UNE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning Table 4. Standardized beta estimates. robust standard errors, and 95% robust confidence intervals for the multivariate Level III Point Selection Function model variables. Variable Beta estimate Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Elevation _ -21,61 0.60 -21.99 --21.23 Percent Slope -1.1 0,03 -1.12 --1.08 Terrain Ruggedness 0,09 0.01 0.08-0.09 Agriculture -0.25 0.02 -0.23 --0,26 Barren -0.06 0.02 -0.05 --0.07 Chaparral -0.17 0,06 -0.21 -0.13 Coastal Scrub -0.29 0.03 -0.03 -0.27 Grassland -0.38 0.02 -0.40 -0,37 Riparian 0.38 0.04 0.35-0.40 Woodland 0,23 0.02 0.22-0.24 Urban -2.18 0.16 -2.28 --2.08 Roads: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary -0.06 0.02 -0.07 -0,05 h ttps J/do i.o rg110.1371 fjou rn a i. p ane.01795 70. t004 After accounting for correlations, the following variables were included in the multiple regression model: elevation, percent slope, agriculture, chaparral, coastal scrub, coastal oak woodland, grassland, riparian, urban, and primary roads. The global model was selected as the best performing model. To determine whether the variables explained the genetic distance among individuals more than Euclidean distance alone, we also ran a regression model with a simple Euclidean distance matrix among sample locations. This resulted in a r.AICc of 278, which was much higher than any other model, indicating the environmental variables ex- plained the genetic distance among individuals better than Euclidean distance alone. To deter- mine whether long-term genetic processes were driven largely by fine scale movement data, we also calculated geographic distances among sample locations across our PathSF resistance surface and obtained low model support (AAICc = 247), indicating different drivers for long- term genetic connectivity. Multi-level resource selection function and resistance surfaces, resource use patches, and corridors ! ig 3 presents the predicted relative probability of use surfaces for the 1IRSF, the PSF, and the combined ML-RSF. Home range centers tended to be located further from urban areas and in more mountainous terrain. The Level III selection surface also tended to select for non -urban Table 5. Standardized beta estimates, robust standard errors, and 95% robust confidence intervals weights for the multivariate Path Selection Function model variables. Variable Beta estimate Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Elevation Percent Slope Agriculture Chaparral Grassland 9.22 - 1.35 - 0.02 1.44 1.00 8.51-9.94 0.21 -1.50 -1.20 0.09 -0.08-0.05 0.30 1.37-1.5 02 0.28 -0.22-0.18 Barrenlopen Water Riparian Woodland Urban -0.02 5.92 2.87 -7.53 0.07 -0.07-0.04 1.90 4.56-7.27 0.36 2.61-3.13 2.03 -8.98 -6.08 Roads: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary -0.78 0.24 -0.95 -0,62 https:lldo i.o rgl11.1371 fjou rn al. p one.0179570.t005 PLOS ONE 1 https:lldoi.org110.1371Cournal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 11120 Denise Jacobo From: Winston Vickerni Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 1:07 PM To: Denise Jacob° Subject: Fwd: Comment to the Planning Commission re Altair Development FEIR Attachments: UCD FEIR response Nov 15 2017.pdf; Zeller et al 2017 conservation network.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Ms. Jacobo, Please forward that attached letter to the Planning Commissioners for their consideration. I have also attached to this email and a following one the scientific papers referenced in the letter. More detailed modeling results and GIS layers have been forwarded to Matt Peters previously. Thank you, Winston Vickers T. Winston Vickers, DVM, MPVM Associate Veterinarian Wildlife Health Center, UC Davis Co -PI Southern California Mountain Lion Project Hazing Lead. Oiled Wildlife Care Network twv i ckers @ucdavi s . edu, T. Winston Vickers, DVM, MPVM Associate Veterinarian Wildlife Health Center, UC Davis Co -PI Southern California Mountain Lion Project Hazin Lead, Oiled Wildlife Care Network twvickcrs@ucdavis.edu, 1 Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 6, 2017 ROYAL SOCIETY A single migrant enhances OPEN SCIENCE the genetic diversity of an inbred puma population rsos. roya l societypu b l ish i n g. o rg Research • 11) Check for updates Cite this article: Gustafson KD, Vickers TW, Boyce WM, Ernest NB. 2017A single migrant enhances the genetic diversity of an inbred puma population. R. Soc. open se!. 4: 170115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170115 Received: 7 February 2017 Accepted: 25 April 2017 Subject Category: Biology (whole organism) Subject Areas: ecology/evolution/genetics keywords: Puma ronrofor, gene flow, genetic rescue, road ecology, conservation genetics, landscape genetics Authors for correspondence: Holly B. Ernest e-mail: hernest@uwyo.edu Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9. ftgshare.c.3174362. THE ROYAL SOCIETY PUBT ISHING Kyle D. Gustafson, T. Winston Vickers2, Walter M. Boyce2 and Holly B. Ernest.' 'Wildlife Genomics and Disease Ecology Laboratory, Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82070, USA 2Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA * KDG, 0000-0003-1869-4023; H BE, 0000-0002-0205-8818 Migration is essential for maintaining genetic diversity among populations, and pumas (Puma concoior) provide an excellent model for studying the genetic impacts of migrants on populations isolated by increasing human development. In densely populated southern California, USA, puma populations on the east and west side of interstate highway 15 (I-15) have become fragmented into a small inbred population on the west side (Santa Ana Mountains) and a relatively larger, more diverse population on the east side (Eastern Peninsular Range). From 146 sampled pumas, genetic analyses indicate seven pumas crossed I-15 over the last 15 years, including four males from west to east, and three males from east to west. However, only a single migrant (named M86) was detected to have produced offspring and contribute to gene flow across the 1-15 barrier. Prior to the M86 migration, the Santa Ana population exhibited inbreeding and had significantly lower genetic diversity than the Eastern Peninsular Range population. After M86 emigrated, he sired 11 offspring with Santa Ana females, decreasing inbreeding measures and raising heterozygosity to levels similar to pumas in the Eastern Peninsular Range. The emigration of M86 also introduced new alleles into the Santa Ana population, although allelic richness still remained significantly lower than the Eastern Peninsular population. Our results clearly show the benefit of a single migrant to the genetics of a small, isolated population. However, ongoing development and habitat loss on both sides of 1-15 will increasingly strengthen the barrier to successful migration. Further monitoring, and potential human intervention, including minimizing development effects on connectivity, adding or improving freeway crossing structures, or animal translocation, may be needed to ensure adequate gene flow and long-term persistence of the Santa Ana puma popula tion. © 2017 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 6, 2017 1. Introduction Without the benefits of immigration, genetic drift and breeding among closely related individuals can lead to an accumulation of deleterious alleles and inbreeding depression, reducing population fitness and increasing extinction risk [1-3]. Immigration benefits populations primarily by increasing heterozygosity and allelic richness, both of which are critical for population persistence [4,5]. Heterozygosity is of immediate importance to individual and population fitness [6,7], whereas allelic richness is directly related to the adaptive potential and long-term viability of populations [8,9]. In small populations, heterozygosity is lost at a slower rate and regained more quickly than allelic richness [2,10,111. Although a single migrant per generation may be sufficient for maintaining genetic diversity among populations [12-14], populations are becoming increasingly fragmented by human development [15,16], and the desirable one -migrant -per -generation minimum is not always met [12,17-19]. In the United States, fragmented puma (Puma concolor) populations arc becoming models for the study of genetics in small, isolated populations [20-241. Complete geographical isolation of the Florida panther (P. concolor corji) resulting in severe inbreeding is the extreme example [251. Translocations of pumas from Texas to Florida have successfully alleviated inbreeding depression but, without additional immigration (natural or artificial), long-term population viability is uncertain [22,26]. Purna populations along the highly urbanized west coast of the United States are also becoming isolated, primarily by expanding human development [27-31]. Demographic and genetic concerns, along with threat of disease, have brought the long-term viability of these urban puma populations into question, and genetic restoration may be required [21,23,24,32-341. Within southern California, our research team has been monitoring puma populations in the Santa Ana Mountains and Eastern Peninsular Range since the early 2000s [34]. Pumas in the Santa Ana Mountains are exhibiting signs of inbreeding, and are isolated from the more genetically diverse Eastern Peninsular Range population by an 8-10 lane freeway (Interstate 15 [21,34]), which is one of two major freeways that run north -south between two of the most urban regions in the United States (the greater Los Angeles area: approx. 18.7 million; San Diego County: approx. 3.3 million [35]). In P. concolor, young males (approx. 18 months of age) are the primary dispersers [28,36] and are responsible for significant gene flow among populations [37]. Our team previously documented that a single male crossed 1-15 from the Eastern Peninsular Range and successfully produced offspring in the Santa Ana Mountains 121,341. However, the impact of that individual, and potentially others, on the genetic diversity of the inbred Santa Ana population has not been studied. To assess the effects that migration can have on small, isolated populations, we studied the impact of inter -population movements on inbreeding, heterozygosity and allelic richness between the Santa Ana and Eastern Peninsular Range puma populations [21,34]. We used morphological data from field captures to estimate ages of individual pumas. Assignment and pedigree models were used to determine population and familial structure, and the identification of family units allowed us to more accurately identify migrants and whether they reproduced. We then estimated inbreeding, heterozygosity and allelic richness inthe two populations before and after migration events. Our results demonstrate the extent to which a single migrant can benefit the genetics of a small, isolated population. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Capture methods and age determination We captured, marked and monitored radio -collared pumas from 2001 to 2016 in the Santa Ana Mountains and Eastern Peninsular Range. Capture methods are detailed in Vickers et al. [34]. We examined movements of radio -collared pumas from 2001 to 201.6 to help identify potential migrants among ranges. Permission to carry out fieldwork and necessary permits were obtained from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Department of Parks and Recreation, The Nature Conservancy, United States (US) Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, US Bureau of Land Management, US Navy/Marine Corps, Orange County Parks Department, San Diego County Parks Department, Riverside County Parks Department, San Diego State University, University of California -Riverside, Audubon Starr Ranch, Vista Irrigation District, Rancho Mission Viejo/San Juan Company, Sweetwater Authority, California Department of Transportation, the City of San Diego Water Department and Parks Department, and the Irvine Ranch Conservancy as described in Vickers et al. [34]. rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sci. 4:170115 Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.orgl on June 6, 2017 2.2. Genetic sampling and microsatellite DNA data collection We analysed genetic samples from 146 pumas among the Santa Ana Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains and the Eastern Peninsular Range. Genetic sampling is detailed in Ernest et al. 121]. Briefly, we obtained blood or tissue samples for analysis of nuclear DNA from pumas captured for telemetry studies, and from those found dead or killed by state authorities for livestock depredation or public safety, some preceding year 2001. Forty-four microsatellites (electronic supplementary material, table 51), which met the assumptions of Hardy -Weinberg proportions and linkage equilibria were used for genotyping individuals. Each sample was genotyped at least twice and genotypes were determined by two independent observers. Negative and positive controls were included in each PCR. Specific extraction, PCR and sequencing methods are detailed in Ernest et al. [211. 2.3. Population assignment We used spatially explicit Bayesian population assignment programs GENELAND v. 4.0 [38] and TESS v. 2.3 [39] and followed all developer recommendations. b GENELAND, the number of populations (K) is a parameter optimized by the model. First, we ran 15 spatial models from 1 to 10 K. We then ran five spatial models holding K at the modal K of the initial runs. We selected the model with the greatest log posterior probability and ran an admixture model. Each run included an uncertainty on coordinate of 0.01 decimal degrees (approx. 11 km), 1000100 iterations, a thinning interval of 100 and a 25% burn -in period. In TESS, K must be tested over a range of possible values. First, we ran 10 non -admixture models for each K from 2 to 10. For model comparisons, TESS computes a deviance information criterion (DIC). We ran 10 spatially conditional auto -regressive admixture models for each K to the DIC plateau of non - admixture models. All models included pairwise great circle geographical distances, 100000 iterations, and a 25% burn -in period. We retained 20% of the models which contained the Lowest DIC scores and used CLUMPP v. 1.1.21401 to perform model -averaging. 2.4. Pedigree reconstruction We used program CERVUS v. 3.0.7 1411 to construct pedigrees. We ran additional sibship analyses with program COLONY v. 2.0.6.2 142,43]. In both programs, 1% genotyping error was allowed. Parent - offspring relationships were determined based on age estimates from the morphological data taken during captures. 2.5. Measures of genetic diversity and population divergence To assess inbreeding, we calculated internal relatedness using package Rhh 1.0.2 in program R v. 3.3.0 144,45]. Internal relatedness measures a relative outbred-inbred continuum, where negative values are suggestive of outbred individuals and positive scores are suggestive of inbreeding [45]. We calculated unbiased expected heterozygosity (PE) in GenAlEx 6.502 146,47]. Unlike observed heterozygosity and measures of allelic richness, cfE is a robust genetic diversity estimator for small sample sizes 146,48]. To measure the number of alleles, we calculated allelic richness using sample -size correcting rarefaction methods in FSTAT 2.9.3.2 [49,50]. Population divergence (FST) was also calculated in GenAlEx; significance testing was based on 999 permutations [471. Internal relatedness, heterozygosity and allelic richness data met the assumptions of linear models. Population differences in internal relatedness were calculated using analyses of variance (ANOVAs). To assess the validity of internal relatedness as a measure of inbreeding, we used a T-test to determine if the internal relatedness of offspring was higher than the average internal relatedness of their consanguineous parents. Temporal and population differences in heterozygosity and allelic richness were tested using a repeated -measures (RM) ANOVA with locus treated as the repeated measure. We used Tukey's honest significant differences post hoc tests. Statistics were computed in program R using base software for linear models (ANOVAs, T-tests) and packages lme4 1.1-12 [51] and lsmeans 2.23-5 [52] for mixed models (RM-ANOVAs). For temporal analyses, samples collected from 2000 to 2016 were divided into five time periods (2000-2003, 2004-2006, 2007-2009, 2010-2012, 2013-2016). If an individual puma was estimated to have been alive at any point during that time period, it was included in the analysis. rsos royalsocietypublishing.org i?. Soc. open sd 4: 170115 Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.orgl on June 6, 2017 San Gabriel Netts r'Jl ri S.In Bernardino Mts s. A Los .Angelc basin 1:I,[LE-n r°C F41ii>LI I:kl Ja Pacific Ocean populations • Santa Ana • San Gab/Bern • E Pen range interstate development l� elevation F 0 5 10 20mile,, 111 11111 1 [ 1 1 17TI 0 10 20 40 km J Q © a © o E0:1 LJ❑ Mea i L•u Figure 1. Pumas sampled (N-146) in the Los Angeles—San Diego region of California, USA (inset map) were subdivided into three populations separated by major interstate highways (1-15, I-10). Circles, hexagons and squares indicate pumas, respectively, belonging to the Santa Ana, San Gabriel/Bernardino and Eastern Peninsular Range populations identified in GENELAND (figure2a). Colours correspond to highest subpopulation admixture proportions identified in TESS (figure 2b). 3. Results 3.1. Population assignments and migrations Based on our Bayesian population assignment analyses, we identified three geographically structured populations (Santa Ana, SA; San Gabriel/Bernardino, SGB; Eastern Peninsular Range, EP) with additional substructure within SA and EP (figures 1 and 2). Given the low sample size of SGS pumas (N=6), temporal measures of internal relatedness, heterozygosity and allelic richness could not be calculated and further analyses were restricted to SA and EP. Pedigree analyses indicated the additional substructure within SA was composed of a male migrant (named M86; MIF for male/female, followed by capture number) and his 11 offspring (figure 2b,c). Substructure within EP primarily corresponded to a female puma (F20) and her offspring, but several substructure -assigned individuals were not first -order relatives (i.e. parent—offspring, full -sib) of F20 (figure 2b,c), With our pedigree analyses, we identified frequent mating within, but not among, populations. There was only one observed instance of mating among populations, which occurred when M86 migrated from EP into the Santa Ana Mountains in 2010 and mated with F61, F89, F133 and mated with his offspring F92 (figure 2). Notably, F92 had the lowest internal relatedness of all pumas sampled in the Santa Ana Mountains (-0.14). Additional detections of inbreeding in EP included M39 mating with his daughter F47 to produce F49, with whom he also mated. M71 also mated with his mother, F20. rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sd. 4.170115 s ■ ■ i 1 617 19 0 Sid 1 Pd ££19 99 9 1119 WIW 1£1W L1 -1P L4 (4 11.4 14 14 4 Eco :r4 r4 11-4 s14 Sup ved6x4 C4 SO14 6E14 w 00 5414 65(4 II 1513 119 FIN509 N 609 m 91W •1tA 509 LEA 0L -1A11 0419 55tH 66Y91v �� WIN NA .I I9 1N 1(9 rI19 119 16@ •'149 1N IILIOV �F SL4 LISA 660)1 . 56.4 10'4 1164 14 194 :94 134 604 604 {lid 1014 ZLA 51-1-4 55 Id 1944 5044 0 '0 91-1)1 1,7 L51)1 II y5A 5911 1-919 66[19 1# 01131 [619 79•A 1.9 £011)1 911 «109 (4 97.1-4 91- 4 1�6 9 5611 [1119 11119 6111.7 _15111 Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 6, 2017 ■ ■ i mi ■` vow •^. NAV daaaar ¢ugrudulduwYnuyn "?lxwlmd ••••1•1•0 5=N0N 13N39SS31. C CC. a.. - N _1 wC aJ 6 f6 in- N f� C i L o o -' R c of -ow Ea0ic 7 d V CU '_ 2 v C N W SU w G w i i— p o E = Z i C v• 0 w 0 0 `o Ql o f d C [z .v o E 4 a) J0 ra ,_MI`4 Sr,'=o C:' '2 t a - " 2 c m E `o.— =C1-T17 a r1- — __ , - v a ria 0 w a q. E `. = .0 c ro a,. _e: a o N °' {T .. V 0 J5 R+ T6 -o c E .E ' 9 -- .rt o 1i.1 G s V I CI a, ra a, a. rca o 2 C E I� E rl c ra ''''C ;` o a a J -o are 9/ �' u.o o w — Y "q d C al le, -oj rII -1=5-7.' d c w -? o Eu, a, a' •�- c o - II d a . E c 01 rti Q a--• f � _ c :Cr O a 0) o E Y — vE 01 o rn T . = C a7. :a 0 rn al u! R o1 w CC 'a - -2 L c+ r ca a Z m a c c a m _. ' -E k01 c 0 0 4 p_ N L — d 3 E w 2 r2 ice- q. o > L w Q} -o ami r, E z F ro t+ , ›- _'0 -a_ E ' -o • rn c w Q -o o 0 a a, 21.5 y c c a+ m — E 0 -+3 = I2 w o7V f L3 ) c -o 1-y r'.7. CO 5 in m i ar c '0 0 3 • c '0 a C' a, •� ii to r`a t Q rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org i?. Soc. open sd. 4: 170115 Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.orgl on June 6, 2017 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 E -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 Santa Ana Eastern Peninsular Range Figure 3. Internal relatedness (i.e. relative outbred—inbred continuum) of Santa Ana and Eastern Peninsular Range pumas. Wide background boxplots represent populations identified in GENELAND (figure 2a). Colours of foreground boxes correspond to TESS subpopulations (figure 2b). Green corresponds to M86 and his offspring. Orange primarily corresponds to F20 and her offspring. Min, max, inter -quartiles and median are presented. Internal relatedness was significantly (T137 .= 5,4, p < 0.001) higher in SA (mean ± s.e.: 0.13 ± 0.02) than EP (0.00 ± 0.01; figure 3). Inbred offspring had significantly higher internal relatedness relative to the average internal relatedness of their consanguineous parents (+A0.18 ± 0.05; T10.3.79, p = 0.003). 3.2. Migration effects on population genetics Our genetic analyses detected a total of seven migrants across 1-15, all of which were males (figure 2). The three migrants originating from EP had negative internal relatedness (M86: -0.07, M119: -0.07, M151: -0.18), indicative of outbreeding. All but one of four migrants from SA had positive internal relatedness (M56: 0.29, M109: ---0.09, M120: 0.38, M145: 0.17). M86 was the only migrant known to reproduce, with a total of 11 offspring identified (figure 2c). M86 and his offspring had significantly lower internal relatedness compared with other SA pumas (ANOVA F3,133 =16.87, p < 0.001; Tukey's HSD p 0.007; figure 3). All other subpopulation pairwise comparisons were not significant (Tukey's HSD p > 0.8), indicating M86 decreased internal relatedness of his SA -offspring to comparable levels of EP pumas (figure 3). Prior to the M86 migration into the Santa Ana Mountains, SA had significantly lower heterozygosity (RE) and allelic richness (Ar) than EP in all time periods (RM -ANOVA: Tukey HSD p <0.0001). After the M86 migration, RE increased in SA and was no longer significantly different from EP (p.=0.24, p 0.67; respectively). Although Ar in SA significantly increased after the M86 immigration, SA had significantly lower Ar than EP in all time periods (p <0.001). SA -EP population divergence (FST) decreased after the M86 immigration; however, populations remained significantly diverged at all time periods (999 permutation tests, p < 0.001; figure 4). 4, Discussion 4.1. Single -migrant genetic restoration Our results demonstrate that a single migrant can have immediate positive effects on the genetics of a small, isolated and inbred puma population. Within the urbanized Los Angeles -San Diego region of California, the Santa Ana Mountains (SA) population is inbred and genetically depauperate compared to the Eastern Peninsular Range (EP) population [21i. Our analyses show that prior to the successful immigration and reproduction by a single male (M86), the SA population had significantly higher internal relatedness, significantly lower heterozygosity and significantly lower allelic richness than the EP population. After the immigration of M86, we observed significant improvements in all genetic measurements. M86 produced 11 offspring with four SA females. Even though one of M86's matings was with his daughter, he and all his offspring had significantly lower internal relatedness (i.e. they were less inbred) than other SA pumas and they exhibited internal relatedness values comparable with EP pumas. Heterozygosity and allelic richness both significantly increased in the SA population after the M86 immigration. Heterozygosity increased to the point that it was no longer significantly different from rsas.royalsocietypublishing.org R, Soc. open sd. 4: 170115 Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.orgl on June 6, 2017 (a) (h) 0.55 0.50 • 0.45 • 0.40 • 0.35 • 0.30 3.1 2.9 - 2.7 - a� t; 2.5 - 2.3- 2.1 - 1.9 EP SA M86 --SA immigration • • • -• • 2{]00-03 2004--4J6 2007-09 2010-12 2013-16 time period 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 Figure 4. Temporal patterns of (a) unbiased expected heterozygosity, (b) allelic richness, and population divergence (FST: black hexagons; righty -axis) for the Eastern Peninsular Range (EP) and Santa Ana (SA) puma populations before (left of vertical dashed line) and after (right of the vertical dashed line) the migration of M86 into SA from EP. Unbiased expected heterozygosity is a robust genetic diversity estimator for small sample sizes; allelic richness was sample -size corrected. All pairwise FsT estimates were significa ntly different from zero. Squares/circles are offset from hexagons for easier visualization. Pumas estimated to be alive at any point within time periods were included in time period estimates. Means and s.e.s are presented. Sample sizes include 27 (number of males & females: 13 & 14, respectively), 25 (11 & 14), 26 (16 & 10), 28 (22 & 6), and 33 (26 & 7) for EP; 10 (1 & 9), 9 (5 & 4), 29 (16 & 13), 38 (21 & 17) and 24(13&11)for SA. the EP population. Allelic richness increased more modestly, remaining significantly lower than the EP population in all time points. it is possible that the emigration of M86 has resulted in genetic rescue (Le. alleviation of inbreeding depression). However, genetic rescue is difficult to confirm given the natural variation in individual survival/reproduction rates, population dynamics, and environmental conditions which affect individuals and populations ]53]. Pumas in the Santa Ana Mountains have low annual survival rates (mean 0.56; 134]), and five of the seven pumas that have crossed I-15 are known to be deceased. Pumas in the region can legally be shot for depredation events (such as when lions are suspected of killing domestic animals or endangered species), are hit by cars, are killed illegally, die of other causes or have limited food resources ]34]. Additionally, young immigrant males have the additional challenge of establishing territories, avoiding fights with conspecifics, finding food and mating in a previously unknown landscape [34]. Thus, the migration of two or more EP population pumas per generation is probably needed for successful reproduction at least once per generation and for maintaining genetic diversity in the SA population. The significant increase in heterozygosity and allelic richness caused by the emigration of M86 suggests that little or no gene flow occurred between the SA and EP populations in the period immediately prior to this study. Although low sample sizes through 2000-2006 in SA could have biased genetic diversity estimates, the low sample size estimates (i.e. 2000-2003 and 2004-2006) were consistent with each other and with the more -intensively sampled time period prior to M86 (i.e. 2007-2009). Additionally, our estimates of genetic diversity are robust to differences in sample size. Given the high mortality rates in the SA, it is remarkable that M86 produced a large number of offspring (N =11) prior to his death. However, his contribution to gene flow was foreshortened because he was killed by a vehicle strike, and over half of his offspring are either deceased or in captivity. Another migrant from EP to SA (M151) was apparently killed prior to successfully siring offspring in the SA. This puma had the lowest internal relatedness of any migrant pumas we sampled, but he was unable to enhance genetic siioti .o ;res [ado )os Eaa 6uiusinnd,tlapasieksas) Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.orgl on June 6, 2017 diversity in the SA because he was legally shot on a depredation permit after repeatedly preying on domestic animals. Further monitoring of the only remaining migrant (M119) in the Santa Ana Mountains, as well as M86's surviving offspring, will be important for tracking population viability, and assessing the long-term impacts of migration. In a region north of the Santa Ana Mountains and west of Los Angeles, pumas in the Santa Monica Mountains exist in very low numbers (approx. 10 total pumas at any one time) and are also isolated by a major roadway [23,27]. Over 10 years, a single male migrant was detected to have crossed the road into the Santa Monica Mountains and was the only detected breeding male. Although that male enhanced genetic diversity after producing eight detected offspring, the genetic structure of pumas in the area were completely changed because of low census size. By contrast, M86 increased genetic diversity of SA despite the Santa Ana Mountains supporting multiple breeding males and approximately 20— 30 adult pumas at any one time 154]. Pumas in the Santa Ana Mountains are thought to represent a genetically distinct population [21,34]. Thus, our observations differ from the Santa Monica Mountains, which may represent family- or group -level dynamics. The only reported puma population with a lower heterozygosity than the 5A population was in Florida, where pumas nearly went extinct from inbreeding depression, but were genetically rescued by translocating pumas from the state of Texas [22,26]. Given that the SA population has similar estimates of genetic diversity to just a few established pumas in the Santa Monica Mountains [23], our results indicate genetics may be an issue for SA population viability in the near future 124]. The SA population and pumas in the Santa Monica Mountain region are genetically distinct and exhibit no gene flow [21], further illustrating how urbanization and road fragmentation can completely separate populations that are geographically close (less than 70 km in this case). This may indicate a widespread issue for pumas throughout the rapidly urbanizing state of California. 4.2. Importance of genetic diversity in small populations The loss of rare alleles and accumulation of deleterious alleles can occur in small populations through genetic drift and inbreeding [2,55,56]. We used internal relatedness, an individual index ranging from outbred to inbred, to estimate degree of inbreeding [45]. In other mammalian systems, high internal relatedness (indicative of inbreeding) correlates with high incidence of disease [57], low reproductive success [45,58] and low survival [59]. Inbreeding depression is well documented in the Florida puma population and associated physical abnormalities included kinked tails [22,60]. Anecdotal evidence of two SA pumas with the highest internal relatedness values also exhibited kinked tails [21], suggesting inbreeding depression may also be present in the SA population. In this study, internal relatedness increased in offspring produced from consanguineous (i.e. highly related) mate -pairs, validating its use as a measure of inbreeding [45]. However, the observed decrease in internal relatedness does not confirm that genetic rescue has occurred 161], and further studies are needed to explicitly assess the extent of inbreeding depression in the SA population [62]. Heterozygosity is a classic measure of genetic diversity and has been correlated to disease resistance [63,64], resistance to toxicants [65], increased fecundity [66,67] and purna survival 168,69]. We observed a significant increase in heterozygosity after the immigration of M86, to the point that heterozygosity of SA pumas was no longer significantly different from that of EP pumas. Whereas heterozygosity is thought to be of immediate importance to individual and population fitness [2], allelic richness is thought to be more important for the adaptive potential of populations because alleles are the raw material on which evolution occurs [2,9,70]. We observed a significant increase in allelic richness after the immigration of M86 into the SA population. However, allelic richness remained significantly lower than that of the EP population. Larger populations have a greater capacity for unique alleles simply because they have more individuals to harbour them [2,70]. Thus, we do not expect the SA population, which has a smaller effective population size and less habitat [21,34], to ever exhibit the same allelic richness as the EP population. 4.3. Implications and conclusion We identified three puma populations in this region, including the SA, SGB and EP populations. Although population assignment models GENELAND 138,71] and TESS 139,72] showed similar patterns, TESS identified genealogical substructure not identified by GENELAND. We determined the additional substructure in the SA population originated from an immigrant male (M86) and his 11 offspring. However, the additional substructure in the EP population appears to be a family -unit admixed from rsos.royalsorietypublishing org R. Soc. open sd. 4: 170115 Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 6, 2017 a currently unsampled population, perhaps from Mexico or Arizona. The SGB population, and the within -population family groups in SA and EP, were not previously identified [21], probably due to limited sampling. Future researchers should consider the behaviour of certain Bayesian clustering algorithms when analysing population genetic structure of populations containing related individuals 173,74]. Without pedigree or relatedness data, family -unit genetic clusters could mistakenly be classified as populations 175]. We identified a total of seven migrants, all males. Four moved east and three moved west across 1-15. With the exception of M56 who was GPS -collared when he crossed I-15 in 2010, it is not known exactly when these migrants crossed the I-15 barrier. If they migrated at their dispersal ages, which is most likely, then based on their estimated ages when sampled their crossings would have all occurred between 2008 and 2014. TESS underestimated the number of migrants by including M86 into a SA subpopulation, whereas GENELAND overestimated the number of migrants by incorrectly assigning an inbred offspring (M124) of M86 to the EP population. The addition of our pedigree analysis allowed us to more accurately identify migrants and family groups, and showed that only one of three migrants into the SA population successfully established a territory and mated. Interstates, including I-15, have been reported to be major barriers to puma movement 121,28,34,76], and we suspect I-10 is also a barrier to puma gene flow. However, additional samples and further monitoring in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are needed to assess the impact of 1-10 on puma movements and population genetics. Despite the increases in heterozygosity and allelic richness in the SA population, and despite being only separated by a single interstate highway, the SA and El' populations remain significantly diverged (i.e. significant pairwise FST), and SA pumas still face threats from disease, human development, and stochastic demographic, genetic and environmental events 124,33,34,77]. As observed in other systems where a single or a few migrants genetically restored a population [14,23,53,78,791, genetic diversity will decrease and inbreeding will increase, without continuous gene flow [22,26,62,80-82]. Our results clearly show the benefit of a single migrant to the genetics of a small, isolated population. However, if one successfully breeding migrant per generation is required for long-term persistence 112,13], multiple migrants (usually dispersing reales) must cross I-15 east to west in each generation to presume one is successful at breeding. Thus, future monitoring, and potential human intervention in the form of improved or new 1-15 crossing structures, limitations on new development, or puma translocations, may be needed to ensure adequate gene flow and population viability. The ability of pumas to cross I-15 is very limited, and will only decrease. Several pumas have been killed on 1-15 in the past 30 years, but road mortalities are only one aspect of barrier effects. Other barrier effects include the combination of noise, light, human presence, adjacent development and other anthropogenic factors. It is essential that the ability of pumas to cross over or under I-15 not be reduced further, and mitigation measures to reduce road barrier effects should be pursued. As of this writing, large residential developments are proposed to be constructed within the two primary puma travel corridors between the Eastern Peninsular and Santa Ana Ranges, and immediately adjacent to the existing crossing structures [73--86]. Construction of these developments is likely to further degrade the ability of pumas, especially dispersing males who are essential for gene flow, to move between the Eastern Peninsular and Santa Ana Mountain Ranges. The critical importance of successful migration and reproduction to the tong -term persistence of the SA population should be considered in the planning and approval process for any development near these key crossing points. The construction of new I-15 crossing structures between the Eastern Peninsular and Santa Ana Mountain Ranges has been under study and discussion by multiple regional governmental entities and various researchers and stakeholders for more than two decades. However, no engineering studies have been done, costs are expected to be substantial and funding sources have not been identified. These results, in combination with the challenges of preserving and improving the state of genetic connectivity for pumas in this region, emphasize that despite M86's success in improving some genetic parameters of the SA population, the population remains at risk of further genetic decline. The political and conservation barriers are large, and positive change will depend on a great deal of political -will, and both public and private investments. hi the case of the Florida panther and the Santa Monica Mountains pumas, large amounts of funding were mobilized once these subpopulations were threatened with extirpation. The SA population, and possibly other puma populations in California in the future, may also need human intervention to persist. Ethics. All animal capture and handling protocols were approved on university, state and national levels. We operated under Protocol 10950/PHS, Animal Welfare Assurance number A3433-01, with capture and sampling procedures 9 rsos. roya I so ci etypu b I ish i n g.o rg i?. Soc. open scr. 4: 170115 Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 6, 2017 approved in Protocol number 17233 by the Anima] Care and Use Committee at the University of California, Davis, and Memoranda of Understanding and Scientific Collecting Permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CD1W). Permission and permits to carry out fieldwork is detailed in Material and methods section. Data accessibility. Data analysed in this paper are accessible through Dryad: (http://dx.doi.org/1O0.5061/dryad. Ikh2n) [871. Authors' contributions. K.D.G., T.W.V., W.M.B„ H.B.E.: designed the study; T.W.V., W.M.S., H.B.F.: collected data; K.D.G., H.B.B.: analysed data; K,D.G., H.13.E.: wrote manuscript; K.D.G., T.W.V, W.M.B., H.B.E.: reviewed draft manuscripts and approved final manuscript. Competing interests. We declare we have no competing interests. Funding. Primary funding for the genetic analysis was provided by the San Diego County Association of Governments Environmental Mitigation Program (T.W.V., H.13.E., K.D,G.; http:/ /wwwsandag.org). Sample and other data collection was funded by: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (T.W.V., W.M.B., H.B.E,; https:J/www,dfg. ca.gov/), California State Parks (W.M.l3.; http://www.parks.ca.gov/), the Nature Conservancy (T.W.V., W.M.S., H.B.E.; http://www.nature.org/); The Mcl3eth Foundation (W.M.13., T.W.V.; http://mcbethfoundation.com/); the Anza Borrego Foundation (W.M.B.; http://theabf.org/), Natural Communities Coalition of Orange County (T.W.V.; https://occonservation.org/); the National Science Foundation (W.M.B., T.W.V., H.S.E.; http://www.nsf.gov/), the Foothill/Eastem Transportation Corridor Agency (T.W.V., W.M.S.; https://www.thetollroads.com/), the San Diego Foundation (T.W.V.; http://www.sdfoundation.org/), Felidae Conservation Fund (W.M.B., T.W.V.; http://www. felidaefund.org/), the Mountain Lion Foundation (T.W.V; http://www,mountainlion,org/), the Santa Rosa Plateau Foundation (T.W.V.; http://www.srpf,org/), the Institute for Wildlife Studies (T.W.V.; http://www.iws.org) and private donors. Acknowledgements. We especially acknowledge and thank P. McMinn for her contribution to lifespan databases used in pedigree construction. Samples, data and expertise were provided by multiple people and agencies, including California Department of Fish and Wildlife (R. Botta, J. Colby, K. Brennan), California State Parks, The Nature Conservancy, UC Davis Wildlife Health Center, UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory and the US Geological Survey. We thank the following for their technical assistance: T. Drazenovich, L. Dalbeck, T. Gilliland, J, George, C. Torres, J. Sanchez and M. Plancarte. GIS data management was provided by B. Cohen. Fieldwork assistance was provided by J. Bauer, C. Bell, J. Bourdon, P. Bryant, D. Dawn, M. Ehlbroch, P.J. Falatek, D. Krucki, K. Logan, B. Martin, B. Millsap, M. Puzzo, D. Sforza, L. Sweanor, C. Wiley, E. York and numerous volunteers. Thanks to E. Boydsen, K. Crooks, R. Fisher and L. Lyren for assistance coordinating field projects and sample acquisition. We also appreciate the cooperation provided by the University of California South Coast Research and Extension Center, the California Department of Transportation and all of the land owners and managers who allowed field activities on their properties. References 1. Fra nkha m R. 2005 Genetics a nd extinction. 8101 Conserv. 126, 131-140. (doi:10.1016/jbiocon. 2005,05.002) 2. AlkndnrfFW. 1986Genetic drift andtheloss of alleles versus heterozygosity. Zoo Bid 5,181-190. (doi10.1002Izoa.1430050212) 3. Saccheri I, Nwssaari M, Kankare M, Yuman P, Fortelius W, Hanski 1.1998 Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nafure 392, 491-494. (dai:10.1038133136) 4. Fuerst PA, Maruyama T.1986 Considerations on the conservation of allelesand of genic heterozygosity in small managed populations. Zoo Bid 5,171--179. (doi:10,1002Izoo.1430050211) 5. Lacy RC 1987 Loss of genetic diversity from managed populations: interacting effects of drift, mutation, immigration, selection, and population subdivision. Conserv. Blot 1,143-158. (doi:10.1111/ j,1523 -1739.19871600023.x) 6. Ha nsson B, Westerberg L 2002 On the correlation between heterozygosity and fitness in natural populations. mot Era 11, 2461--2474. (doi:10.1046/ j1365 -294X2002.01644.4 7. Chapman J, Nakagawa S, Coltman D, SiateJ, Sheldon B.2009 A qua ntitative review of heterozygosity -fitness correlations in animal populations. Mai Era 18, 2746-2765. (doi:10.1111/ j.1365-294)[.2009.04241.4 8. Willi Y, Van Buskirk 1, Hoffmann AA. 2006 Limits to the adaptive potential of small populations. Anna. Rev fog EvoL. Syst.37, 433458. (doi:10.1146/ an nurev.ecalsys.37.091305.110145) 9. Caballero A, Garcia -Dorado A. 2013 Allelic diversity and its implications for the rate of adaptation. Genetics 195, 1373-1384. (doi:10.15341genetres. T13.158410) 10. Clegg SM, Degnan SM, ICikkawa J, Moritz C, Estoup A, Owens IP. 2002 Genetic consequences of sequential founder events by an island -colonizing bird. Proc. Nat,Acad. Sri. USA 99, 8127-8132. (dbi10.1073/pnas.102583399) 11. LuikartG, Cornuetl-M, Allendorf FW. 1999 Temporal changes in allele frequencies provide estimates of population bottleneck size, Conserv. &ioL 13, 523-530. (dal:10.10464.1523-1739. 1999.98133.x) 12. Mills L5, Allendorf FW. 1996 The one -migrant -per -generation rule in conservation and management. Comsery Bini.10,1509-1518. (doi:10.1046/f1523-1739.1996.10061509.x) 13. Wang J. 2004 Appfrcation of the one -migrant -per -generation rule to conservation and management. Conserv. 8'01.18, 332-343. (doi:10.TH1/j.1523-1i39.2004,00440.xj 14. Newman 0, Tallman DA.2001 Experimental evidence for beneficial fitness effects of gene flow in recently isolated populations. Conserv. Bio! 15, 1054-1063. (doi:10:104641523-1139.2001. 0150041054.x) 15. Haddad NM et 701S Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth's ecosystems. Sri. Adv. 1, e1500052. (dai:10.1126Isciadv.1500052) 16. Marzkrff1M.2001 Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. In Avian ecology and conservation in an urban ang would. pp. 19-47. Berlin, Germany: Springer. 17. Vucetich JA, Waite TA. 2000 Is one migrant per generation sufficient for the genetic management of fluctuating populations? Arnim. Conserv. 3, 261-266.(doi:10.1111/j.1469.17952000.tb001T1.xl 18. Lande R.1993 Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochastirity and random catastrophes. Am. Nat.142, 911-927. Idoi:1O.1086l285580) 19. Hanski 1.1998 Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396, 41-49. (dei:10.1038/23876) 20. Ernest HB, Boyce WM, BleichVC, May B, Stiver SJ, Torres SG. 2003 Geneticsimcture of mountain lion rsos. royalsorietypublishi ng.org R. Soc. open sd. 4: 170115 Downloaded from http:llrsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 6, 2017 (Puma maim) populations in California. Conserv. Genet 4,353-366. (doi:10.1023/A:1024069014911) 21. Ernest HB, Vickers TW, Morrison 5A, Buchalski MR, Boyce WM. 2014 Fractured genetic connectivity threatens southern California puma (Pomo =color) population. PLoSONf 9, e107985. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107985) 22. Johnson WE Oat 2010 Genetic restoration of the Florida panther. S2ience329,1641-1645. (doi:10.T1267sdence.1192891) 23. Riley SP, Serieys LE, Pollinger JP, Sikidn JA, Dalbeck L, Wayne R6, Ernest H B.2014 Individual behaviors dominate the dynamics of an urban mountain lion population isolated by roads. Circ 8ia124, 1989-1994. (doi10.1616/jahb.2014.07.079) 24. Benson JF, Mahoney PJ, Sikirh JA, Str ieys LE, Pollinger JP, Ernest HB, Riley 5P.2016 Interactions between demography, genetics, and landscape connectivity increase extinction probability for a small population of large carnivores in a major metropolitan area. Proc. R. Sc.c8283, 20160957. (doi10.1098Irspb2016.0957) 25. Hedrick PW. 1995 Gene flow and genetic restoration: the Florida panther as a case study. CooSero. BioL 9,996-1007. {doi:10.1046/j.1523.1739. 1995.9050996.4 26. Hedrick P.2010 Genetic future for Florida panthers. Science 330,1744. (doi:10.11267sdence.330.6012. 1744-a} 27. Riley SP, Pollinger JP, Sauvajot RM, York EC, Bromley C, Fuller TK, Wayne R6.2006 A southern California freeway is a physical and serial barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Mot fed 15,1733-1741. (doi10.11111)1365-294X 2006.02907-x) 28. Beier P.1995 Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. 1. Midi. Manage. 59, 218-237. (d o i:10.2 3071381 k 935 } 29. Dickson BG, JennessJS, Beier P.2005 Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in southern California.). WU Manage, 69, 264-276. (dai:102193/0022-5410005) 069 <0264: krvtar>2.O.Co;2} 30. Gray M, lifters CC, Reed SE, Merenlender AM.2016 Landscape feature -based permeability models relate to puuw occurrence. Landscape Urban Flom, 147,50-58 (doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.009) 31. Torres SG, Mansfield TM, Foley JE, Lupo T, Brinkhaus A.1996 Mountain lion and human activity in California; testing speculations. 144k115ac. bull 24, 451--460. 32. Smith JA, Wang Y, Wilmers a. 2016 Spatial characteristics of residential developmentshift large carnivore prey habits. J. Midi Manage 80, 1040-1048. (doi:10.1002.0wnng.21098) 33. Foley JE, Swift P, Fleer KA, Torres S, Girard YA, Johnson (6.2013 Risk factors for exposure to feline pathogens in California mountain (ions (Purrxr concobr).J.1171d1 Dis. 49,279-293. (dail0.7589/ 201208-206) 34. Vickers TWeta1.2015Survival and mortality of pumas (Purrscanrolar) in a fragmented, urbanizing landscape. PtoS ONE 10, e0131490. (doi:10.137V journal.pone,0131490) 35. United States Census Bureau.2016 United States Census. {http://www.census.gov) 36. HemkerTP, Lindzey FG, Ackerman 611.1984 Population characteristics and movement patterns of cougars in southern Utah.). Midi.. Manage. 48, 1275-1284. (doi:102307/38017 ) 37. Sweanor LI, Logan KA, Hornoc ker MG.2000 Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics, and conservation. Conserv. Rd. 14,798-808. (da:10.104641523-17392000.99079.x) 38. Guillot G, Mortier F, Estoup A.2005 GEN ELAND: a computer packagefor landscape genetics. Mal. Ecol. Notes5, 712-115. (doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286. 2005.01031.x) Durand E. Jay F, Gaggiotti OE, Francois 0.2009 Spatial inference of admixture proportions and secondary contact zones. Mrd Biot fval 26, 1963-1973. (doi:10.1093/molbev/msp106) 40, Jakobsson M, Rosenberg HA. 2007 CLUMPP: a duster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and muttimadality in analysis of population structure. 8iainfarmatirs23, 1801-1806. (doi:10.10931bioinformatialbtm233) 41. Slate 1, Marshall T, Pemberton J. 2000 A retrospective assessment of the accuracy ofthe paternity inference program CERVUS. Mat Era: 9, 801-808. (doi10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000. 00930.x) 42. Jones OR, Wang ].2010 COLONY: a programfor parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mot. Ecol Reswur. 10,551-555. (doi:10.11TIr.1755-0998.2009.02787,x) 43. Wang U.2016 User's guide for software COLONY. Zoot Sat. Lozol 44. AIho15, Valimaki 6, Merila J.2010 Rh h: an R extension for estimating multilocus heterozygosity and heterozygosity -heterozygosity correlation. Mol Ecol Resour 10, 720-722. (doi:10.1111r.1755-0998. 2010.02830.x} 45 Amos W, Wilmer JW, Fullard 6, Burg T, CroxaIIJ, Bloch 0, Coulson T. 2001 The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proc. R. Soc. toad. B 268,2021-2027. (doi:10.10981rsph. 2001.1751) 46. Nei M, Roydnoudhury A.1974 Sampling variances of heterozygosity and genetic distance. Gerretics76, 379-390. 47. Peakall R, Smouse PE.2012 GenA1Ex 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research --an update.8iainformatos 28,20-2539. (doi:10.10931bioinfamatics/bts460) 48. Nei M. 1978 Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89, 583-590. 49, Kalinowski 51.2004 Counting alleles with rarefaction: private alleles and hierarchical sampling designs Conserv. Genet: 5,539-543. (dei:10.102378:C0GE.0000041021.91777,1a) 50. Goudet 1.1995 FSTAT (version 12): a computer program tocakulate F -statistics 1. Hered. 86, 485-486. (doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals. jhered.aT11627) Bates 0, Mach ler W Bolter B, Walker 5.2015 Fitting linear mixed -effects models using Ime4. J. Stat. Sof. 67,1-48. {doi:10.18637/jss.vO67.i01) 52. tenth 11/.2016 Least-squares means: the 11 package !swans.). Stas: Soft 69,1-33. (doi:10.18637fjss. v069.i011 Hogg JT, Forbes SH, Steele BM, Luikart G. 2006 Genetic rescue of an insular population of large mammals. Pex R. Sot. 8273,1491-1499. (doi:10.10981rspb20063477) Beier P, Barrett R,1993 The cougar inthe Santa Ana Mountain Range, California. Final report. Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study, 39. 51. 53. 54. Department of Forestry and Resource Management,. University of California, Berkeley, USA. 55. Amos W, Harwood 11.1998 Factors affecting levels of genetic diversity in natural populations. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. fond. 8353,177-186. (doi:10.1098/rstb.1998. 0200) 56. Hedridc PW, Garda -Dorado A.2016 Understanding inbreeding depression, purging, and genetic rescue. Trends hot fvol 31,940-952. (doi:10.10164tree. 2016.09.005) Acevedo -Whitehouse R, Gulland F, Greig D, Amos W.2003 Inbreeding: disease susopttility in California sea lions. Nature 422, 35. (doi:l0.1 422035a) 7edrasser A, Bellemain F, Taberlet P, Swenson] F. 2007 Genetic estimates of annual reproductive success in male brown bears: the effects of body size, age, internal relatedness and population density.). Anim. (wL 76,368-375. (doi:10.11111 j.1365 -2656.2006.01203.x) 59. Bean 6, Amos W, Pomeroy P, Twiss 5, Coulson T, Boyd 1.2004 Patterns of parental relatedness and pup survival in the grey seal (Halkhoerasgrypusj. Mot frog 13,2365-2370. (dol:10.11141365.2946. 2004.02199.x) 60. Roelke ME, Martenson 1S, O'Brien 51.1993 The consequences of demographic reduction and genetic depletion in the endangered Florida panther. Curr. Pol. 3,340-350. (doi:10.1016/ 0960-9822(93)901974) 61. Whiteley AR, Fitzpatrick SW, Funk W(, Ta Ilmon DA, 2015 Genetic resale to the rescue. Treads Ecol Evot 30,42-49. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.10.009) 62 Akesson M, Liberg 0, Sand H, Wabakken P, Bensch 5, Hagstad 0.2016 Genetic rescue in a severely inbred wolf population. Mot. fxo125, 4745-4756. {doi:10.1111/mec13797) 63. Aguilar A, Roemer G, Debenham 5, Binns M, Garcelon D, Wayne 116.2004 High MHCdiversity maintained by balancing selection in an otherwise genetically monomorphic mammal. Prix NaUArad. Sri. USA 101, 3490-3494. (doi:10.1073/pnas. 0306582101) Mead Seta/. 2003 Balancing selection at the prion protein gene consistent with prehistoric kurubke epidemics. Science 300, 640-643. 0oi:10.11261 science.1083320) 65. Pelz Hl eta/ 2005 The genetic basis of resistance to anticoagulants in rodents. Genetics 170,1939-1847. (doi:10.1534/genetia.104.040360) 66. Gemmell NJ, Slate1.2006 Heterozygote advantage for fecundity. PIoS ONE 1, e125. (doi:10.1371/journal, pone.0000125) 67. Ferreira AG, Amos W.20061r breeding depression and multiple regions showing heterozygote advantage in Drosophila mefanorgasterexposed to stress. Mal. Eca115, 3885-3893. {dui:1011i14.1365- 2948.2006.03093.x) 68. Benson JF, Hostetler JA, Onorato DP, Johnson WE, Roelke ME, O'Brien 51, Jansen D, Oli MK. 2011 Intentional genetic introgression influencessurvival of adults and subadults in a small, inbred fel'xl population.!. Ankh. &x1.80, 958-967. (doi:10.11111 0365-2656.2011.01809.x) 69. Hostetler JA, Onorato DP, Nichols JD, Johnson WE, Roelke ME, O'Brien Sl, Jansen 0, Oli MK.2010 Genetic introgression and the survival of Florida panther kittens. Biol. Cnnserr 143, 2789-2796. (doi:10.1016/jbiocon.2010.07.028) 57. 58. 64. S1LOLL :0 ;ns uado )os Eio 6uius!Ignd,flaposieksasa Downloaded from http:llrsos.royalsocietypublishing.orgl on June 6, 2017 70. Kimura 14, Crow JF. 1964 The number of a Ileles that can be maintained in a finite population. Geoefics 49,72x738. 71. Guillot G, Santos F.2009 Acomputer program to simulate multilocus genotype data with spatially autocorrelated a Relefrequendes.Moi. koL Rewur. 9,1112-1120. )doi:10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02496.x] 72. Jay F, Mane! S, Alvarez H, Durand EY, Thuiller W, Holderegger R, Taberlet P, Francois°.2012 Forecasting changes in population genetic structure of alpine plants in response to global warming. Mai. (col. 21, 2354-1368. (dai:10.1THr.1365-294X1012. 0S541.x] 73. Rodr iguez-Ramilo ST, Wang J. 2012 The effect of dose relatives on unsupervised Bayesian clustering algorithms in population genetic structure analysis. Mat Rot. Resaur.12, 873-884. (doi:10.1111/j.T755- 09982012.03156.x) 74. Rodriguez-Ramilo 5T, Toro MA, WangJ, Fernandez 1.2014 Improving the inference of population genetic structure in the presence 01 related individuals. Genet. Res. 96, e003. {dei:10.10171 510016672314000068) 75. Waples RS, Anderson EC.2017 Purging putative siblings from population genetic data sets: a cautionary view. Mal. &or 26,1211-1224. (doi:10.1T11/mec.14022) 76. Hokieregger R, Di Giulio M.2010The genetic effects. of roads: a review of empirical evidence. Bask Apt. Maf.11, 522-531. (doi:10.10167j.baae.2010.06. 006) 77. Burdett CL et af. 2010 Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat 8cospherel, 1-21 {doi:10.18901E510-00005.1} 78. Adams JR, Vuretich LM, Hedrick PW, Peterson B0, Vucetich JA. 2011 Genomic sweep and potential geneticrescue during limiting environmental conditions in an isolated wolf population. Prot. R. 541c.8278, 3336-3344. (doi10.1098/rspb1011. 0261) 79. Vila Cetaf.2003 Rescue of a severely bottlenecked wolf (Canis /opus) population by single immigrant. Proc. R. Soc. toad 8210, 91-97. (doi:10.10981rspb.20022184) 60. Hedrick PW, Peterson 110, Vucetich IM, Adams JR, Vucetich JA. 2014 Genetic rescue in Isle Royale wolves: genetic analysis and the collapse of the population. Conserv. Genet. 15,1111-1121. {doi:10.100071510592-014-0604-11 81. Kenney J, Allendorf FW, McDougal C, Smith 1L.2014 How much gene flow is needed to avoid inbreeding depression in wild tiger populations? Pia. R. Stu.8 281, 20133337. (doi:10.10987rspb20133337) 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. Tallmon DA, LukartG, Waples R5.2004 The alluring simplicity and complex reality of genetic rescue. Trends Ecol. Eva. 19, 489-496. (doi:10.10167j.tree. 2004.07.003) Jones1H.2017 Boom or doom? Huge projects loom. (http://www.sandiegounionnibune.com/business/ grovrth-developmentMsdut- development- north- county- housing- boom-2015apr11-htmistory.html) (accessed 20Jan 2017). tlaverie A.2012 Temecula:Temecula Geek Inn housing plan under review. (http:llwww. sandiegou niontribune.comtsdut-tememla- temecula-aeek- inn- housing- plan-under- 20T2feb09-htmhtory.htmlliarticle-copy) (accessed 20 Jan 2017). Communities A.2012 Aha'r. ihttp'/ a mbientcommu nities.comlcommunitieslplan ned- communities7ahail} (accessed 20 Ja n 2017). Engineering 1P. 2016 Temecula Geek Inn Golf Resort: Temecula, CA. )http:lllatitude33.com1 portfolioltememla-creek-inn-golf-resort- tenrecula-cal) (accessed 20lan 2017). Gustafson KD, tickers TW, Boyce WM, Ernest HB. 2017 Data from: A single migrant enhances the genetic diversity of an inbred puma population. Dryad Digital Repository ihttp:lldx.dol.org110.50611 dryad.lkh2n) rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sci. 4:170115 OPEN a ACCESS Freely available online !g•'PLOS 1 ONE Fractured Genetic Connectivity Threatens a Southern California Puma (Puma concolor) Population Holly B. Ernest-1'2*r', T. Winston Vickers', Scott A. Morrison, Michael R. Buchalski1'2, Walter M. Boyce' 1 Wildlife Health Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America, 2 Wildlife and Ecology Unit, Veterinary Genetics Laboratory, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis. California. United States of America, 3Thc Nature Conservancy, San Francisco. California, United States of America Abstract Pumas (Puma cancolor,• also known as mountain lions and cougars) in southern California live among a burgeoning human population of roughly 20 million people. Yet little is known of the consequences of attendant habitat loss and fragmentation, and human -caused puma mortality to puma population viability and genetic diversity. We examined genetic status of pumas in coastal mountains within the Peninsular Ranges south of Los Angeles, in San Diego, Riverside, and Orange counties. The Santa Ana Mountains are bounded by urbanization to the west, north, and east, and are separated from the eastern Peninsular Ranges to the southeast by a ten lane interstate highway (1-15). We analyzed DNA samples from 97 pumas sampled between 2001 and 2012. Genotypic data for forty-six microsatellite loci revealed that pumas sampled in the Santa Ana Mountains (n=42) displayed lower genetic diversity than pumas from nearly every other region in California tested (n=257), including those living in the Peninsular Ranges immediately to the east across 1-15 (n=55). Santa Ana Mountains pumas had high average pairwise relatedness, high individual internal relatedness, a low estimated effective population size, and strong evidence of a bottleneck and isolation from other populations in California. These and ecological findings provide clear evidence that Santa Ana Mountains pumas have been experiencing genetic impacts related to barriers to gene flow, and are a warning signal to wildlife managers and land use planners that mitigation efforts will be needed to stem further genetic and demographic decay in the Santa Ana Mountains puma population. Citation: Ernest HB, Vickers TW, Morrison SA, Buchalski MR, Boyce WM (2014) Fractured Genetic Connectivity Threatens a Southern California Puma (Pomo concolor) Population. PLoS ONE 9(101: c107985. doi:10.1371/joumal.pone.0107985 Editor: Adam Stow, Macquarie University, Australia Received April 7, 2014: Accepted July 30, 2014; Published October 8, 2014 Copyright: Cr 2014 Ernest et al. This is an open -access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. DataAvailability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data have been deposited to Dryad, and can be accessed with the D01:10.5061/dryad.dpogj. Funding: The work was supported by the following: California State Parks (WMB; http:'/www.parks.ca.gov/), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (HBE. WMB; https;//www.dfg.ca-govt, The Nature Conservancy (WMB, SAM; http:ffwww.nature.orgf); The McBeth Foundation (WMB; hup //mcbethfoundation.cornl): The Anza Borrego Foundation (WMB; http://theabforgl], Nature Reserve of Orange County (WMB; hrtp`'/www-naturereserveoc.orgl); The National Science Foundation (WMB; http:1Iwww.nsf.gov/); and private donors (HBE. WMB). The Nature Conservancy (SAM) helped with sample and data collection and preparation of the manuscript. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, helped with sample and data collection- Otherwise, the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. " Email; hernest4uwyo-edu n Current address: Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, United States of America Introduction Genetic diversity, demography, and abundance — biological characteristics that influence population viability — can vary across a species' distribution. Species that are generally perceived as wide-ranging and abundant are sometimes relegated to status as "least conservation concern", in spite of indicators signaling concern and frequently, lack of dara. Pumas (Puma concolor; also known as mountain lion, cougar, and in Florida, panther) epitomize this dilemma. Although pumas in California have not been subjected to Inciting since 1972, and were designated as a Specially Protected .11;unrrnal in 1990 [1], there is minimal active management and lick scientifically validated data on statewide or regional population numbers. Pumas in southern California have one of the lowest annual survival rates among any population in North America, on par with rates seen in hunted populations (unpublished data). They are uudrr increasing threats from habitat low and fragmentation, and mortality from vehicle strikes, depredation permits, poaching, public safety kills, wildfire, and poisoning [2,3]. Timely evaluation of potential threats to population viability is imperative in order to prioritize conserva- tion activities to prevent collapse of some populations. Thr human population ofsou diern California is over 20 million [-1] aucl k xpectcd to exceed 30 nnillion by 2060 [5]. This increasing population likely result in lurcher loss, fragmentation, and degradation of natural habitats in the region. Habitat fragmen- tation south of greater Los Angeles has effectively fumed the Santa Ana Mountain range in mostly Orange and Riverside counties into a `mega -fragment' of habitat, surrounded to the west, north, and east by dense urban land uses. The only remaining montane and foothill habitat linkage connecting the Santa Ana Mountain range to other mountains of the Peninsular Range is a southeasterly swath of habitat bisected by a very heavily traveled 10 -lane highway, Interstate 15 (I-15) (Figure 1). Population viability of pumas in the Santa Ana Mountains (a geography henceforth referred to as distinct from the broader Peninsular Ranges to the east) has been of conservation concern PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 1 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 issue 10 1 e107985 (It CrossMark Fractured Genetics in Southern California Pumas M Santa Monica Mtns 0 Santa Ana Mtns Peninsular Range 1 IMIIBS 25 50 Figure 1. Topographic map depicting location of Santa Ana Mountains, eastern Peninsular Ranges in southern California, and adjacent regions. Inset shows location in the state of California. doi.10.1371 fjournal.pone.fll079a5.001 for decades. Population monitoring and modeling in the 1980s highlighted that urbanization and highways were fragmenting puma habitat (e.g., [6]), and that in turn motivated efforts to protect habitat connectivity in the region (e.g., [7,81). As part of a statewide assessment of puma genetic diversity and papulation structure, Ernest et al. [9] employed an 11 -locus microsatellite panel and found that, for a limited sample size (n = 14) Santa Ana pumas had lower genetic diversity than other populations in California. Since 2001, pumas in the region have been the subject of an ongoing study by the Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center of the University of California, Davis (UCD) School of Veterinary Medicine. Telemetry data from 74 pumas in the LCD study haws confirmed that minimal connectivity (only one CPS - collared puma over ten years was documented to transit successfully; unpublished data) exists between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges across I-15, confirming that previous connectivity concerns were warranted. We conducted a detailed appraisal of the genetic diversity, relatedness, and population structure of southern California puma populations. Using 97 samples collected over 12 years as part of the UCD study, and a 46 -locus microsatellite panel, we evaluated levels of genetic diversity, estimated effective population sizes and tested whether genetic data supported a hypothesis of recent bottleneck in the populations. We assessed whether genetics reflected our telemetry observations of infrequent puma crossings of 1-15 between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Peninsular Ranges to the east. Additionally we explored inter -population gene flow at multiple time scales by employing methods that reflect recent (a few generations) and more historical (tens or more generations). Finally, we tested our hypothesis that the Santa Ana population had lower genetic diversity than those sampled from other regions in California. Materials and Methods Samples We obtained blood or tissue samples for analysis of nuclear DNA from pumas captured. for telemetry studies, and from those found dead or killed by state authorities for livestock depredation or public safety in San Diego, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties of southern California (n = 97) during 2001- 2012 (Figure 2). Pumas captured far telemetry were captured and sampled as detailed in [10]. Forty-two samples were collected to the west of I-15 in the Santa Ana Mountains, and 55 samples were collected in the Peninsular Ranges to the east of I-15. A small number of additional samples were collected from deceased animals in San Bernardino County just to the north of the Peninsular Range across Interstate Highway 10. Far population genetic comparisons with pumas sampled elsewhere throughout California, a 257 sample subset of our statewide puma DNA data archive was employed (regions and sample sizes detailed in Table 1 and depicted in Figure 1 in [9]) Ethics Statement Animal handling was carried out in strict accordance with the recommendations and approved Protocol 10950/PHS, Animal PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 2 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 issue 10 1 e107985 6aoauosold'movtm 1 3NO SOld October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 1❑ 1 e107985 Table 1. Genetic diversity summary statistics for southern California pumas (n=97) relative to other populations in California (n=257). Sampling Region Abbrev, N Na AR Ho He 1 %P North Coast NC Mean 29 3.6 2,0 0.41 0.44 0.80 98% SE 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.03 0.05 Modoc Plateau & Eastern MP -ESN Mean 51 4.2 2.4 0.52 0.54 0.98 100% Sierra Nevada SE 0.3 0.1 0.03 0.03 0.05 Western Sierra Nevada WSN Mean 47 4.2 2.4 0A7 0.51 0.95 SE 0.2 0.2 0.03 0.03 0.06 Central Coast: north CC -N Mean 83 3.2 1.9 0.41 0.41 0.70 SE 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.03 0.06 Central Coast: central CC -C Mean 21 3.4 2.1 0.43 0.46 0.81 SE 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.03 0.05 Santa Monica Mountains CC -S Mean 2.2 1.7 0.38 0.33 0.53 Central Coast: South SE 26 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.03 0.05 Peninsular Range -East PR -E Mean 55 3.1 2.0 0.43 0.41 0.74 SE 0.2 0.2 0.04 0.04 0.07 Santa Ana Mountains SAM Mean 42 2.3 1.6 0.33 0.32 0.54 SE 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.03 0.05 98% 98% 96% 76% 87% 80% Abbrev.=region abbreviations used in 7abies and Figures. Mean with standard error (SE), N=sample size. Na =average number of different alleles per locus. AR=allelic richness, standardized to sample size. Ho=observed heterozygosity. He =expected heterozygosity. 1=Shannon's information index (Sherwin et al 20061. %P =percent of polymorphic loci. Regions are detailed further in text and generally follow California 8foregions designations, (http://biodiversity.ca.gov/bioregions.html), doll 0.1371/j ournal.pone.010 7985.1001 Fractured Genetics in Southern California Pumas Fractured Genetics in Southern California Pumas El Pacific Ocean N 0 10 20 1--1---1 Miles D 20 40 I � 1 Kilometers Figure 2. Map of puma capture locations in the Santa Ana Mountains and eastern Peninsular Ranges of southern California. Colors of symbols represent genetic group assignment inferred from Rayesian clustering analysis (STRUCTURE analysis, see Figure 4). Genetic group A- 1= green -1=green diamonds; A-2=red triangles (apex at top). One male puma (M86) captured in the Santa Ana Mountains had predominant genetic assignment to the A-2 (red) genetic group. Five individuals (light green squares) captured in the Santa Ana Mountains had partial assignment to the A-2 group (M91, F92, M93, M97 and F102). Molecular kinship analysis showed that M86 and a female (F89) captured in the Santa Ana Mountains were parents of pumas M91, F92, and M93 (captured in the Santa Ana Mountains). Puma M97 assigned in parentage to M86 and F61, while F102 had unknown parentage (no parentage assignments; due possibly to her death early in project prior to collection of most of the samples). Three individuals (orange triangles, apex at bottom), had partial assignment (however, less than 20%) to A-1. doi:10.1371 /journal.pone.0107985.g002 Welfare Assurance number A3433-01, with capture and sampling procedures approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of California, Davis (Protocol #17233), and Memoranda of Understanding and Scientific Collecting Permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Permits and permissions for access to conserved lands at puma capture and sampling sites were obtained from CDFW, California Department of Parks and Recreation, The Nature Conservancy, United States (US) Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, US Bureau of Land Management, US Navy/Marine Corps, Orange County Parks Department, San Diego County Parks Department, San Diego State University, Vista Irrigation District, Rancho Mission Viejo/San Juan Company, Sweetwater Author- ity, California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), and the City of San Diego Water Department. DNA Extraction and Microsatellite DNA data collection VI genouiit I)\A was extracted using slit l)\ -easy Blood & Tisssic Kit (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA, USA). l ilii 3iiirrnsaidlite DNA primers were initially screened for this project. Forty-six loci that performed well in multiplex PCR (using the QIAOEN Multiplex PCR kit; QIAGFN) and conformed to expectations for Hardy -Weinberg and linkage equilibria were selected for ultimate analysis [1 1,12,13]. One sex -identification locus (Amelogenin) was used to confirm sex in samples from degraded puma carcasses [14]. PCR products were separated with an ABI PRISM 3730 DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems Inc., Faster City, CA, USA) with each capillary containing 1 j.tL of a 1:10 dilution of PCR product and deionized water, 0.05 µL GeneScan-500 LIZ Size Standard and 9.95 µL of HiDi formamide (both products Applied Biosystems Inc.) that was denatured at 95°C for 3 min. Products PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 4 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 issue 10 1 e107985 Northern Calif, & Sierra Nevada Primarily genetic group A, yellow Central Coast Primarily genetic group B, brown Fractured Genetics in Southern California Pumas Southern California Primarily genetic group C, blue NC MP -ESN WSN CC -N CC -C CC -S E. Peninsular Santa Ana Figure 3. California puma population genetic structure. STRUCTURE bar plot displaying the genetic clustering relationship of southern California pumas relative to others in California. Three major genetic groups, A (blue, on right), B (brown, in center), and C (yellow, on left), are evident for analysis of 354 individuals sampled throughout California. Abbreviations: NC North Coast, MP -ESN =Modoc Plateau & Eastern Sierra Nevada, WSN=Western Sierra Nevada, CC-N=Central Coast: north, CC -C =Central Coast: central, CC -5 =Central Coast South (Santa Monica Mountains), PR- E=Peninsular Range -East, SAM =Santa Ana Mountains. The plot is organized by grouping individuals in order of their geographic region sampling source. Proportional genetic assignment for each puma is represented by a vertical bar, most easily visualized for pumas that genetically assigned to a group different from most others sampled in its region (for example one individual with over 8095 brown and 846 blue near far left of group A). Pumas primarily from the Sierra Nevada Range and northern California are represented by group A (yellow), group B (brown) includes primarily Central Coast pumas and group C (blue) represents primarily southern California pumas (Santa Ana Mountains and eastern Peninsular Ranges), do:10.1371 ijournal.pone.0107985.9003 were visualized with STRand version 2.3.69 [15]. Negative controls (all reagents except DNA) and positive controls (well- characterized puma DNA) were included with each PCR run. Samples were run in PCR at each locus at least twice to assure accuracy of genotype reads and minimize risk of non -amplifying alleles. For >90% samples, loci that were heterozygous were run at least twice and homozygous loci were run at least three times. Genetic diversity Thu number of alleles (Na), allelic richness (AR; incorporates correction for sample size), observed heterozygosity (Ho), expected heterozygosity (He), Shannon's information index [16], and tests for deviations from Hardy-Weiriherg equilibrium were calculated using software GenAIFx version 6.5 [17,18]. Shannon's informa- tion index provides an alternative method of quantifying genetic diversity and incorporates allele numbers and frequencies. Testing for deviations from expectations of linkage equilibrium was conducted using Genepop 4.2.1 [19], and we tested for the presence of null alleles using the program ML RELATE [20]. We assessed significance for calculations at alpha = 0.05 and used 1.00 0.00 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Eastern Peninsular Ranges sequential Bonfcrroni corrections for multiple tests [21] in tests for Hardy -Weinberg and linkage equilibria. The average probability of identity (PID) was calculated two ways using GenAlEx: 1) assuming random mating (PIDR31) without close relatives in a population [22], and 2) assuming that siblings with similar genotypes occur in a population (PIDsiijs) [23]. Probability of identity is the likelihood that two individuals will have the same genetic profile (genotype) for the DNA markers used. PIDsms is considered conservative since it probably conveys a higher likelihood; however, we recognized that siblings occurred m these populations. Assessing population structure and genetic isolation We used a Bayesian genetic clustering algorithm (STRUC- TURE version 2.3.4 [24,25]) to determine the likely numher of population groups (K; genetic clusters) and to probabilistically group individuals without using the known geographic location of sample collection. We used the population admixture model with a flat prior and assumed that allele frequencies were correlated among populations, and ran 50,000 Markov chain Monte Carlo repetitions following a burnin period of 10,000 repetitions. First, M91, F92, M93: Offspring of Puma M86 V►F�h 1 Santa Ana Mountains Purnas F102 M97 Figure 4. Southern California puma population genetic structure. Bar Plot displaying results of STRUCTURE analysis focused on genotypic data from 97 southern California pumas (the blue block from Figure 3). With removal of the strong genetic signal from northern California and Central Coast samples (see Figure 3), two distinct southern California groupings were inferred, C-1 (green, on right) and C-2 (red, on left). These reflect the two regions: Santa Ana Mountains to the west of 1-15 (predominantly genetic group C-1) and eastern Peninsular Ranges to the east of 1-15 (predominantly genetic group C-2). Genetic clustering is dependent on genetic variance among samples included in the analysis. One male puma (M86) captured in the Santa Ana Mountains has predominant genetic assignment to the C-2 (red) genetic group (the predominant genetic cluster for PR -E), and five others had partial assignment to the C-2 group (M91, F92, M93, M97 and F102). Molecular kinship analysis showed that M86 and a female (F89) assigning to the C-1 genetic group were parents of pumas M91, F92, and M93 (all were captured in the Santa Ana Mountains). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107985.g004 PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 5 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 issue 10 1 e107985 ■ }■ ■ ■ • • • r ■ • f ■ * r • ■ • i a• •■• • ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ . • ■ • ■ • ■f ■ ■ Fractured Genetics in Southern California Pumas Santa Ana Mountains M86 M93 ■ rr t i 4 ■ ' * •l • Coord. 1 • A • Peninsular Ranges — east of 1-15 legend • North Coast ▪ Modoc Plateau -Sierra Nevada -east ■ . Sierra Nevada -west • Central Coast ■ Peninsular Range -east • Santa Ana Mountains . San Bernardino County Figure 5. Principal Coordinates analyses (PCoA) constructed using genetic covariance matrices (GenAlEx) for 354 California puma genetic profiles including 97 from southern California. Patterns displayed for first two axes of variation within the genetic data set. Each point, color -coded to its sampling region, represents an individual puma. Note that colors in PCoA diagrams reflect geographic source of samples and not STRUCTURE genetic cluster assignment. Abbreviations and sample sizes per Table 1. Arrows denote pumas described in Figure 4. doi:10.1371 /journal.pone.0107985.g005 an analysis including 354 statewide puma genotypes (97 from southern California and 257 from other regions) was run to estimate the probability of one through 10 genetic clusters (K), with each run iterated three times. Second, given the output of the • 87 ■ 45 ■ 57 F95 and M96 kinked tails, very low diversity • 203 • 54 ■ 51 811 rr 26 ■ 812 ■ 72 ■ 201 ▪ 63 ■44 ■ 65.64 ■62 28.56 ■ 103 1 52 SS■ 82 • 27 ■100 ■ 101 • 65 • 202 ■ 89 79 M91 (deceased during dispersal), F92, M03 61 offspring of M86 x F89 • 90 ■ 58 • 50 statewide run, we ran an analysis using only the 97 southern California puma genotypes to estimate the probability of rile through Eve K. +vide each run iterated three times. Employing STRUCTURE HARVESTER [26] we averaged log probability F102 — deceased kitten in 2003 — undetermined parentage ■ 69 • 7 • 53 * 34 • 1. 70 • 5 * 16 • 43 • 42 • 33 + 35 • 71 • 41 98 * 47 * 3 • 88 4. 39 29 • 84 + 21 831 4er• 15 • 19 .14* 68+• • 49 +99 13 *8 2 • 38 17 • •7833 • • 1, * 59 • 46 • • 94 • 48 • 36 • 20 • 4 • 10 +3 Coord. 1 80 • • 32 •75 •86 • 37 M97 (deceased during dispersal) - offspring of M86 x F61 • PR -E ✓ SAM Figure 6. Principal Coordinates analyses (PCoA) via covariance matrices for 97 southern California puma genetic profiles as conducted in GenAlEx. Patterns displayed for first two axes of variation within the genetic data set. Each point represents an individual puma, and has sample identification number and color -coding to sampling region. Note that colors in PCoA diagrams reflect geographic source of samples and not STRUCTURE genetic cluster assignment. Abbreviations and sample sizes per Table 1. doi:10.13 71 Ijou rn a I. p on e:0107985.g006 PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 6 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 issue 10 1 e107985 lion populations are genetically distinct from other populations in Califor Table 2. Wright's FST values indicate that southern California mounta 2 N w t5 O. 2 z 0 0 0 � fnV o a 0 c $ CD a o 0 N V N c 0 0 C C G N O N cn O O 0 G 0 G 0 0 q V ,n CO ,L] 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 Cr‘ o r1 o' m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Coast (NC) Western Sierra Nevada (WSN) Central Coast: north (CC -NJ Central Coast: central ICC -C) Santa Monica Mountains (CC -5) Peninsular Range -East (PR -E) Santa Ana Mountains (SAM) Fractured Genetics in Southern California Pumas 0 of the data given K, lag Ps (X I K), statistics across the multiple runs for each of the K estimates. In each case (statewide and southern ° California), we selected the K value of highest probability by identifying the set of values where the log Pr(X K) value was A maximized and subsequently selected the minimum value for K that did not sacrifice explanatory ability [27,28,29]. We defined membership to a duster based upon the highest proportion of ancestry to each inferred cluster. To further assess and visualize genetic relationships among regions and individuals, we performed principal coordinates analyses (PCoA) via covariance matrices with data standardization [30] using CenAlEx. This is a technique that allowed us to explore and plot the major patterns within the data sets. The PCoA process located major axes of variation within our multidimen- 1 sional genotype data set. Because each successive axis explains proportionately less of the total genetic variation, the first two axcs o were used to reveal the major separation among individuals. Employing Cenalex software, a pairwise, individual -by -individual `,"`, genetic distance matrix was generated and then used to create the PCoA. Wright's F -statistic, Fes, was calculated to appraise how genetic cn diversity was partitioned between populations. As implemented in GenAlEx, we used Nei's [31] formula, with statistical testing options offered through 9999 random permutations and boot- straps. ° Detecting migrants a 11e used GENECLASS2 version 2.0.h [32] to identify first- °� generation migrants, i.e. individuals born in a population other than the one in which they were sampled. Genetic clusters identified during S'I'1ZI7C:'I'URE analysis were treated as putative populations. GENE(:LASS2 provides different likelihood -based test statistics to identify migrant individuals, the efficacy of which w depends on whether all potential source populations have been -KIc sampled. We first calculated the likelihood of finding a given individual in the population in which it was sampled, L,„ assuming o —', all populations had not been sampled. We then calculated Li,/ L,,,,,.„ the ratio of Li, to the greatest likelihood among the r populations [33], which has greater power when all potential ro"13 source populations have been sampled. The critical value of the ° test statistic (L,, or L,rr1L,,,,,,) was determined using the Bayesian approach of Rannala and Mountain [34] in combination with the resampling method of Paetkau et al. [33]; i.e., ?sIonte Carlo C C simulations carried out on 10,000 individuals with the significance w level set to 0.01. c -0 Testing for bottlenecks and inferring effective population size � R aL We tested for evidence of recent population size reductions in Santa Ana Mountains and eastern Peninsular Range regions with ii one -tailed Wilcoxon sign -rank tests for heterozygote excess in the o o program BOTTLENECK version 1.2.02 [35]. The program e, ry evaluates whether the reduction of allele numbers occurred at a rate faster than reduction of heterozygosity, a characteristic of Tv 3 populations which have experienced a recent reduction of their effective population size (Ne) [35,36]. This bottleneck genetic c signature is detectable by this test for a finite time, estimated to be En ° less than 4 times Ne generations [37]. These tests were performed o c using the two-phase (TPM, 70% step -wise mutation model and c 3 0 30% IAM) model of microsatellite evolution and 10,000 iterations. E We then estimated contemporary Ne for each of the two regions based on gametic disequilibrium with sampling bias correction 11.1 [38] using LD\I: version 1.31 [39]. Ne is formally defined as the size of the ideal population that would experience the same PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 7 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 issue 10 1 e107985 Fractured Genetics in Southern California Pumas Table 3. Effective population size estimations and indications of recent genetic bottlenecks in southern California pumas. Mode TPM Ne (P -CI: JK -CI) Santa Ana Mtns Peninsular Range, East Shifted mode 0.009 5.1 (3.3-6.7; 3.3-6.6) Normal L 0.19 24.3 (21.7-27.3: 20.6-28.8) Listed by column are p -values for population bottleneck tests (Wilcoxon sign -rank test; BOTTLENECK) assuming the two-phase (TPM) model of microsatellite evolution. Effective size (Ne) estimations (95% CI} based on data from 42 microsatellite loci. The Santa Ana Mountains population exhibited dear evidence of a population bottleneck. Effective population size estimate using the point estimate linkage disequilibrium method of (LONE, Waples 2006) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for both parametric (P) and jackknifed (JK) estimates. 0.1371/jou rna ipone.01079851003 amount of genetic drift as the observed population [40]. These analyses excluded alleles occurring at frequencies 50.05, and we used the jackknife method to determine 95% confidence intervals [38] . Relatedness analyses: pairwise coefficient and internal Molecular kinship analysis was conducted using a number of software packages. Palmist relatedness among individuals was evaluated using the algorithm of Lynch and Ritland [41], with reference allele frequencies calculated and relatedness values averaged within each southern California population, as imple- mented in GenAlEx. Partial molecular kinship reconstruction was conducted using a consensus of outputs from the GenAlEx pairwise relatedness calculator, ML Relate [20], CERVUS version 3.0.3 [42], and Colony version 2.0.3.1 [43,44]. individual genetic diversity (also called internal relatedness) was assessed using Rhh [45] as implemented in R statistical software [46]. This is a measure of genetic diversity within each individual (an estimate of parental relatedness [47], and we averaged aver individuals for each of the two regions of southern California. Significance of differences between means was evaluated using t tests. Results Forty-two of the 46 loci that we employed were polymorphic in southern California and selected for the subsequent analyses. The average probabilities of identity with assumptions of either random mating (PIDRvt) or mating among sibs (PIDsms) across the 42 loci for the eastern Peninsular Ranges were (PIDp i) 6.3 x10-22 and (PIDsn) 3.1 x10—m, and for the Santa Ana Mountains were (PIDRm) 2.8 x10-1' and (PIDsms) 1.1 x10-7 respectively. These very small ‘alter,. indicate that the panel of genetic markers provided very high resolution to distinguish individuals. For 0.250 0.200 • 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 -0.050 example, given this data the probability of seeing the same multi- locus genotype in more than one puma was less than one in nine million for Santa Ana Mountains pumas. Genetic diversity \I�•asures of genetic variation including allelic diversity, heterozygosity, Shannon's information index, and polymorphism, were lower for Santa Ana pumas than most of those tested from other regions of California (Table 1). Such law genetic diversity indicators were approached only by pumas in the. Santa Monica Mountains (Ventura and Los Angeles Counties), a neighboring remnant puma population in the north Los Angeles basun (Figure 1). Population Structure Bayesian clustering analysis (STRUCTURE; Figure 3 of statewide puma genetic profiles (n = 354), including 97 from southern California, also support genetic distinctiveness of Santa Ana Mountains and eastern Peninsular Range pumas from other populations in the state. Three main genetic groups (A, B, and C) were evident in the analysis (Figure 3) The 97 pumas sampled in southern California (right-hand set of Kars in Figure 3, with samples from Santa Ana and eastern Peninsular Range pumas labeled) predominantly cluster within genetic group C. The Santa Ana pumas assign very tightly to group C (0.996 average probability assignment), while pumas of the eastern Peninsular Ranges showed more variable assignment (0.93 average probabil- ity assignment), with 9 individuals (16%) having less than 0.90 assignment. Pumas sampled in the Central Coast of California (which included Santa Monica Mountains pumas) make up the central set of bands, and those individuals predominantly assign to the genetic group B. Pumas sampled in the other regions of California (North C.:4)ast Ranges. Modoc Plateau, western Sierra Mean Within Population Pairwise Values s: North Coast Modoc Plateau W. Sierra Central E. Sierra Nevada Nevada Coast E. Peninsular Santa Ana Ranges Mountains — Mean - U - L Figure 7. Average pairwise relatedness (r; blue bars with confidence intervals) for pumas sampled in southern California relative to other regions in California. Algorithm of Lynch and Ritland (19991 as implemented in GenAlEx. Expected range for "unrelated" is shown as red bars with confidence intervals. The average relatedness of Santa Ana Mountain pumas is higher than those sampled in Peninsular Ranges east of I-15 and for any other region tested in California. Relatedness in the Santa Ana Mountains pumas approaches second order family relationship (half sibs, niece -aunt, grandparent -grandchild, etc,), Abbreviations listed in Table 1. don:10.1371 /journal.pone.0107985.g007 PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 8 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 10 1 e107985 North Coast Modoc Plateau W. Sierra Central E. Sierra Nevada Nevada Coast E. Peninsular Santa Ana Ranges Mountains — Mean - U - L Figure 7. Average pairwise relatedness (r; blue bars with confidence intervals) for pumas sampled in southern California relative to other regions in California. Algorithm of Lynch and Ritland (19991 as implemented in GenAlEx. Expected range for "unrelated" is shown as red bars with confidence intervals. The average relatedness of Santa Ana Mountain pumas is higher than those sampled in Peninsular Ranges east of I-15 and for any other region tested in California. Relatedness in the Santa Ana Mountains pumas approaches second order family relationship (half sibs, niece -aunt, grandparent -grandchild, etc,), Abbreviations listed in Table 1. don:10.1371 /journal.pone.0107985.g007 PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 8 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 10 1 e107985 Fractured Genetics in Southern California Pumas Figure 8. Photographs of kinked tails of pumas F95 (a) and M96 (61. Arrows indicate kink sites. Puma F95 had tail kink at base of tail and Puma M96 had tail kink near distal tip of tail. These two pumas had among the lowest genetic diversity measured in this study, doi:10.1371 ijournal.pone.0107985.9008 Nevada, and eastern Sierra Nevada) predominantly cluster with the genetic group A. Notably, there are individuals sampled in each geographic area which cluster with a genetic group that is not the dominant one in that area, suggesting dispersal events and/or genetic exchange that have occurred to varying degrees in each region. A STRUCTURE analysis focused only on genetic data from the 97 southern California pumas indicated two distinct genetic groups (C-1 and C-2 shown in Figure 4). Pumas sampled in the eastern Peninsular Range region east of 1-15 group primarily with C-2 and those of the Santa Ana Mountain region on the west side of I-15 group with C-1. An exception to the consistent genetic clustering was an adult male (M) puma (14186), that was captured in the Santa Ana Mountains but clustered with pumas from the eastern Peninsular Ranges (primarily genetic group C-2). Five other pumas capnired in the Santa Ana Mountains had a 30-50% assignment to the C-2 group (14191, F92, M93, M97 and. F102). N10leculai- kinship analysis showed that M86 and a female (F89) captured in the Santa Ana Mountains and assigned to the C-1 genetic group were the likely parents of three of these pumas (s191, l'92, and M93) (results of relatedness and kinship analyses). M86 also was the likely parent of another puma in the group (M97), an offspring of another female (F61) that was sampled in Santa Ana Mountains and clustered with the C-1 genetic group. F102 was a <1 year old female killed by a vehicle in 2003 prior to collection of the majority of samples from adults in the Sancta Ana Mountains. Principal coordinates analysis of statcwidc puma genetic profiles (n=354) (PCoA; Figure 5) allowed graphical examination of the first two major axes of multivariate genetic variation, and confirmed and added detail to the genetic distinctiveness of southern California pumas relative to others in California. The PCoA also reinforced the distinctiveness of pumas sampled in the Santa Ana sfountains from those sampled in the eastern Peninsular Ranges. Most pumas sampled in the Santa Ana Mountains align in a cloud of data points distinct from the eastern PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 9 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 issue 10 1 e107985 Peninsular Range pumas, and were the most genetically distant from all other pumas tested in California (Figure 5). The analysis also confirms the STRU(.:1'l'KE findings that M86 who was sampled in the Santa Ana Mountains genetically aligns with the pumas sampled in the Peninsular Ranges, as does one of his offspring, M93 (sec Figure 6 for additional detail). The PCoA position of data points for three pumas sampled in the San Bernardino Mountains north of Peninsular Ranges (pink dia- monds in Figure 5) illustrates an intermediate genetic relationship between pumas from the rest of California and pumas sampled in the eastern Peninsular Ranges and Santa Ana Mountains, and suggests that they may represent transitional gene flow signature between southern California and regions to the north and east. PCoA analysis of only the samples collected in the Santa Ana and Peninsular Ranges (Figure 6) confirms the findings from the S-FR17( alialysis indicating genetic distinctiveness of these two populations despite geographic. proximity. Siblings M91, F92, and M93 (offspring of F89 and M86 according to our kinship reconstructions) as well as M97 (likely offspring of a female puma captured in the Santa Ana Mountains, F61, and M86, according to kinship reconstructions) are located graphically midway between their parents' PCoA locations. Genetic isolation Wright's FST calculations (Table 2) indicate that Santa Ana Mountains pumas are the most isolated of those tested throughout California (p=0.0001). Despite the short distance (as short as the distance across the I-15 Freeway) between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Range region, FST was surprisingly high (0.07) given the very close proximity of the two regions (separated only by an interstate highway). The Santa Monica Mounrains pumas and Santa Ana Mountains pumas had the highest FST (0.27; lowest gene flow) of all pairwise comparisons in the state, demonstrating a high level of genetic isolation between these regions.The Santa Monica Mountains and Santa Ana Mountains are less than 100 km direct distance apart, through the center of Los Angeles. However the more likely distance for puma travel between these two mountain ranges, avoiding urban areas and maximizing upland habitat, would likely exceed 300 ken (estimated using coarse measurements on Google Earth, Google, Inc.). Detection of migrants (;ENI?C;I,ASS2 identified four individuals as first -generation migrants (P<0.01), four with the LI, method (pumas F75, M80, M86, and M99), and one with the Lh/L,,,,,, ratio (III86, which was detected using both likelihood methods). Pumas F75, MHO, and M99 were all captured from the San Bernardino Mountains (Figure 2) at the northern extent of the study region, yet clustered with individuals from the Eastern Peninsular Range during STRUCTURE analysis. Their migrant designation may suggest immigration from populations north of Los Angeles and/or a distinct genetic population within the San Bernardino region. Puma M86 was captured in the Santa Ana Mountains, but assigned strongly to the eastern Peninsular Range genetic cluster, indicating a seemingly clear population of origin. This individual assignment is in accord with the clustering results from STRUC- TURE (Figure 4). Evidence of genetic bottlenecks The Santa Ana Mountains population exhibited clear evidence of a population bottleneck (Table 3; Wilcoxon sign -rank test for heterozygote excess, and detection ofa shift in the allele frequency distribution mode [36]; BOTTLENECK software). The eastern Fractured Genetics in Southern California Pumas Peninsular Range mountain lions did not show a strong signature of a bottleneck. Effective population size Effective population size (Ne) estimation: using the linkage disequilibrium method (I,DNe program) were 5.1 for the Santa Ana Mountains population and 24.3 for mountain lions in the eastern Peninsular Ranges. Statistical confidence intervals for both regions, given the genetic data, were tight (Table 3). Relatedness: pairwise coefficient and internal Thc average pairwise coefficient of rei.itrdnrss (r, Figure 7) was highest in Santa Ana Mountains primas relative to all others tested in California (0.22; 95% confidence interval of 0.22-0.23), a level that approaches second order kinship relatedness (half -sibs, grantparent/grandchild, aunt -niece, etc). The value for the eastern Peninsular Ranges was 0.10 (confidence interval of 0.09--0.10), less than that of third order relatives (first cousins, great-grandparent/ great grandchild). Other regions of California averaged similar or lower values to those of eastern Peninsular Ranges (Figure 7). Among pumas sampled in the Santa Ana Mountains, the population average (0.14) for internal relatedness as implemented in rHH software was significantly higher (t test; p = 5.8 x10-6) than for those sampled in the eastern Peninsular Ranges (0.001). Of a group of six pumas which clustered near one another in PCoA (Figure 6), five have among the lowest individual genetic diversity measured in southern California (Puma ID [Internal Relatedness value: F45 [0.37], F51 [0.37], M87 [0.28], F90 [0.21], F95 [0.38], and M96 [0.33]). Notably, pumas. F95 and M96 (highest internal relatedness) were observed with kinked tails at capture in the Santa Ana Mountains (Figure 8). Discussion Pumas of the Santa Ana Mountains are genetically depauper- ate, isolated, and display signs of a recent and significant bottleneck. In general, coastal California puma populations have less genetic diversity and less gene flow from other populations than those farther inland [9] (Table 1). This study showed that two coastal populations (Santa Ana Mountains and Santa Monica Mountains) had particularly low genetic variation and gcrie flow from other regions. Lack of gene flow is likely due in part to natural barriers to puma movement: geography and habitat (Pacific Ocean to the west; less hospitable desert habitat hounding certain regions, etc.). However, our data su_ est that anthropo- genic developments on the landscape are playing a large role in genetic decay in the Santa Ana Mountains puma population. As large solitary carnivores with sizable habitat requirements, pumas are extremely sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation [48,49]. The genetic bottleneck in the Santa Ana Mountains purnas is estimated at less than about 80 years, depending on definitions of effective population size (Ne) and puma generation time. Luikhart and Cornuet [37] state that the bottleneck signatures decay after "4 times Ne [here estimated to be 5.1] generations". Logan and Sweanor [50] estimated generation time for their New Mexico population of pumas to be 29 months (2.4 years) for females. If an allowance of 2.4-4.0 years is made for generation tines (unknown) in the Santa Ana Mountains population, the maximum estimated time since a bottleneck would he. about 40-80 nears. This was a period of tremendous urban development and multi -lane Ilighway construction in southern California, particularly I-15 [51]. It is likely that the potential for connectivity betty rein the Santa Ana Mountains and the Peninsular Range -East region will continue to be eroded by ongoing increases in traffic volumes on 1-15, and PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 10 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 issue 10 1 e107985 conversion of unconserved lands along the I-15 corridor by development and agriculture [8,48,52]. An isolated population of pumas in the Santa Monica. Mountains to the north of the Santa Ana Mountains also exhibit low values relative to other western North American populations (see Table 2 in [53]. Santa Monica pumas are isolated by urbanization of a megacity and busy wide freeways (Ventura county, including greater Los Angeles region [53]. Multiple instances of intraspecific predation, multiple consanguineous matings (father to daughter, etc.), and lack of successful dispersal highlight a suite of anthropogenic processes also occurring in the Santa Ana Mountains. Our collective findings of kinked tails and very low genetic diversity in Santa Ana pumas F95 and M96 may portend manifestations of genetic inbreeding depression similar to those seen in Florida panthers [54,55]; however recognizing that kinked tails can have non -genetic etiologies. Our analyses suggest that the Santa Ana Mountains puma population is highly challenged in terms of genetic connectivity and genetic diversity, a result hinted at in Ernest et al. [9] and now confirmed to be an ongoing negative process for this population. This compounds the demographic challenges of low survival rates and scant evidence of physical connectivity to the Peninsular Ranges east of 1-15 (unpublished data). Beier [6] documented these same challenges during the 1990'; and data from the ongoing UCD study suggest the trends have accelerated. Substantial habitat loss and fragmentation has occurred and is continuing to occur; Burdett et al. [10] estimated that by 2030, approximately 17% of puma habitat that was still available in 1970 in southern California will have been lost to development, and fragmentation will have rendered the remainder more hazardous for pumas to utilize. Riley et al [53] document a natural "genetic rescue" event: the 2009 immigration and subsequent breeding success of a single male to the Santa Monica Mountains. This introduction of new genetic material into the population was paramount to raising the critically low level of genetic diversity, as also exemplified by the human -mediated genetic augmentation of Florida Panthers with Texas puma stock [56]. References ]lansfield '1'M, 'Tories SG (19941 'funds in mountain lion depredation and public satiety threats in California. Paper 33. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Vertebrate. Pest Conference, Santa Clara, CA. Editors: 11'S Halverson and AC C:n)rh. Univeniry of California, Davis. 2. Riley- SPD, Pollinger JP, Sauvajot R51, York EC, Bromley C, et at (2006) FAS -I. -TRACK: A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. .101 Ecol 15: 1733-1741. 3. Riley SPD, Bromley C, Poppenga Rli, L'zal FA, White 1, er al. (2007) Anticoagulant exposure and isoroeclrie mange in Bobcats and Mountain Lions in urban Southern California. J Wild! Manage 71: 1874-1884. 4. U.S. Census Bureau (2012) 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, CPH-1-6, California, U.S. (.mern- mcnt Printing Office, Washington, DC. 5. California Department of Finance (2013) New Population Projections: California to surpass 50 million in 2049. Phys release. Available: hap://www. dotra. goo / re snare h /demographic / rep orts / prof ecrions/ p-1 /doeumen as/ Prnjections_Press_Rrlease_2010-2060.pdf Arnekled 2 December 2013. 6. Brier P (1995) Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. J Wild] Manage 59: 228-237, 7. Luke C, Penrod K, Caballero CR, Beier P, Spencer W, et al. (2004) A Linkage Design lir the Santa Ana -Palomar Mountains Connection. Unpublished report. San Diego State University, Field Station Programs and South Coast 11'ildlaixdc. Available au heap://www.srwildlands.org/re1torrs/SCMML_Sanraisna_Pahnmar. 1xlf. 8. Morrison SA, Boyce WM (2009) Conserving connectivity: Some lessons from mountain lions in southern Califirrnia. Conserv Biol 23: 27:-285. 9. Ernes- HB, Boyer WM, Bleieh VC, May B, Sliver SJ, er al. (2003) Genetic structure of mountain lion (Puma roncnior) populations in California. Consery Genet 4: 353-366. Fractured Genetics in Southern California Pumas These findings raise concerns about the current status of the Santa Ana Mountains puma population, and the Ionger-term outlook for pumas across southern California. In particular, they highlight the urgency to maintain - and enhance - what connectivity remains for pumas (and presumably numerous other species) across 1-15. Despite warnings [6,9] about potential serious impacts to the Santa Ana Mountains puma population if concerted conservation action was not taken, hahitat connectivity to the Peninsular Ranges has continued to erode. We are hopeful that these new genetic results will motivate greater focus on connectivity conservation in this region. Indeed, the Santa Ana Mountains pumas inay well serve as harbingers of potential consequences throughout California and the western United States if more attention is not paid to maintaining connectivity for wildlife as development progresses. Acknowledgments Sansples. data, tuid expertise were provided by multiple people and agencies. i i eluding California Department of Fish and Wildlife (R. Botta. B Gonzales. M. Kenyon, P. Swift, S. Torres, D. Updike., and others), California State Parks. National Park Service, The Nature Conservancy, UC Davis V',ilcllifr• Health Center, UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory, and the US Geological Survey. 1, tliank the following for their technical assistance.: L. Dalbeck, T. Drazcnovich, T. Gilliland, J. George, and M. Plancarte. GIS data managcrnent and pmjeet cartography was provided by B. Cohen and J. Sanchez. Field work assistance was provided by J. Bauer, C. Bell, P. Bryant, D. Dawn, M. Ehlbmch, D. Krucki, K, Logan. B. Martin. B. 1lillsap, M. Puzzo, D. Sforza, L, Swcanor, C. Wiley, E. York, and numerous volunteers. Thanks to E. Boydscn, K. Crooks, R. Fisher,. and L. Lyre.n for assista tire coordinating field projects and sample acquisition. We thank anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: HBE T'VV WMB. Performed the experiments: HBE TWV IMRB W'IB. Analyzed the data: HBE TW's' .IRB. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: HBE TWV SAM MIB. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: HBE TWV SAKI. MRB W1MB. 10. Burdett CL, Crooks KR,'Fhenbald DM, Wilson KR, Boydsmn LE, et al. (2010) Interfacing models of cvildlilc habitat and human development to predict the liituce distribution of puma habitat. Errrsph/ire 11. Ernest 1-11, Penedo Mut', May BP, Sy's'anen M, Boyce W.N1 (21)00) MMolecular tracking n1 mountain lions in the Yosemite Vallee region in California: genetic analysis using mierosatellires and faecal DNA. llol Ecol 9: 433-441. 12. Kurushima JD, Collins JA, Well JA, Emrsi HB (2006) Development of 2l miernsatellire loci for puma (Puma mmrolor) ecology and forensics. Mol Erni Notes 6: 1260-1262. 13. Menotti-Raymond NI, David VA, Lyons LA, Schaller AA, 'Tomlin Jl, et al. (1999) A generic linkage neap of 1Microssatdliies of the domestic rat (Fells carets). Genomics 57: 9-23. 14. Pilgrim KL, Mckclvey K5, Riddle AE. Schwarz elk (2005) l'elid sex identification based on noninvasive genetic samples, Mol Ecol Notes 5: 66-61. 15. 'Fonnen KJ, Hughes S (2001) Increased throughput for fragment analysis on an AB. Prism 377 automated sequencer using a membrane comb and STRAND software. BiciFcrhniqucs 3l: 1320-1324. 16. Sherwin WB, Jabot F, Rush R, Rossettn M (2006) Measurement of biological information with applications from genes to landscapes. Mot Erni 15: 2857- 2869. 17. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GenALEx 6: generic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for tearhirig and research. 510! Erni Notes 6,288-295. 18. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2012) GcnAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software lar teaching and research - an update. Bioinfornsatics 28: 2537-2539. 19. Rosset F (2008) genrpnp'007: a complete re -implementation of the genrpop software. for Windows and Linux. Moi Ern! Resour 8: 1755-0998. 20. Kafuxmsski S'1', Wagner AP, '.'aper ML (2006) MI -REL l E. a ensurer program for maximum likelihood estimation of relatedness and relationship. Mnl Ecol 6: 576-579. 21. Rice WR 1989. Analysing tables of statistical rests. Evolution 43: 223-5. PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 11 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 issue 10 1 e107985 22. •1•aberlet P and Lnikart G (1999), Non-invasive genetic sampling and individual idrntiriration. Biol j Linn Soc. 68: 41-55. 23. Waits LP, Luikan 0, •1'aberlet P (2001) Eatimatiug the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: cautions and guidelines. Mol Ecol 10: 249-56. 24. Prichard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000). inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. 03 155: 94.5-959. 25. Huhisz MJ, F flush 1), Stephens M, Pritchard) (2009) inferring weak population structure with the assistance of sample group information. M01 Erni Resour 9: 1322-1332. 26. Earl 1SA, vonHoldt BM (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program[ for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing bre Evanno method. Conserv- Genet Resour 4: 359-361, 27. Pritchard JK, (fete W 10021 Documentation liar structure version 2.3.4. Aa viewcdJunc 1 2013: hep://prirch.hsd.uchicagn,rdu, 28. Evanno 0, Regnaut S, Gonrlet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14: 2611-2620. 29. Waplcs RS, Gaggioui 0 (2006) What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic mrrhnrla toe identifying the number of gene pools and their degree oi•ronneecivirv- 1101 Feel ]3, ] H9-1439. 30. Orloti L11978: Mltdtiv ariatc analysis in vegetation research. 2nd ed. Dr W. Juni:. "lltc Hague. -131 p, 31. Nei M (1977; 1' -statistics and analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Ann Hum Genet 11: 225-233. 32. Pio-y 5, Alaprriw A. Cornuct jM, Partkau 1), Baudouin L(2004) CENECLASS2: A software for genetic assignment and firs--gcncrarion migrant detection. J Head 95: 536-539, 33. Paetkau D. Slade. R, Burdens M, Estnup A (2004) Oenctic assignment methods for the direct. real-time estimation of migration rate: a simulation -based exploration of accuracy and power. Mol Heed 13: 55-65. 34. Rannala B, Mountain jL (1997) Detecting immigration by using multilocus genotypes. Pros Nati Arad Sri USA 94: 9197-9201. 35- Cornuet J5I, Luikart 0 (1997) Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population hnttleneck% iron allele frequency data. 03 144: 2001-2014. 36. Luikart G, Allcndnnf FW, Cornua JM, Sherwin WB (1998) Distortion of allele frequency' distributions provides a test liar recent population bottlenecks. J Hcred 89: 238-247. 37, Luikart 0, Cnrnuct JrM (1998) Empirical evaluation of a test tar identifying recently bottlenecked populations from allele frequency darn. Conserv Biol 12: 228-237. 38. Waplcs RS (20106) A bias correction for estimates of effective population size based on linkage disequilibrium at unlinked gene loci, Consery Genet 7: 167- 184, Fractured Genetics in Southern California Pumas 39. Waplcs RS, 17o C (2008) LDNE: a program for estimating cllcrtivr population size from data on linkage disequilibrium. Sinf Ecol Rcsour 8: 753-756. 40. Wright S (1969) Evolution and the Genetics of Population. Vol 2. 'lhr 'Theory of Gene Frequencies. University of Chicago Press, 41. Lynch M, Ritland K (1999) Estimation of pa'utvisc relatedness with molecular mariners. 03 152: 1753-1766. 42. Kalinmcs1:i 5.1', "raper ML, Marshall '1'C: (2007) Revising how rhe computer program CERVUS accommodates gcnotyping error increases success in paternity assignment ;Viol Erni l6: 1099-1006. 43. Jones OR, Wang j (2010) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilncus genotype data. Mel Erol Raoul: 10: 551-555. 44. Wang J (2012) Computationally efficient sibship and parentage assignment from multilocus marker data. 03 191: 183-194. 45. Alho JS, Vaiitnrtiki K, Lfcrilri J (2010) Rhh: an R extension for estimating Multilocus hetrtmygosity and hctrrozygosity-hrterozygosiry eon -elation. idol Ecnf Resour 10: 720-72- 46. R Development Corr 'team (2011) R A language and rnvi ntuncnt .for statistical computing. R Foundation liar Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 47. Amus i4', (Worthington Wilmerj, 1•'ullarel K, Burg '1 M, Croxall JP (20011'11x influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success, Proc R Sir Lond B - Binl Sri 2661: 2021-2027. 48. Betts P (1993) Determining Minimum Habitat Areas and Habitat Corridors for Cougars. Conserv Biol 7: 94-108. 49. Crooks KR (2002) Relative Sensitivities of Mammalian Carnivores to Habitat Fragmentation. Conserv Biol 16: 488-502. 50. Logan K and Swranor• L (2001) Darn Puma: Evolutionary Ecology And Conservation 0t An Enduring Carnivore. Island Pam 464. 51. Barbour E (2002) Metropolitan growth planning in California 1900-2000. Public: Policy Institute nrCalifornia. San Francisco, California. 246. 52. Beier P (1996) lrictalopulation modeling, tenacious tracking, and cougar conservation. In McCullough DR, editor. Mrtapopulations and wildlife management. Washington DC: bland Press. 293-323. 53. Riley SPD, Srriry:s LEK, Pollingrr J, Sikich j, Dalbeck 1, rt al. individual behaviors dominate the dynamics ofan urban mountain lion population isolated by roads. Curr hind 24: 1989-1994. 54. Rnclkc ME, Martcnson JS, O'Brien SJ. (1993). The consequences of demographic reduction in the endangered Florida panther. Curr Biol 3: 340- 350. 55. Culver M, Hedrick PW, Murphy K, O'Brien 5 Hornocker MG, (2008) Estimation orthr bottleneck size in Florida pantheon. Anim Consery 11: 104- 110. 56. Johnson WE. Onnram DP, Roclke ME, Laud ED, Cunningham M, cr aL (2010). Ocnrtir restoration of the Florida panther. Science 329, 1641-1645. PLOS ONE 1 www.plosone.org 12 October 2014 1 Volume 9 1 issue 10 1 e107985 • () PLOS I ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning areas, but this surface was more heterogeneous than the Level 11 surface, demonstrating finer - scale selection. The ML-RSF surface identified areas of Level III habitat selection conditional upon the higher Level II order of selection. 1~ 4 displays the resistance surfaces derived from the landscape genetics analysis, the PathSF, and the ML -RS. Similar to the probability of use surfaces at the higher order, the land- scape genetic analysis resulted in developed areas having a high resistance for pumas and undeveloped, mountainous areas having a lower resistance. Though the coarse -scale patterns were similar for the resistance surface derived from the PathSF, this surface was more hetero- geneous and reflected finer -scaled patterns of resistance to movement. The Spearman correla- tion coefficient between the landscape genetics and the PathSF resistance surfaces was 0.31. The ML -RS can be interpreted as resistance to movement at finer scales weighted by coarser - scale spatial and temporal processes. Resource -use patches in the study area measured 2,577 km2. Resistant kernel corridors con- necting these resource -use patches measured 777 km2 (Fig 5A). The current protected area network encompassed 35% of the puma resource -use patches in the study area and 47% of the landscape corridors outside of the resource use patches (Fig 5C). Adding the partially protected Department of Defense, Native American Reservation, and Water and Irrigation District lands increased current protection of resource -use patches to 61% and landscape cor- ridors to 60% (Fig 5C). 1f 75% of the lands that are currently pre -approved for mitigation pro- tection by Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties become protected (the 7596 level is the target amount), then 8896 of the puma resource -use patches will be fully or partially protected and 8296 of the landscape corridors will be fully or partially protected (Fig 5D). Level 11 Level III Horne range Point selection function selection function Hierarchically integrated resource selection surface Relative probability of resource use PPP 0 Fig 3. Predicted relative probability of use surfaces from the multi -scale Level II Home Range Selection Function, the multi -scale Level III Point Selection Function and the combined Multi -Level Resource Selection Function. https JJd oi. orgl10.1371/journal pon e.0179570. g 003 PLOS ONE 1 https://doi.org/1OE1371Cournal,pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 12120 PLOS ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning Landscape genetic resistance surface Path selection function resistance surface Hierarchically integrated resistance surface Resistance to movemeni Fig 4. Resistance surfaces derived from the landscape genetics analysis, the PathSF. and the combined Multi -Level Resistance Surface. htf psJld oi. orgfl 0.1371 4ou mal.pone.0179570. g 004 100 Discussion Multi-level, multi -scale resource selection functions and resistance surfaces capture a wide spectrum of selection, movement and survival process. Multi-level, multi -scale resource selec- tion models have been shown to outperform single -scale, single -level models, result in stronger inference and predictive capabilities [5 7 17, 211, and are the most appropriate for use in con- servation planning [601. However, to our knowledge, the multi-level, multi -scale framework had not been applied to resistance surfaces. Herein, we introduce a multi-level, multi -scale approach for developing resistance surfaces. Our ML -RS quantifies resistance in terms of all three previously sought-after processes: (1) willingness to cross, (2) physiological costs of crossing, and (3) direct survival impacts while crossing. When establishing landscape -level wildlife corridors, the ultimate objectives are to provide safe passage for migrants to access, establish residence, and successfully reproduce in new suitable habitats. Resistance surfaces that reflect real-time movement and decision-making of individuals, as well as the chances of surviving and reproducing, are conceptually more powerful than resistance surfaces that reflect only one of these three processes. Our results showed similar coarse -scale patterns between the resistance surfaces derived from the genetic and movement data; however, details were present in the genetic surface that were not present in the movement surface, and vice versa. For pumas in our study, the resis- tance surface derived from the movement models consistently showed primary roads and urban areas as less -resistant features than the resistance surface derived from genetic data. These results reflect the ability and occasional willingness of pumas to travel through highly developed areas. Conversely, the movement data highlighted the importance of riparian areas PLOS ONE 1 https:lldoi.org110.1371Cournal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 13120 PLOS ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning Resource Use Patches Corridors 0 20 I N I 1 Kilometers b Current Protected Areas - Proposed Protected Areas Department of Defense Lands Native American Reservation Lands IM Irrigation Districts Fig 5. Puma resource use patches, landscape corridors, and the current and proposed protected area network. httpsi/Poi.org/i0.13714ournai pone.0179570.g0n5 and canyons for puma movement, assigning consistently lower resistance values to these fea- tures than the resistance surface derived from genetic data. Combining these surfaces resulted in constraining fine -scaled movement (potential resistance) within areas more amenable to coarse -scale, generational success in dispersal and breeding (realized resistance). We can further illustrate the advantages of a ML -RS through our collective knowledge of the Santa Ana Mountains puma population. This population inhabits what has been described as a large habitat fragment, isolated on all sides by roads, human development, and the Pacific Ocean [25]. The Palomar Linkage (Fig 1.; [61D just south of the city of Temecula has been identified as the only potentially viable linkage between the Santa Ana Mountain puma popu- lation and those to the east. The Palomar Linkage connects natural areas on both sides of I-15, yet I-15 itself is a significant obstacle to puma movement. Genetic population assignment tests have shown that only seven males successfully crossed I-15 over the last 15 years; three immi- grated into the Santa Ana Mountains from the Eastern Peninsular Range and four traveled from the Santa Ana Mountains to the Eastern Peninsular Range [51], Of these seven, five are known to be deceased and the status of the remaining two is unknown. Offspring were only detected from one of the seven immigrants, M86, who migrated into the Santa Ana Moun- tains. M86 successfully bred and passed genetic material to 11 offspring before being hit by a car and killed. Of the 11 offspring, only two are confirmed to have survived to breeding age, yet the success of this one reale was shown to significantly improve the genetic diversity of the Santa Ana Mountains population [511. The seven males that crossed 1-15 offer evidence of the occasional ability and willingness of pumas to travel through urbanized areas and across pri- mary roads. The behavior of these individuals is therefore better represented with the move- ment resistance surface. In contrast, the physiological and survival costs of these movements, PLCS ONE l https://doi.org110.1371Cournal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 14120 • PLOS I ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning exemplified by the low survival and breeding success of these seven pumas, are better reflected with the genetic resistance surface. The combination of these surfaces into a single ML -RS integrates all three of these processes and is a more appropriate representation of resistance for identifying landscape -level connectivity. Consistent with other studies that conducted resource selection functions at multiple hier- archical levels, we found differences among levels in terms of variable importance and habitat preference for pumas [2, 4, 5, 71. Of the variables present in both the Level Il and Level III models, habitat use relationships differed for chaparral, coastal scrub, coastal oak woodland, and grassland. Chaparral, scrub, and grassland types were preferred for home range establish- ment, but were avoided while using resources within the home range. Our results for wood- land were unexpected. Pumas are traditionally associated with woodland, but our Level II model showed an avoidance of woodland. We suspect this is the result of a relatively low occurrence of woodland in the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountain ranges compared with a higher amount of woodland in the greater extent used for the I II2SF analysis. Therefore, this finding is likely an anomaly of study area extent and does not indicate a true avoidance [62]. As expected, woodland was preferred in our Level III model. Variables that were included in the final Level 111 model that were not present in the Level II model include primary, second- ary, and tertiary roads, elevation, slope, and riparian areas. With the exception of woodland at the second order of selection, our results generally agree with other puma resource -use studies. We found topographic variables to be important at both hierarchical levels with a strong pref- erence for rugged areas and an avoidance of areas with steep slopes [25, 30, 34 We also found a strong avoidance of human development in the form of agricultural areas, urban areas, and roads [21, 30-32]. Home range sizes were also consistent with other studies of pumas in Medi- terranean climates [63]. Similar to our findings across hierarchical levels of selection, we found some differences between the resistance models derived from the movement and genetic data. The genetic model included coastal scrub whereas the movement model did not and instead included the barren cover type. The genetic model only included primary roads whereas the movement model included the roads layer with all three road types: primary, secondary, and tertiary. For some variables, the models differed in their relationship with resistance. For example, the genetic model reflected decreasing resistance with increasing values of slope, and the move- ment model reflecting increasing resistance with increasing values of slope. For elevation, comparison is more difficult. The genetic resistance model selected the Inverse Ricker trans- formation, indicating lower resistance at moderate elevations and higher resistance for very low and high elevation areas. Given the paired nature of our PathSF model, we were unable to explore quadratic relationships and the resistance surface from the movement data reflected decreasing resistance with increasing elevation. Cushman and Lewis [10] compared black bear genetic models with early season movement models and found both to have the same variables with the same relationship to resistance, but observed different variables and different rela- tionships when comparing genetic models with late season movement models. Coulon et al. [ 15,16] found roe deer exhibited different relationships to woodland areas with genetic and movement data. These differences are to be expected because, as argued above, resistance esti- mated from genetic data and resistance estimated from movement data represent different processes. This is further supported by our landscape genetic model performance results. We found the final resistance surface derived from the landscape genetic analysis to greatly outper- form that derived from the PathSF analysis in predicting genetic distance, indicating poten- tially different drivers for long-term genetic connectivity. Another possible advantage of combining the resistance surfaces from movement and genetic data lies in the difficulty of obtaining dispersal data. It is often argued that dispersal PLOS ONE 1 https://doi.org/10.1371Cournal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 15 / 20 • () PLOS I ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning data are more appropriate than data from within home -range movements for estimating resis- tance; however, dispersal data are much more difficult to obtain and often suffer from very small sample sizes. By using genetic data as a proxy for dispersal, and combining this resistance surface with one derived from within home -range movement, these surfaces may more closely approximate those obtained with empirical dispersal data, though more research is needed to support this hypothesis. We acknowledge the ML RS may not be the most appropriate resis- tance surface to use for every application and recommend its use for landscape -level corridors only. For other applications, like pinpointing discrete road crossing locations or applications that reflect fine -scaled travel and real-time movement decisions, we argue that it is more appropriate to use a resistance surface estimated directly from movement data (11). Our conservation network for pumas in the study area incorporated multiple scales of selec- tion at two different hierarchical levels for both habitat use and resistance. In this heavily developed landscape, we found resource use and connectivity to be mostly confined to natural areas with only corridors extending into more developed areas. At present, only 35% of resource -use patches and 47% of corridors identified in this study are fully protected. Some additional lands offer partial protection, bringing the fully and partially protected lands to about 60% of the resource -use patches and corridors. Given the low adult survival rate (56%; [271}, low levels of heterozygosity and high incidence of inbreeding for pumas in this region [26], increasing protection of individuals and habitat is essential to their long-term survival [641. The proposed protected areas identified by the three counties in the study area would greatly increase the amount of protection. However, many of these proposed protected areas are currently on private land and depend upon them being used as mitigation for development elsewhere. Road mitigation efforts are also needed given the low level of successful dispersal. and breeding among purnas in the study area and the finding in Vickers et al. [27] that the most frequent cause of death for GPS -collared pumas was by vehicle collisions. Our analysis was specific to pumas in southern California, yet the general approach may be applied to wildlife species worldwide. Many previous conservation networks have used a single organizational level, thereby omitting important behavioral and biological processes at other levels, and may result in incorrect inference and only partially effective conservation plans [2, 5, 7, 65]. By incorporating selection and movement at multiple hierarchical levels, correct inference may be made at each level. Furthermore, integrating results across levels will result in much stronger predictive surfaces for conservation. Modeling multi -scale relationships within each hierarchical level further strengthens these surfaces. Our thresholds for identifying the resource -use patches and landscape corridors were somewhat arbitrary, but are based on previously recommended thresholds [66] and provide a reasonable result for pumas in our study area. Echoing DeCesare et al. [4), additional research is needed to determine more bio- logically -based thresholds for creating binary conservation surfaces from continuously distrib- uted ML-RSFs and connectivity surfaces derived from ML-RSs. Despite the strong conceptual and inferential advantages of multi-level, multi -scale approaches, a recent review of 173 multi - scale habitat selection studies found that only 8 (5%) used a combined multi-level, multi -scale approach, indicating this approach for research and conservation planning has been underuti- lized [2]. We offer the addition of multi-level, multi -scale resistance surfaces to this body of lit- erature and recommend that multi-level, multi -scale approaches be used for identifying areas of resource use and landscape connectivity and for developing species conservation networks. Supporting information S1 Table. Time -intervals and associated radii of Pareto kernels used to define available habitat for point and path selection functions. We fit a Pareto distribution to the empirical PLOS ONE 1 https:lldoi.org110.1371Cournal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 16120 • (p) PLOSI ° N E Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning distribution of displacement distances at each time -period and defined the maximum radii of the Pareto distribution by either using the 956 quantile of the distribution, or the maximum observed displacement distance, whichever was smaller. (DOCX) Acknowledgments We thank M. Plancarte, G. Lee, and T. Drazenovich for lab assistance, and J. Sanchez, P. McMinn, L. Hull, L. Stockbridge, and B. Cohen for database management assistance. We thank K. Gustafson, R. Gagne, K. McGarigal, and S. Cushman for thoughtful and insightful suggestions on this manuscript. Field work assistance was provided by J. Bauer, C. Bell, J. Bourdon, K. Broz, P. Bryant, J. Colby, K. Davis, D. Dawn, M. Elbroch, F.J. Falateck, D. Krucki, K. Logan, B. Martin, J. Messin, B. Millsap, M. Fuzzo, T. Ryan, D. Sforza, L. Sweanor, P. Taylor, C. Wallace, S. Weldy, C. Wiley, S. Winston, E. York, J. Zagarella, and numerous voluneers as well as rangers, biologists, wardens, and animal control officers from multiple agencies. We thank R. Botta for sharing puma mortality data and L. Lyren, E. Boydston, R. Fisher, and K. Crooks for sharing puma mortality and genetic data. We would also like to thank the following landowners/managers for allowing access to their lands: The Nature Con- servancy, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego County Parks Departments, San Diego City Parks Department, The Pauma Tribe of Luiseno Indians, the Pala Band of Mission Indians, the City of Escondido, California Depart- ment of Transportation, Vista Irrigation District, the Rainbow Municipal Water District, Sand Diego State University, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Author- ity, the Endangered Habitats League, Orange CountyTransportation Authority, Rancho Mis- sion Viejo, The New Irvine Ranch Conservancy, Audubon Starr Ranch Reserve, and several private land owners. Author Contributions Conceptualization: KZ TV WB 'IE. Data curation: KZ TV WB HE. Formal analysis: KZ TV HE. Funding acquisition: KZ TV WB HE. Investigation: KZ TV HE. Methodology: KZ. Project administration: TV WB. Resources: KZ TV WB HE. Software: KZ. Validation: KZ TV. Visualization: KZ. Writing - original draft: KZ. Writing - review & editing: KZ TV WB HE. PLOS ONE1https://cloi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 17120 PLOS ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning References 1. Johnson D. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource prefer- ence. Ecology. 1980; 61: 65-71. 2. McGarigal K, Wan HY, Zeller KA, Timm BC, Cushman SA. Multi -scale habitat modeling: a review and outlook. Landsc Ecol, 2016; 31: 1161-1175. 3. Riley SPD, Sauvajot RM, Fuller TK. York EC, Kamradt DA, Bromley C, et al. Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in southern California. Consery Biol. 2003; 17: 566-576. 4. DeCesare NJ, Hebblewhite M, Schmiegelow F, Hervieux D, McDermid GJ, Neufeld L, et al. Tran- scending scale dependence in identifying habitat with resource selection functions. Ecol Appl, 2012; 22: 1068-1083. PMID: 22827119 5. Bauder J, Breininger D, Bolt B, Legare M, Jenkins C, Rothermel B. Multi-level, multi -scale habitat selec- tion by a wide-ranging federally threatened snake. Forthcoming. 6. Johnson CJ, Seip DR, Boyce MS. A quantitative approach to conservation planning: using resource selection functions to map the distribution of mountain caribou at multiple spatial scales. J Appl Ecol. 2004; 4: 238-251. 7. Pitman RT, Fattebert J, Williams ST, Williams KS, Hill RA, Hunter LTB, et al, Cats, connectivity and con- servation: incorporating datasets and integrating scales for wildlife management. J Appl Ecol. 2017: https:fldoi.orgl1©.111111365-2664.12644 8. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR. Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol. 2012; 27: 777-797. 9. Compton B, McGarigal K. Cushman SA, Gamble L. A resistant kernel model of connectivity for vernal pool breeding amphibians. Conserv Biol. 2007; 21: 788-799. https://doi.org110.1111/j.1523-1739. 2007,00674.x PM ID: 17531056 10. Cushman SA, Lewis JS. Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bears. Landsc Ecol. 2010; 25: 1613-1625. 11. Cushman SA, Lewis JS, Landguth EL. Why did the bear cross the road? Comparing the performance of multiple resistance surfaces and connectivity modeling methods. Diversity. 2014; 6: 844-854. 12. Abrahms B, Sawyer SC, Jordan NR, McNutt JW, Wdlsom AM, Brashares JS. Does wildlife resource selection accurately inform corridor conservation? J Appl Ecol. 2016; hit psa!doi.orgl10.1111/1365- 2664.12714 .1111!1365- 2664.12714 13. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Beier P, Cushman SA, Vickers TW, Boyce WM. Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement: pumas as a case study. Landsc Ecol. 2016; 31: 1319- 1335. 14. Cushman SA, Chase M, Griffin C. 2010. Mapping landscape resistance to identify corridors and barriers for elephant movement in southern Africa. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann F, editors. Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. New York: Springer; 2010. pp. 349-367. 15. Coulon A, Morellet N, Goulard M, Cargnelutti B, Angibault JM, Hewison AJM. Inferring the effects of landscape structure on roe deer (Caprealus capreolus) movements using a step selection function. Landsc Ecol. 2008; 23: 603-614. 16. Coulon A, Cosson JF, Angibault JM, Cargnelutti 8, Galan M, Morellet N, et al. Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual -based approach. Mol Eco1.2004; 13: 2841-2850. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1 365-294X.2004,02253,x PMID: 15315694 17. Wheatley M, Johnson C. Factors limiting our understanding of ecological scale. Ecological Complexity. 2009; 6: 150-159. 18. Wasserman TN, Cushman SA, Wallin DO, Hayden J. Multi scale habitat relationships of Mantes ameri- cana in northern Idaho, USA. USDA Forest Service RMRS Research Paper RMRS-RP-94.2012. 19. Weaver JE, Conway TM, Fortin M -J. An invasive species' relationship with environmental variables changes across multiple spatial scales. Landsc Ecol. 2012; 27: 1351-1362. 20. Shirk AJ, Raphael MG, Cushman SA. Spatiotemporal variation in resource selection: insights from the American marten (Mantes americana). Ecol Appl, 2014; 24: 1434-1444. 21. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Beier P, Cushman SA, Vickers TW, Boyce WM. Sensitivity of landscape resis- tance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study. Landsc Ecol. 2014; 29: 541-557. 22. AddicottJF, Aho JM, Antolin MF, Padilla DK, Richardson JS, Soluk DA. Ecological neighborhoods: scal- ing environmental patterns. Oikos. 1987; 49: 340-346. 23. Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L. Determining the spatial scale of species' response to habitat. Biosci- ence. 2004; 54: 227-233. PLOS ONE J hltps:/.idoi.org.10.1371 journal.pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 18120 rd► PLOS ONE Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning 24. Beier P. Determining minimum habitat areas and corridors for cougars. Conserv Biol. 1993; 7: 94-108, 25. Beier P. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. J Wild] Manage. 1995; 59: 228-237. 26. Ernest HB, Vickers TW, Morrison SA, Buckalski MR, Boyce WM. Fractured genetic connectivity threat- ens a southern California puma population. P]oS One. 2014; 9: el 07985. https:LYdai.org.l0.1371 journal.pone.0107985 PMID: 25295530 27. Vickers TW, Sanchez JN, Johnson CK, Morrison SA, Botta R, Smith T, et al. Survival and Mortality of Pumas (Puma cancofor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape, PIoS One. 2015; htips:!ldoi.org'10. 1371/journal.pone.0131490 PMID: 26177290 28. Lewis JS, Rachlow JL, Garton EO, Vierling LA. Effects of habitat on GPS collar performance: using data screening to reduce location error, J Appl Ecol. 2007; 44:663-671. 29. Jenness J, DEM surface tools. Jenness Enterprises. 2013. Available from: http:/iwww.jennessent.corni arcgis/surface_area.htm. 30. Dickson BG, Jenness JS, Beier P. Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in southern California. J Wildl Manage. 2005; 69: 264-276. 31. Burdett CL, Crooks KR, Theobald DM, Wilson KR, Boydston EE, Lyren LM, et al. Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat. Ecosphere. 2010;1:1-21. 32. Wilmers CC, Wang Y, Nickel 8, Houghtaling P, Shaken Y, Allen ML, et al. Scale dependent behavioral responses to human development by a large predator, the puma. PLoS ONE. 2013; htlps:!/doi.orgi10. 1371/journal.pone.0060590 PMID: 23613732 33. Nielsen C, Thompson D, Kelly M, Lbpez-Gonzlez CA. Puma concolor. The IUCN Red List of Threat- ened Species 2015: e.T18868A97216466. 34. Ft Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2013. Available from: https:/lwww.R-praject.orgi. 35. Johnson CJ, Nielsen SE, Merrill EH, McDonald TL, Boyce MS. Resource selection functions based on use -availability data: Theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. J Wildl Manage. 2006; 70: 347- 357. 36. Grigione MM, Beier P, Hopkins RA, Neal D, Padley WD, Schonewald GM, et al. Ecological and allome- tric determinants of home -range size for mountain lions (Puma concolor). Anim Conserv. 2002; 5: 317- 324. 37. Borger L, Franconi N, de Michele G, Gantz A, Meschi F, Manica A, et al. Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. J Anim Ecol. 2006; 75: 1393-1405. https:+doi. argil 0.1111/j.1365 -2656,2006.01164.x PMID: 17032372 38. Bauder JM, Breininger DR, Bolt MR, Legare ML, Jenkins CL, McGarigal K. The role of the bandwidth matrix in influencing kernel home range estimates for snakes using VHF telemetry data. Wildlife Research, 2015; 42: 437-453, 39. Fieberg J. Kernel density estimators of home range: smoothing and the autocorrelation red herring. Ecology. 2007; 88: 1059-1066. PMID: 17536721 40. Duong T. ks: Kernel Smoothing. R package version 1.10.4. Available from https;/!CRAN.R-project.org' package=ks. 41. Gilleland E. Two-dimensional kernel smoothing: Using the R package smoothie. NCAR Technical Note, TN-502+STR, 17pp. 2013. Available at: http:llopensky,library.ucar,edulcollections/TECH-NOTE-000- 000-000-869. 42. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information -theoretic approach, 2nd edn. New York: Springer; 2002. 43. Barton K. MuMIn; multi -model inference. R package. Accessed 30 April 2016. Available from: https:// crans-project.org/webipackages/MuMlnl. 44. Compton BW, Rhymer JM, McCollough M. Habitat selection by wood turtles (Cfemmys insculpfa): an application of paired logistic regression. Ecology. 2002; 83: 833-843. 45. Estrada EG, Alva JAV. gPdtest: Bootstrap goodness -of -fit test for the generalized Pareto distribution. R package version 0.4.2012. Available from: https:;:/GRAN.R-project.org./package=gPdtest. 46. Themeau T. A Package for Survival Analysis in S. R package version 2.38.2015. Available from: http:.+i C RAN. R-project.orglpackage=survival. 47. Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS. Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology. 2005; 86: 1320-1330. 48. Hardin JW, Hilbe JM. 2003. Generalized estimating equations. Boca Raton; Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2003. PLOS ONE j hitps:...doi.org/10.1371 journal,pone.0179570 June 13, 2017 19120 PLOSI0 N E Multi-level, multi -scale conservation planning 49. Nielson SE, Boyce MS, Stenhouse GB, Munro RHM. Modeling grizzly bear habitats in the Yeliowhead Ecosystem of Alberta: Taking autocorrelation seriously, Ursus. 2002; 13: 45-56. 50. Forester JD, Im HK, Rathouz PJ, Accounting for animal movement in estimation of resource selection functions: sampling and data analysis. Ecology. 2009; 90:3554-3565. PMID: 20120822 51. Gustafson KD, Vickers TW, Boyce WM, Ernest HB. A single migrant enhances the genetic diversity of an inbred puma population. Forthcoming. 52. Jombart T. adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics. 2008; 24: 1403-1405. htips://dal.org110.1093rbioinformatics/btn129 PMID: 18397895 53. Nei M. Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics. 1978; 89: 583-590. PMID: 17248844 54. van Etten J. gdistance: Distances and Routes on Geographical Grids. R package version 1.1-9. 2015. Available from: htlps://CRAN.R-project.orgfpackage=gdistance, 55. Clarke RT, Rothery P, Raybould AF. Confidence limits for regression relationships between distance matrices: estimating gene flow with distance. J Agric Biol Environ Stat. 2002; 7: 361-372. 56. van Strien MJ, Keller D, Holderegger R. A new analytical approach to landscape genetic modelling: least -cost transect analysis and linear mixed models. Mol Ecol. 2012; 21: 4010-4023. https://doi.Org1 1 0.11111,1365-294X.2012.05687,x PMID: 22738667 57. Shirk A, Landguth E, Cushman SA. A comparison of regression methods for model selection in individ- ual -based landscape genetic analysis. Mol Ecol Resour. Forthcoming. 58. Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J, Cushman SA. UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography. 2012; 35: 9-14. 59. California Protected Areas Database. Califomia Protected Areas Database. Greenlnfo Network. 2016. Available from: www,calands.org, 60. Storch I. Linking a multiscale habitat concept to species conservation. In: Bissonette JA, Storch I. Edi- tors. Landscape ecology and resource management: linking theory with practice. Washington: Island Press. pp. 303-320. 61. Morrison SA, Boyce WM. Conserving connectivity: some lessons from mountain lions in southern Cali- fomia. Conserv Biol. 2008; 23: 275--285. https://doi.org/10.1111x.1523-1739.2008.01079.x PMID: 18983604 62. Cushman SA, Raphael MG. Ruggiero LF, Shirk AS, Wasserman TN, O'Doherty EC, 2011. Limiting fac- tors and landscape connectivity: the American marten in the Rocky Mountains. Landsc Ecol. 2011; 26: 1137-1149. 63. Gonzalez-Borrajo N, Lopez -Bao JV, Palamares F. Spatial ecology of jaguars, pumas, and ocelots: a review of the state of knowledge. Mamm Rev. 2016; 47: 62-75. 64. Benson JF, Mahoney PJ, Sikich JA, Serieys LE, Pollinger JP, Ernest HB, et al. Interactions between demography, genetics, and landscape connectivity increase extinction probability for a small population of large carnivores in a major metropolitan area. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016; 283: 20160957. 65. DeCesare NJ, Pletscher DH. Movements, connectivity, and resource selection of rocky mountain big- horn sheep. J Mammal. 2006; 87: 531-538, 66. Majka 0, JennessJ, Beier P. CorridorDesigner: AroGIS tools for designing and evaluating corridors. 2007. Available from: http://corridordesign.org. PLOS ON E1 https://dol.org110.1371/journal.pane.0179570 June 13, 2017 20 / 20 Notice of Public Hearing 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. Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: Case No.: Applicant: Location: 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590, City of Temecula, Council Chambers December 12, 2017 3:00 p.m. PA14-0158, PA14-0159, PA14-0160, PA14-0161 Rob Honer, Ambient Communities In the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula on 270 acres west of Old Town Proposal: The proposed project, referred to as "Altair," includes four Planning Applications for 1) PA14-0158, General Plan Amendment, 2) PA14-0159, Specific Plan, 3) PA14-0160, Tentative Tract Map, and 4) PA14-0161, Development Agreement for subsequent permits such as grading, infrastructure improvement permitting for on-site and off-site utilities, and resource agency permitting to allow for development of up to 1,750 residential units, limited neighborhood -serving commercial, civic/institutional uses, elementary school, parks, and open space within a 270 -acre area in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, west of Old Town. In addition, the proposed project would construct the Western Bypass that would link Temecula Parkway with Diaz Road, including widening Vincent Moraga Road. The project site is located within the Murrieta Creek and Santa Rosa Plateau Subunits of the Riverside County Multi - Species Habitat Conservation Plan Southwest Area Plan. Environmental Action: The project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project will have four significant impacts upon the environment (air quality, greenhouse gas, noise and vibration, and traffic) based upon a completed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. As a result, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required in compliance with CEQA. Staff is recommending that the City Council certify the EIR, adopt finding pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. uslNEssPARK DR ,q- 4;8°.s cABo sT trvAillIPI:211.0:1v-71" • ; to* ,o FiNk %11111111 Project Site CAMNO GATQ�_Ol 1 1( NORCA \P 0 1,000 2,000 I \ ) i f 1M Feet Public Hearings 17-22 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. If the City Council does not complete its consideration of the matter by 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2017, the City Council may continue the public hearing and item to the next day, Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. in accordance with State law. 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 Matt Peters, City of Temecula Community Development Department, (951) 694-6400. Public Hearings 17-22 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 ll]. AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 15, 2017 — 5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: PUBLIC COMMENTS Next in Order: Resolution: 17-43 Ron Guerriero Guerriero, Telesio, Turley-Trejo, Watts and Youmans A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form may be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form may be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three-minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of November 1, 2017 1 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Community Development Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 2 The proposed project. referred to as `Altair,' includes four Planning Applications for a 1) General Plan Amendment: 2) Specific Han: 3) Tentative Tract Map: and 4) Development Agreement for subsequent permits such as grading, infrastructure improvement permitting for on-site and off-site utilities, and resource agency permitting to allow for development of up to 1,750 residential units, limited neighborhood -serving commercial, civic/institutional uses, elementary school. parks, and open space within a 270 -acre area in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula. west of Old Town. In addition. the proposed project would construct the Western Bypass that would link Temecula Parkway with Diaz Road. including widening Vincent Moraga Road. The proposed project site is located within the Murrieta Creek and Santa Rosa Plateau Subunits of the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan Southwest Area Plan. Planning Application No. PA14-0158, a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) by Ambient Communities to revise the current alignment of the proposed Western Bypass, and to replace the existing General Plan Land use designations of Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) with Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for land uses proposed in the Altair Specific Plan as Active Open Space (AO), Natural Open Space (NO), Residential (R), Mixed -Use (M), Mixed -Use Residential (MR), Educational (E), and Institutional (I). Planning Application No. PA14-0159, a proposed Specific Plan to include the four -lane divided Western Bypass. up to 1.750 residential units. an elementary school. up to 7,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, a clubhouse, civic site, parks. trails, and hillside preservation. The Specific Plan will also include off-site improvements for public infrastructure including, but not limited to, construction of the Western Bypass bridge over Murrieta Creek, road widening of Vincent Moraga, construction of Main Street north of Pujol. and off-site sewer. water and dry utility extensions. Planning Application No. PA14-0160, a proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36959) that will create the residential planning areas consistent with the Specific Plan, and include the four -lane divided Western Bypass, public and private roads, an elementary school site, civic site, open space. parks. trails. and hillside preservation. Planning Application No. PA14-0161: a Development Agreement for the proposed Specific Plan by Ambient Communities, Matt Peters RECOMMENDATION: 2 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922- 210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 9401-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 17- 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 APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO REVISE THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED WESTERN BYPASS, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPOSED LAND USES IDENTIFIED IN THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN BY REPLACING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP), OPEN SPACE (OS), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (H), AND HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) WITH SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (SPI) ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)" 2.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO.17- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007" 3 2.4 Adopt a resolution entitled PC RESOLUTION NO. 17- 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 APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36959 TO SUBDIVIDE 270 ACRES INTO 63 NUMBERED LOTS TO DEFINE THE OPEN SPACE AND THE VILLAGE AREAS, AND 20 LETTERED LOTS TO DEFINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210.049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)" 2.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. '17- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940 310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007" REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S) DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, December 6, 2017, 6.00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street„ Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — TemeculaCA _qov —and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the agenda, atter the posting of the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (410170 Main Street, Temecula, 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). in addition, such material may be accessed on the City's website — TerneculaCA.gov — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. R you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the Community Development Department at the Temecula Civic Center, (951) 694-6400. 4 ITH;1T 1 L- ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 1, 2017 — 6:00 PM Next in Order: Resolution: 17-42 CALL TO ORDER: Commissioners Present: Telesio, Turley-Trejo, and Watts ABSENT: GUERRIERO, YOUMANS ROLL CALL: Staff Present: Fisk, Marroquin, Thomas, Jones, and Jacobo PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak during public comments. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes APPROVED 3-0-2; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TURLEY-TREJO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WATTS; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS TELESIO, TURLEY-TREJO AND WATTS; GUERRIERO AND YOUMANS ABSENT RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of October 18, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Community Development Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. City of Temecula Page 2 Planning Commission - Regular Meeting Action Minutes November 1, 2017 6:00 — 6:08 p.m. 2 Planning Application Number PA17-1210, a Minor Modification to an approved development plan to revise its approved use mix with regard to Development Impact Fees and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees. The project is generally located on the northeast corner of Old Town Front Street and 4th Street. Eric Jones APPROVED 3-0-2; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WATTS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TURLEY-TREJO; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS TELESIO, TURLEY- TREJO AND WATTS; GUERRIERO AND YOUMANS ABSENT RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 17-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA17-1210, A MINOR MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REVISE ITS APPROVED USE MIX WITH REGARD TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEES FOR A PROJECT LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND 4TH STREET, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN: 922-033-021) REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S) DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:08 p.m.; to the next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, November 15, 2017; 5:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street. Temecula, California. John H. Telesio, Chairperson Luke Watson Planning Commission Director of Community Development 2 H;1f 2 L a DATE OF MEETING: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: APPLICANT NAME: PROJECT SUMMARY: STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 15, 2017 Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission Luke Watson, Director of Community Development Matt Peters, Senior Planner Rob Honer, Ambient Communities The proposed project, referred to as "Altair," includes four Planning Applications for a 1) General Plan Amendment; 2) Specific Plan; 3) Tentative Tract Map; and 4) Development Agreement for subsequent permits such as grading, infrastructure improvement permitting for on-site and off-site utilities, and resource agency permitting to allow for development of up to 1,750 residential units, limited neighborhood -serving commercial, civic/institutional uses, elementary school, parks, and open space within a 270 -acre area in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, west of Old Town. In addition, the proposed project would construct the Western Bypass that would link Temecula Parkway with Diaz Road, including widening Vincent Moraga Road. The proposed project site is located within the Murrieta Creek and Santa Rosa Plateau Subunits of the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan Southwest Area Plan. Planning Application No. PA14-0158, a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) by Ambient Communities to revise the current alignment of the proposed Western Bypass, and to replace the existing General Plan Land use designations of Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) with Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for land uses proposed in the Altair Specific Plan as Active Open Space (AO), Natural Open Space (NO), Residential (R), Mixed -Use (M), Mixed -Use Residential (MR), Educational (E), and Institutional (I). Planning Application No. PA14-0159, a proposed Specific Plan to include the four -lane divided Western Bypass, up to 1,750 residential units, an elementary school, up to 7,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, a clubhouse, civic site, parks, trails, and hillside preservation. The Specific Plan will also include off-site improvements for public infrastructure including, but not limited to, construction of the Western Bypass bridge over Murrieta Creek, road widening of Vincent Moraga, construction of Main Street north of Pujol, and off-site sewer, water and dry utility extensions. 1 LOCATION: CEQA: Planning Application No. PA14-0160, a proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36959) that will create the residential planning areas consistent with the Specific Plan, and include the four -lane divided Western Bypass, public and private roads, an elementary school site, civic site, open space, parks, trails, and hillside preservation. Planning Application No. PA14-0161, a Development Agreement for the proposed Specific Plan by Ambient Communities. South and west of the intersection of Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga; west of Pujol Street and Murrieta Creek; north of Santa Margarita River within the City of Temecula, California Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) associated with this proposed project include: 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310- 016, 940-310-044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007. Environmental Impact Report (El R) Altair Specific Plan (formerly "Village West") State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolutions recommending City Council approval of the proposed project subject to conditions of approval BACKGROUND SUMMARY The City of Temecula has a long history of planning for the area west of Old Town, along the escarpment of the foothills. This section includes a summary of past planning efforts in order to provide a context for the proposed Altair Specific Plan in relation to the 1993 General Plan (and 2005 update), Old Town Specific Plan, Westside Specific Plan, Keyser Marston Associates Market Study for Old Town, Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and the Quality of Life Master Plan 2030. After incorporation on December 1, 1989, the City adopted its first General Plan in 1993. Policy 6.1 of the General Plan states, "Prepare a Specific Plan for Old Town, including any transition or expansion areas, to preserve and enhance the historic character, economic viability, and address community facility and service needs in the area." Figure 2-5 of the 1993 General Plan, Specific Plan Overlay, identifies the land west of Old Town for a future Specific Plan area, "To provide complementary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." In addition, Figure 3-1 of the 1993 General Plan identifies the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor, which is described as, "Designation of a new four -lane Westside Corridor facility extending from 1-15 at State Route 79 (south), along the west side foothills, to beyond the northwestern City limit" In 1994, the City of Temecula adopted the Old Town Specific Plan, which "Establishes a vision for guiding the future development of the heart of Temecula, Old Town." As further stated in the Specific Plan, "The document provides a comprehensive plan for land use, development 2 regulations, design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives, and other related actions aimed at implementing the goals and objectives set forth in the General Plan as it relates to Old Town and the surrounding area." The Altair Specific Plan is proposed to replace the existing Westside Specific Plan, which was adopted in 1995 to ensure developments surrounding Old Town were compatible and complementary with the vision for Old Town Temecula. The Westside Specific Plan proposed a mixed use development that would include 50,000 square feet of special event commercial (allowing tourist and hotel uses), 45,000 square feet of commercial, and 20,000 square feet of mixed-use space, as well as up to 302 dwelling units and approximately 70 acres of open space. In 1998, the City hired Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) to prepare a Market Study for Old Town. The resulting document contained recommendations for creating a "downtown," which included: • Promote arts and culture • Enhance Murrieta Creek • Create a uniform shopping environment • Encourage civic uses and activities • Promote housing to support retail It should be noted that the KMA study specifically recognized the Westside Specific Plan, and anticipated 2,000 homes in and around Old Town in the analysis, and in making their recommendations for creating a downtown, A successful downtown requires a critical mass of residents "living" in the area, as visitors and tourists alone cannot support a downtown. As a result, the City has made significant investments in Old Town in order to implement the City's General Plan, the Old Town Specific Plan, and the KMA Marketing Study. Examples of projects and events include, but are not limited to, the new Main Street bridge, Old Town Front Street Sidewalk and Beautification Improvements, Hot Summer Nights. Rod Run Events, the Fourth of July Parade, the Old Town Theatre, the Murrieta Creek flood control channel widening and trail project, Temecula Chilled and ice skating rinks during the Holidays, the award-winning Pennypickle's Workshop and Children's Museum, and Sam Hicks Park. Other noteworthy improvements or programs include The "Mere" and Old Town Community Theater, the Temecula Community Center on Pujol, mixed use Redevelopment Agency projects including the Dalton Building. Warehouse at Creekside, and Front Street Plaza. strategic acquisition of surface parking areas for future parking structures, the Saturday morning Farmer's Market in the Sixth Street parking lot, Taste of the Valley, and Temecula Reality Rally. Most notably, the City completed the Civic Center, parking garage, conference facility and acquired two parcels north and south of the town square far a future marketplace. The City has made a concerted effort to implement the recommendations from the KMA Market Study. In 2004, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) was created to implement the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The plan protects 146 native species of plants, birds, and animals and preserves a half -million acres of their habitats. The Altair project is within Subunits 1 (Murrieta Creek) and 6 (Santa Rosa Plateau) of the MSHCP's Southwest Area Plan. When the MSHCP was adopted, the plan recognized the Western Bypass as a "covered activity," or planned roadway. As a result of the planning for this proposed project, the Western Bypass Corridor has been redesigned to be located in the least environmentally sensitive location feasible to accommodate its circulation purpose. The redesign would eliminate 7,700 linear feet of roadway from the northern portion of the project site to its previous connection to Via Industria. The new alignment, connecting to existing Vincent Moraga Drive and then Diaz Road, reduces the length by 50 percent; and avoids approximately 55 acres of sage scrub, chaparral, and other habitats. Unfortunately; when the MSHCP was approved, it did not recognize the City's previous planning efforts and did not consider the City's General Plan or the Westside Specific Plan, which were in place almost ten years prior. As a result, criteria cells (with targeted acres of preservation) were placed over property previously planned for urban density development adjacent to Old Town, With the Western Bypass approved as a covered activity; its construction would result in a fragmented "island of habitat' between a four lane regional roadway and Old Town In 2008. the City's Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP 2030) was adopted. The plan identifies six core values, including 1. A Healthy and Livable Community; 2. Economic Prosperity; 3. A Safe and Prepared Community 4. Transportation Mobility and Connectivity; 5. A Sustainable City; and 6. An Accountable and Responsive City Government. Key priorities identifed in the QLMP and the proposed Altair project include: constructing the Murrieta Creek Phase II improvements, commencing construction of the Temecula Parkway/I- 15 Interchange Project; western escarpment land acquisitions: increasing road connectivity to job centers in the west to residents in the east; commencing construction of the Western Bypass Corridor; construction of the Old Town Gym; expansion of higher education, and facilitating construction of a hotel/conference center. In 203, Ambient Communities submitted Pre -Application Number, PR13-0043, for Village West (later renamed Altair). The planning for this included review by the City's Development Review (DRC) Committee, which consists of representatives from Planning, Public Works, Building and Safety, Fire Prevention, and the Police Department. This effort involved "big picture' analysis including land use planning, density and number of units, circulation, access, and preliminary environmental analysis On November 24, 2014, Ambient Communities submitted the Altair Specific Plan project consisting of: ■ PA14-0158, General Plan Amendment • PA14-0159, Specific Plan ■ PA14-0160, Tentative Tract Map • PA14-0161, Development Agreement. The proposed project also includes a Fiscal Impact Analysis (RA), that informed the Development Agreement and an Environmental Impact Report (ER). ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment 4 The City's General Plan is the citizens' "blueprint" for development and the guide to achieving our vision for the built environment. California law requires each local government to adopt a local General Plan, which must contain at least seven elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Noise, Open Space and Safety. The project proposes to amend the Land Use Element, Figure LU -3, to replace the Westside Specific Plan and surrounding land use designations with the Altair Specific Plan on 270 acres west of Old Town. In addition to the proposed Land Use Element change, the proposed project will amend the Circulation Element, Figure C-2, to change the alignment of the Western Bypass Corridor from its connection to the north at Via Industria to Vincent Moraga and Diaz Road, north of Ranch California Road. Previous planning efforts and traffic studies recognized the efficiencies of a reduced corridor length while still achieving efficient circulation of vehicles throughout the City. Thus, the revised alignment of the Western Bypass, a proposed four -lane thoroughfare, would be constructed as part of the proposed project, and would link Temecula Parkway across Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road (north of Ranch California Road) via Vincent Moraga Road. Specific Plan A Specific Plan is a comprehensive planning and zoning document for a defined geographic region of the City. Altair is proposed to develop primarily as a residential, mixed-use development with supporting civic uses and open space. A maximum of 1,750 dwelling units are proposed on 270 acres. Different housing types are proposed to meet the needs of a range of age groups, and household sizes. The proposed project is located to take advantage of the shopping, dining, and entertainment venues of Old Town and is designed to encourage a strong pedestrian connection to both Old Town and planned open space within the development. An extensive network of bike lanes and trails are proposed to connect to the City's overall and regional network. The vehicular circulation system is influenced by the linear shape of the proposed project site. The backbone of the street network would consist of four major streets; the Western Bypass, Altair Vista, Levant Trail, and "B" Street. The main offsite connections would be at Vincent Moraga Drive on the north, First Street on the east, and Temecula Parkway on the south. Altair Vista would be an internal, north -south two-lane road that connects the planned villages and elementary school site. Its cross section would vary to slow traffic and provide on street parking, depending on the its location and the character of each village. Altair proposes a form -based code using building types clustered in villages as the organizing principle. No specific architectural styles are identified in the Specific Plan. Instead, the design guidelines discuss building form and elements such as proportion, massing, roofline variation, enhanced entries, building materials, window placement, and balconies, which all contribute to high quality architecture. This approach is already being implemented in Old Town and the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan areas. Also, building placement will require entrances facing the street with porches and stoops to create active streets, which reinforce the connection of the road and the community. Building placement is intended to create meaningful and pleasant open spaces between them, such as courtyards, paseos, and plazas. This approach creates a "Smart Growth" development that concentrates growth in a compact, walkable, urban neighborhood to avoid sprawl. Furthermore, the Villages have been designed around a % mile radius with small block lengths to facilitate 5 -minute walking distances between Old Town, neighborhood parks, the community center, elementary school, and a proposed Nature Center at the south end of the proposed project. 5 The Altair Specific Plan proposes the following building types • Detached,, single-family housing — Consists of individually owned, multi -story dwellings arranged around or along a common outdoor space. Multiplex — Combines two to six dwelling units into one structure; the individual dwelling unit is not distinctly expressed in the multiplex type. • Rowhouse --Attached dwelling units arranged side-by-side, typically in a linear manner. • Live/work — Combines residential and commercial uses into a single dwelling unit, and are then repeated side-by-side to create a commercial strip that serves as the focus of a neighborhood. • Multifamily walk-up — Buildings of two to four stories combining stacked dwelling units. • Multifamily podium — Combines four or five stories of stacked dwelling units over a subterranean or partially subterranean enclosed parking garage. • Micro -unit — Efficiency dwelling units that provide affordable housing for smaller households. • Mixed-use — Combines two or more distinct uses into a single structure or group, typically residential in combination with neighborhood -serving commercial, service or office uses. These building types are assigned to seven neighborhood "villages" which, in turn, are overlaid with one of three proposed residential uses (Residential, Mixed-Use/Residential, or Mixed -Use), in combination with an Active Open Space zone. Building heights could range from two to five stories depending on the building type. All residential uses would allow a small amount of accessory commercial use to support the neighborhood, with the majority focused in Village C, which is centrally located to the proposed project and in line with Main Street in Old Town. Neighborhood commercial uses may include a corner coffee shop, ice cream parlor, or live/work units with ground floor offices. Each village is centered on a node or focal point separated by landscape terrain. The open space between the villages preserves the existing appearance of ravines extending from the upper hillside through the development, allowing similar drainage patterns and maintaining existing views. The non-residential uses include an elernentary school site covered by the Educational zone, and a civic area ("South Parcel") covered by the Institutional zone. The majority of land west of the Western Bypass, and the southernmost portion of the proposed project are zoned Natural Open Space. The proposed project will be built from north to south in four main phases; '1 1) north phase, 2) central phase, 3) south phase, and 4) civic phase. Consistent with previous City direction on other projects such as Wolf Creek and Harveston, there are very specific requirements for the installation of public infrastructure (streets, traffic signals, parks, trails, etc.) in advance of the City issuing building permits to the developer. The grading (cut/fill) for each phase balances so as to be efficient with the movement of dirt, and to avoid unnecessary prolonged visual scarring of the green hillside if mass grading were to take place prior to a slowdown in the economy, or other construction delays. A detailed phasing plan has been included with the Tentative Tract Maps exhibits. Given the proposed density associated with this proposed project, generally ranging from 18-30 units per acre, Staff took extra effort to address quality of life issues. which can become magnified if not dealt with properly, and more important to consider at higher density. A few of these aspects include parking (residents and guests), trash service, private open space (balconies/courtyards), sidewalks, trail connections and public open space. Staff has ensured the development standards in the Altair Specific Plan will meet or exceed the same high standards established by the City's other planned developments, which are predominantly single family. Furthermore, a Condition of Approval has been included, and agreed to by the applicant, which limits the number of apartments to 750 units, thus ensuring a substantial number of owner -occupied units, which is intended to ensure "pride of ownership" and investment in the community. Village A contains approximately 16 gross acres, and is located at the northern end of the proposed project. It is bounded by existing business parks on the north, the proposed Western Bypass on the east, and natural open space on the south and west. Housing would be arranged around a formal green space that would allow for passive sports play. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 9 to 18 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a maximum of 280 dwelling units allowed. Village B contains approximately 12 gross acres, and is located at the northern end of the development. Like Village A, it would function as a gateway site to the community. It is bounded by the proposed Western Bypass on the north, existing single and multifamily development on the east and south, and the proposed Altair Vista Road on the west. Similar to Village A, Village B is primarily on a previously graded pad, elevated well above the surrounding existing development. This village is located across from the proposed elementary school site, making it a convenient location for families with young children. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 9 to 18 du/ac with a maximum of 220 dwelling units allowed. Village C is the core of Altair. It is approximately 21 acres in size (not including the elementary school site) and located in the heart of the proposed project. This village includes a five -acre central park, community center and clubhouse, high density residential dwelling units, and would allow up to 7,000 square feet of neighborhood -serving commercial development. It is bounded by the proposed elementary school on the north, single and multifamily development and religious facilities of Old Town Temecula on the east, Village D on the south, and the proposed Western Bypass on the west. The focal point of the proposed project and Village C is a promontory plaza that sits atop the high point of the central park and that visually and physically connects the proposed project with Old Town Temecula, emphasizing a strong axis aligning with Altair, Main Street in Old Town Temecula, and City Hall. The clubhouse and residential development with front doors/porches or patios/balconies will provide "eyes on the park," which will create synergy between the surrounding homes and central park, which is anticipated to receive the most visitors from outside the community to use the park and elementary school. A similar development comparison would be the residential cottages surrounding Harveston Lake, which is open to the public. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 18 to 29 du/ac, with a maximum of 225 dwelling units for the north core; and 21 to 33 du/ac, with a maximum of 440 dwelling units for the south core. Village D is approximately nine gross acres in size and visually located on the axis with the First Street entrance into Altair. The village is on a stepped plateau defined by two open space ravines to the north and south. It is bounded by Village C on the north, multifamily development on the east, Village E on the south, and the proposed Western Bypass on the west. Vehicular access would be from Altair Vista Road, which bisects the site and splits into one-way segments encompassing the park. Up to 15,000 square feet of ground floor accessory office, live/work or retail commercial development would be allowed along Altair Vista, oriented towards the neighborhood park. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 8 to 18 du/ac, with a maximum of 160 dwelling units allowed. Village E is approximately eight gross acres in size and is located on steep terrain that is most suitable for lower density residential development to minimize grading. The neighborhood park is on an east -west alignment to take advantage of the mountain views south and east of the site. The village is bounded by Village D on the north, multifamily development on the east, Village F on the south, and the proposed Western Bypass on the west. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 5 to 15 du/ac, with a maximum of 115 dwelling units allowed. Village F is very linear and has a steep slope along the eastern edge. It is approximately nine gross acres in size and is bounded by Altair Vista Road and Village E on the north, proposed "B" Street North and multifamily development on the east, and the proposed Western Bypass on the south and west. There are two small park locations in Village F. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 7 to 20 du/ac, with a maximum of 180 dwelling units allowed. Village G is south of the proposed Western Bypass on terrain that steeply slopes to the southeast. As such, a lower density development of clustered, detached homes is most appropriate. The South Parcel is recommended to be developed as a Nature/Culture/Sustainability Center, but if it were to develop as a higher education institution, some type of student housing would also be appropriate. The village is approximately seven gross acres in size and is bounded by the proposed Western Bypass on the north, "B" Street South on the east, "C" Street on the south, and open space on the west. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 4 to 18 du/ac, with a maximum of 130 dwelling units allowed. The Elementary School Site is approximately seven gross acres in size and would be dedicated to the Temecula Valley School District to serve the residents of Altair and nearby neighborhoods. It is anticipated that the school would accommodate 600 to 730 students in a two-story building. The site is bounded by the proposed Western Bypass on the west, proposed Altair Vista Road on the north and east, and Village C and the community center on the south. Significant effort has gone into the design of the driveways and circulation in and around the elementary school to avoid disruption to the neighborhood, and backups on the Western Bypass. Dual stacking lanes several hundred feet long, a right turn entry off Altair Vista Road, and a roundabout at the entry/exit are intended to move traffic safely and efficiently during peak pick-up and drop-off times. Also, several pedestrian and bicycle paths converge on this location to allow safe, non -vehicular access to this site from all directions. If the School District elects to not receive the land, the land may be developed with residential uses. Allowable residential density for the school site would be transferred from other villages, so that the total dwelling units for the entire Altair Specific Plan area shall not exceed 1,750 residential units. The "South Parcel" or "Civic Site" is located at the southern end of the Specific Plan area and contains approximately 55 gross acres, most of which (approximately 37 acres) would be conserved as natural open space. The parcel is bordered by "B" Street South, "C" Street, and Metropolitan Water District pipeline property on the north, Murrieta Creek on the east and south, and Camino Estribo and natural open space on the west. The development area is approximately 16 acres, including a 3.7 -acre buildable pad for a Nature/Culture/Sustainability Center building and parking lot, herein referred to as "Nature Center." The balance of the development area surrounding the Nature Center would be revegetated with natural vegetation on undulating slopes of 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1 slopes to provide a natural landscape appearance. The remaining approximately 37 acres would be left as natural open space and offered for dedication to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), while another two acres consists of `B" and "C" Streets and detention basins. Trails will be developed along the eastern slope of the development area, and in the open space utilizing siting guidance in the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Nature Center and associated trails would fulfill the City's goal of providing benefits to the public associated with trails and environmental education. The trails would be limited to on-site, and are not proposed to access the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which has had several trespass issues. It is intended that the Nature Center would accommodate an office for City Park Rangers, and/or Code Enforcement. The presence of a nature center with "eyes on the creek" will help police the area and limit trespass violations, while protecting the area and its value for habitat. The South Parcel has been the subject of much discussion and debate with regard to the MSHCP and wildlife corridor movement, specifically for mountain lions. Following circulation of the Draft EIR ending June 17, 2016, the City Council held two public workshops in July and September, and then put the South Parcel/Civic Site on the February 14, 2017 agenda for discussion by the City Council. Based on input from the environmental community, and numerous meetings with wildlife agencies, the RCA, and representatives from the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, and Endangered Habitat League, a decision was made at that meeting to direct staff to evaluate the impacts of a Nature Center as the preferred, less impactful use. Although the proposed Nature Center is the recommended land use for the South Parcel of the Specific Plan, the City Council retains the right to consider the previously proposed institutional land use on the South Parcel (evaluated in the Draft EIR) in their public hearing deliberations. Resolutions and Ordinances with findings for both options have been prepared, along with two versions of the Specific Plan, and are included as attachments to the Staff Report. Tentative Tract Map No. 36959 The proposed Tentative Map 36959 will subdivide 270 acres into four phases (36959, 36959-1, 36959-2, and 36959-3) corresponding to the phasing and infrastructure improvements plan outlined in the Development Agreement. The map will create 63 numbered Lots, which will subdivide the property into smaller areas consistent with the proposed Altair Specific Plan. This results in creating open space lots for dedication to the RCA, public and private park areas, and lots for financing and marketing to merchant builders. Consideration has been given to areas for maintenance by the Homeowners Association (HOA) or City as identified in the attached Developer Responsibility Map, Exhibit 10E. The proposed tentative map will also create 20 lettered lots, which identify public and private streets. In general, the public streets include the Western Bypass, portions of Altair Vista in front of the proposed Elementary School, "B" and "C" Streets for accessing the South Parcel/Civic Site, and transitions into the proposed project from public right-of-way at First Street and Pujol Street. The proposed lot sizes, access points, and circulation are all consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the City's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) regulations. It should be noted that the Altair Specific Plan will require subsequent tract maps and/or condo maps at the time of submittal for each home product review application. Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) and Development Agreement (DA) In accordance with the City's fiscal policies, a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) has been completed for the proposed project to evaluate any projected deficit (revenues from taxes and spending by new residents in comparison to the cost of providing municipal services) to the City's General 9 Fund. The City's fiscal policies require FIAs to be completed for development that proposes an increase in residential density from what is currently allowed in the General Plan. The FIA was used to inform the Development Agreement between the City and Ambient Communities, and will also be used to inform the creation of a Services Community Facilities District (CFD). The services to be financed by the CFD include, but are not limited to, police protection, fire protection, and municipal services. A Development Agreement (DA) is a voluntary contract between a local jurisdiction and a person who owns or controls property within the jurisdiction, detailing the obligations of both parties and specifying the standards and conditions that will govern development of the property. The following are the significant elements of the DA • The term of the agreement is for twenty years with the potential for a ten-year extension; • Construction will be phased from north to south, and each phase has requirements for the installation of public infrastructure (streets, utilities, parks, etc.) before issuance of building permits and any related impacts; • Fee credits are provided for infrastructure constructed and land preserved consistent with the DIF. TUMF, and MSHCP programs; • Voluntary Conservation Features are required in the Development agreement, specifically $500,000 for an engineering feasibility study for a wildlife crossing: • The DA allows the $500,0000 amount mentioned above to be reduced up to $300,000 (to $200,000) in the event of any litigation against the proposed project; • The City retains the right to consider the previously proposed institutional land use on the South Parcel (evaluated in the Draft El R) in their public hearing deliberations; • If no legal action is filed against all or any portion of the proposed project, the City waives any and all rights to a seek a Specific Plan Amendment to change the use of all or any portion of the Nature Center; • The proposed project receives full credit (1OO%) for QUIMBY based on the public and private parks proposed at Altair; • The City will receive the 55 -acre South Parcel for a civic use and public benefits via land dedication. in exchange, the developer will be reimbursed from the CFD fair market value for the cost of the land and public improvements; and • The developer will form a Services Community Facilities District (CFD) to cover the deficit in the General Fund resulting from the provision of municipal services to higher density residential. In the Development Agreement, the City agrees to work with bond counsel to establish a CFD, which is proposed to fund three components of the proposed project. Special Tax A will be used to fund public infrastructure (parks, roads, utilities, etc.). Special Tax B is for city services such as police and fire protection, at a rate of $237/per unit/per year with inflator ("City Services Deficit"). Special Tax C is for wildlife conservation at a fee of $43/per unit/per year to include maintenance of open space, land acquisitions, police and code enforcement of trespass and vandalism, and construction of future crossings of the Interstate 15 Freeway ("Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee"). Both Special Tax B and C include rates of adjustment for inflation. The effective tax rate will not exceed (capped) 2.1%. The owners and their successors are responsible for payment to the City of the City Services Deficit payment and the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. Growth Management Plan and Extraordinary Public Benefits 10 On March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted the Growth Management Program, which is intended to serve as the policy for the study and implementation of growth management measures in the City of Temecula. A policy of the plan is to consider approving residential projects at the lowest allowable density in each density category. Projects may be approved above the lowest density if the project provides onsite amenities that benefit the community as a whole. Given the proposed General Plan Amendment, and Specific Plan for higher density, the proposed project is proposing the following to comply with the City's Growth Management Plan: • An estimated $28 million dollars of regional infrastructure (Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge over Murrieta Creek), and improved east -west connectivity in the City; • A 5 -acre Central Park and "Grand Staircase" connection to Main Street in Old Town on the west side of 1-15 for public use; • An elementary school site to serve existing and future residents on the west side of 1-15: • Approximately 84 acres of natural open space (nearly one-third of total proposed project acreage) will be deed transferred to the RCA; • Another 20 acres of graded slopes will be revegetated and offered for additional acreage dedication to the RCA; • Over eight miles of pathways and trails connecting to the City's bike lane and trail network; • Per the Development Agreement, the applicant will provide $150,000 dollars of"start-up" funding for a shuttle connecting to RTA transit stops and/or a bikeshare program; • Up to $500,000 dollars toward an engineering feasibility study for a future crossing of the 1-15 freeway south of the Temecula Creek undercrossing; • Further financial contributions to preserve 8.9 additional acres along the escarpment west of Altair to add to the 128 acres previously dedicated by the City to the RCA; • A 55 -acre Civic Site for a Nature Center/Culture/Sustainability Center and trails to provide environmental education and protection of natural resources at the confluence of the Santa Margarita River; • A Wildlife Conservation Fee proposed as part of a Community Facilities District (CFD) at $431unitlper year to fund maintenance (graffiti and trash removal), land acquisition within the Santa Ana Palomar Mountain Special Linkage Area, and engineering and feasibility studies for construction of a wildlife crossing at Interstate 15. The extraordinary public benefits listed above are required by Conditions of Approval, and in the Development Agreement. As previously stated, the $500,000 dollars required of the applicant for an engineering feasibility study for a wildlife crossing may be reduced to $200,000, if it is needed to offset the costs of potential litigation against the proposed project. Consistency with the Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority _RCA) Multi Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP) As provided in the MSHCP, Section 3.3.1, and analyzed in the EIR, determining consistency with the MSHCP should occur in a `sequential approach" that begins "at the broad, landscape scale and proceeds through the individual cell criteria." The MSHCP further states on page 3- 123, "It should be noted that achievement of the variable target acreages will be measured on a Core and Linkage or Area Plan and Area Plan and Subunit basis, not an individual project or CeilICell Group basis." Thus, a proposed project may not specifically meet the acreage requirements within a given Cell, but will still achieve the overall goals and acreage targets for the Area Plan and Subunit level. Using this guidance in the MSHCP, and considering the City's past and present efforts to implement the MSHCP which include, but are not limited to, dedicating 128 acres of hillside escarpment in Linkage 10 to the RCA; reducing the length of the Western Bypass by 50 percent (preserving approximately 55 acres of habitat); requiring an additional 84 acres of undisturbed open space in Altair to be dedicated to the RCA; and minimizing impacts to the South Parcel/Civic Site, the City has determined the Altair project is consistent with the MSHCP as analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Altair. Furthermore, the City concludes the following in the FEIR as it relates to consistency with the MSHCP: The proposed project would not preclude achievement of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly target acreages in either Subunit 1 or Subunit 6 due to the acres conserved by the Altair project, and the availability of other undeveloped and rural residential lands for conservation. Accordingly, the proposed project will meet overall conservation goals for Linkage 10. 1 n particular, the analysis concluded that the midpoint acreage targets for Subunit 1 could still be exceeded by as much as 163 acres (15 percent) and for Subunit 6 the acreage targets could be exceeded by as much as 712 acres (34 percent) with available conservation in both subunits following implementation of the project as proposed. Therefore, no Criteria Refinement is necessary. In addition, based on numerous meetings with the RCA, Wildlife Agencies and various environmental groups, the following has been required of Ambient Communities by the City in the attached Development Agreement as mentioned above • $500,000 for an engineering feasibility study (may be reduced by as much as $300,000 in the event of litigation); • 84 acres of onsite, undisturbed open space dedication to RCA, • Nearly 9 acres of additional, offsite conservation of hillside escarpment facilitated by Ambient to the RCA: • A CFD assessment in the amount of $431unitlper year to assist in maintenance, enforcement, land acquisition and further study and engineering of a future crossing of 1- 15. As noted in the FEIR, the need for a viable wildlife crossing(s) as a result of the construction of 1-15 is a regional issue for which the Altair project cannot be held solely responsible. Ultimately, finding a solution will require a multi -jurisdictional effort, increased collaboration, and millions of dollars_ It is intended that the mitigation, required conservation features, communication, and processes set forth by this proposed project will result in increased efforts by all parties to preserve additional habitat and facilitate an eventual east -west wildlife crossing between the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountain ranges in Southern California. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the U -T San Diego on November 2, 2017 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 11 has been determined the proposed project could have a significant impact on 12 the environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed project. A Draft EIR was prepared under staff's direction by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) and was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment via the State Clearinghouse for a period of 45 days. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced May 2, 2016 and expired on June 17, 2016. Notices were mailed to surrounding property owners, signs were placed on the property, and a notice was placed in the San Diego Union Tribune. The City of Temecula received 26 written comments and responded to each comment. Comments were provided by the State Clearinghouse, Caltrans, US Fish and Wildlife Service/CA Department of Fish and Wildlife (joint letter), National Marine Fisheries Service, Regional Conservation Authority, Southern California Association of Governments, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Eastern Municipal Water District (two), Rancho California Water District, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Temecula Valley Unified School District, Pechanga Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, The Nature Conservancy, Endangered Habitats League, San Diego State University Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, The Sierra Club, Winston Vickers and UC Davis Wildlife Health Center, The Mountain Lion Foundation, Wildlife Research Institute, Laguna Greenbelt, South Coast Steelhead Coalition, Johnson & Sedlack, John Laundre, Larry McNall, Mark Mahan, and Inland Empire Biking Alliance. Five of the letters came in after the June 17, 2016 comment deadline with the latest comment letter coming in ten days after on June 27, 2016. However, the City and its EIR Consultant addressed all letters with equal detail. A copy of the City's responses has been provided to commenting agencies as required by State law. A copy of the Draft EIR document has been provided to the Planning Commission via the link at the end of this report. Another joint letter was received from the Center for Biological Diversity/The Sierra Club/Cougar Connection on November 30, 2016, well after the 45 -day comment period. This letter has been addressed in a separate technical memo attached to the staff report. In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service/CA Fish and Wildlife Service (joint letter), and Endangered Habitat League submitted comment letters to the City regarding the South Parcel/Civic Site when it was considered for a Nature Center by the City Council on February 14, 2017. These letters have also been addressed in the attached technical memo. The environmental analysis identified four areas where impacts were considered to be less than significant. These areas are: Geology/Soils and Seismicity, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Utilities. Another six areas were identified where potentially significant impacts could be avoided or mitigated. These six areas include Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Land Use. The EIR contains mitigation measures for those environmental impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant impact in the form of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Four areas were identified as resulting in Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. These areas are: 1) Air Quality at the project and cumulative level, 2) Greenhouse Gas Emissions at the cumulative level, 3) Noise and Vibration at the project and cumulative level, and 4) Transportation and Traffic at the project and cumulative level. In accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted prior to approval of the project because of these impacts. A Statement of Overriding 13 Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if the expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. As mentioned previously in the staff report, although the proposed Nature Center is the recommended land use for the South Parcel of the Specific Plan, the City Council retains the right to consider the previously proposed institutional land use on the South Parcel (evaluated in the Draft El R) in their public hearing deliberations. Resolutions and Ordinances with findings for either option have been prepared, along with two versions of the Specific Plan, and are included as attachments to the Staff Report. Based on the additional analysis specific to the Nature Center use it was determined that the Transportation and Traffic Impacts were reduced and mitigation measures previously identified in the DEIR no longer apply (Impact TRA -8, Impact TRA -10, and TRA -11). However, a Statement of Overriding Consideration is necessary for either option, as the Specific Plan will cause the level of service at the existing 1-15 southbound ramps to degrade from Level of Service ("LOS') LOS D to LOS F during AM and PM peak hours prior to construction of the "Ultimate Interchange" improvements. This is a conservative approach to the impact assessment in the DEIR as the ultimate interchange improvements are under construction and once complete, the improvements will reduce project impacts below a level of significance. The proposed project provides six (6) primary benefits to the community as incorporated into the Statement of Overriding Consideration for the proposed project: 1. An estimated $28 million dollars of regional infrastructure (Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge over Murrieta Creek), and improved east -west connectivity in the City. The Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge are part of a regional facility, identified in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The Regional System needs to be expanded to accommodate anticipated future growth in the City of Temecula and southwestern Riverside County. 2. A 5 -acre Central Park and "Grand Staircase" connection to Main Street in Old Town on the west side of 1-15 for public use. Currently, the City does not have a park of sufficient size for residents on the west side of 1-15 to accommodate parks and recreation programs. Residents west of 1-15 have to travel to the east side sports parks. The Central Park will accommodate existing and future growth, and provide an important destination and gathering place for passive and active recreation in and around Old Town. 3. An elementary school site to serve existing and future residents on the west side of 1-15. Similar to the City's current situation with a lack of parks and programming relative to population on the west side of 1-15, the elementary school site has the ability to provide a neighborhood school in walking distance for many that will help eliminate the need to rely exclusively on schools on the east side of 1-15. 4. Over eight miles of pathways and trails connecting to the City's bike lane and trail network. The Quality of Life Master Plan identifies six core values as identified by the community. Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning 14 efforts. Altair is designed as a "Smart Growth" development which makes walking easy and promotes a healthy and active lifestyle. Furthermore, the proposed trails, pathways, and sidewalks connect to the surrounding network closing gaps and increasing opportunities for active transportation. 5. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant will provide $150,000 dollars of "start-up" funding for a shuttle connecting to RTA transit stops and/or a bikeshare program. Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts. This funding will assist in promoting active transportation in an effort to relieve auto congestion in the City. 6. A 55 -acre Civic Site for a Nature Center/Culture/Sustainability Center and trails to provide environmental education and protection of natural resources at the confluence of the Santa Margarita River, which is southern California's last "free flowing" river and the center of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Sacred Place/Origin Area, a recognized Traditional Cultural Place (TCP) on the National Register of Historic Places. The primary public benefits listed above are required by Conditions of Approval, and in the Development Agreement. FINDINGS General Plan Amendment A. The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest. The existing General Plan Land use designations to be replaced include Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR). The revised General Plan Land Use designations proposed in the Altair Specific Plan will be Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) to include Active Open Space (AO), Natural Open Space (NO), Residential (R), Mixed -Use (M), Mixed -Use Residential (MR), Educational (E), and Institutional (I). The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest because it diversifies the City's housing stock and provides options besides single family dwelling units, builds regional infrastructure (Western Bypass), provides parks and trails, and a civic site for public use. B. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The General Plan Amendment will ensure compliance with all Building, Fire and Development Code requirements. These codes set policies and standards that protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. in addition, the General Plan Amendment is tied to a Specific Plan, which establishes specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the General Plan Amendment and concluded that the General Plan Amendment is in the best interest of and is compatible with the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The development that will be allowed by the General Plan amendment is located directly adjacent to Old Town Temecula 15 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 clientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The General Plan Amendment will allow up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. C. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The Specific Plan that is tied to the General Plan Amendment conforms to the City's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the City's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. The Specific Plan is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well-designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preservation of open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. This area has been planned for extensively as evidenced by the General Plan, Old Town Specific Plan, and Westside Specific Plan. The proposed Altair Specific Plan is consistent with the community vision for complementary uses to Old Town. These uses include single family, multi family, mixed use (residential, office and retail), parks, trails, civic uses and infrastructure. D. The General Plan Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Amendment will implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan specific to residential development west of Old Town, and implementation of the Western Bypass Corridor. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project includes Table 3.9-4, which identifies General Plan Goals and Policies with a comparison of Consistency, Non -Consistency, or Not Applicable. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable goals and polices of the adopted General Plan. Specific Plan A. The Specific Plan complies with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65451 based on, but not limited to, the following: (1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the Specific Plan (Sections 2, 3 and 8 of the Specific Plan). (2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the Specific Plan and needed to support the land uses described in the Specific Plan (Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Specific Plan). 16 (3) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable (Sections 3, 9 and 10 of the Specific Plan). (4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above (Sections 5 and 11 of the Specific Plan). (5) The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan). B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the the following findings must be made in adopting the Specific Plan: (1) The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the general plan and development code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Land Use Element identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The Specific Plan is consistent with these objectives. The Specific Plan provides a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Specific Plan respects existing topography and embraces existing scenic vistas as focal points for the community. The Specific Plan satisfies two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area," and "[I]ocating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The proposed Specific Plan is also consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which is to create a `regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." A significant portion of the Western Bypass Corridor project is accomplished in the Specific Plan, connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The Specific Plan will create a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the Specific Plan implements 17 Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." The Specific Plan development is predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the Specific Plan area as natural open space, thus consistent with Policy 1.5 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles." The Specific Plan will establish the design and development framework for the proposed Project. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as amended by this Ordinance. As proposed and conditioned, the Specific Plan will be consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of State Law and other Ordinances of the City. Further findings of consistency with the General Plan can be found in Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. (2) The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of, and is not detrimental to, the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The proposed specific plan 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 clientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The proposed specific plan will provide up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. The General Plan set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the 18 General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The subject property is currently undeveloped land with only a few of the required public utilities located onsite. The proposed development within the Specific Plan area will provide the necessary connections, extensions, and upgrades as required to serve the area. (4) The proposed Specific Plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Specific Plan conforms to the City's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the City's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. In addition, the Specific Plan is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well-designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preserve open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. Tentative Tract Map (Section 16.09.140) A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. As designed and conditioned, the proposed map is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, Temecula General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. The map has been reviewed by Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments and is consistent with size, setbacks, parking, water quality and other applicable standards. The proposed subdivision will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics which is consistent with the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The subdivision will allow for a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The subdivision will satisfy the following implementation measure listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "jp]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area." The proposed subdivision is also consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The proposed subdivision will create a mixture of 19 housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the proposed subdivision implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e}ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity" B. The Tentative Map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use. The land identified in the proposed map is not subject to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Williamson Land Act. In addition, the land has not been used as agriculture in the recent past. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the Tentative Map. The subject site consists of 270 -acres of vacant land. The proposed map subdivides 270 acres to allow for residential, parks, mixed use, and civic/institutional uses. The proposed Tentative Tract Map design is consistent with the Temecula General Plan and the development standards for the Altair Specific Plan. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed project consists of a Tentative Tract Map on vacant property. An Environmental impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed project. Four impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable after all mitigation has been taken into account (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise and Vibration, and Traffic). A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed project finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision and improvements have been reviewed and conditioned by the Fire, Public Works, Planning, and Building and Safety Departments. As a result, the proposed project is consistent or has been conditioned to be consistent with Fire and Building Codes and the City's General Plan and Municipal Code which contain provisions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities to the extent feasible. All development must meet all appropriate Building and Fire Code requirements as they relate to passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. 20 G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at Targe for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. All acquired rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The City has reviewed these easements and has found no potential conflicts. H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby Act). The proposed project involves the construction of a residential development. The proposed project will meet all Quimby requirements through the provision of park improvements, and as outlined in the Development Agreement. Development Agreement A. The Development Agreement complies with the requirements set forth in Government Code section 65865 through 65869.5, which require that the Development Agreement specify in detail, and contain the following: (1) Provisions in Section 9.1 requiring periodic review at least every twelve months, at which time the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement (California Government Code Section 65865.1). (2) Duration of the Development Agreement, as specified in Section 2.3 of the Agreement as being twenty (20) years (Government Code Section 65865.2). (3) The permitted uses of the property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes in Sections 2, 3, and 7-10 of the Specific Plan (which is incorporated into the Development Agreement and herein by this reference) and in Section 4 of the Development Agreement (Government Code Section 65865.2). (4). Terms and conditions in Section 11 of the Specific Plan (which is incorporated into the Development Agreement by reference), and in Sections 2-4 of the Development Agreement, that require the developer to construct all necessary public improvements necessary to access and improve the property for the proposed use (Government Code Section 65865.2). S. Pursuant to Section 65867.5(b), the Development Agreement must be consistent with the City's General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended. The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics residence. The Land Use Element identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to 21 increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Development Agreement will satisfy two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area," and "[I]ocating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The Development Agreement is also consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which is to create a "regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." The Development Agreement will require the developer to construct a significant portion of the Western Bypass Corridor project connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. The Development Agreement is also consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single- family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the Development Agreement implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." The Development Agreement will allow development predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the property as natural open space, thus consistent with Policy 1.5 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles." Further findings of consistency between the Specific Plan, which the Development Agreement implements, and the General Plan can be found in Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan by providing extraordinary public benefits in the form of public infrastructure, parks, trails, and a 55 -acre civic site for public use to justify the increased density associated with the Altair Specific Plan and Development Agreement. C. Pursuant to Section 65867.5(c), a Development Agreement that includes a subdivision shall not be approved unless the agreement provides that any tentative map prepared for the subdivision will comply with the provisions of Government Code section 66473.7. 22 Section 3.7.5 of the Development Agreement provides that any tentative map prepared for the proposed project shall comply with California Government Code Section 66473.7. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Subject Property and Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 3. Altair Site Plan 4. Altair Zoning Map in Specific Plan 5. PC Resolution Recommending City Council Certification of EIR and Actions Related Thereto (NC) 5.1 City Council Resolution Certifying the EIR and Actions Related Thereto (NC) Exhibit A — Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (NC) Exhibit B — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (NC) Exhibit C — Statement of Overriding Considerations (NC) 6. PC Resolution Recommending City Council Certification of EIR and Actions Related Thereto (Civic Use) 6.1 City Council Resolution Certifying the EIR and Actions Related Thereto (Civic Use) Exhibit A — Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Civic Use) Exhibit B — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Civic Use) Exhibit C — Statement of Overriding Considerations (Civic Use) 7. PC Resolution — Recommending General Plan Amendment. 7.1 City Council Resolution Exhibit A — Proposed Land Use Map Exhibit B — Revised Alignment to Western Bypass Corridor 8. PC Resolution — Recommending Altair Specific Plan (NC) 8.1 City Council Ordinance (NC) Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval (NC) Exhibit B — Altair Specific Plan (NC) 9. PC Resolution — Recommending Altair Specific Plan (Civic Use) 9.1 City Council Ordinance (Civic Use) Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval (Civic Use) Exhibit B - Altair Specific Plan slip sheets for Civic Use 10. PC Resolution — Recommending Tentative Tract Map 36959 14.1 City Council Resolution Exhibit A— Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Tentative Tract Map 36959 Exhibit C — Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit D — Construction Phasing and Improvements Exhibit Exhibit E — Developer Responsibility Map 23 PC Resolution - Recommending Development Agreement City Council Ordinance Exhibit A — Altair Development Agreement Exhibit B - Fiscal Impact Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) with Appendices can be downloaded at: https:l/tem eculaca.[govlDocum entCenter/Home/View11214 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) with Appendices can be downloaded at: https://tem eculaca.govIDocum entCenterlHome/View14513 12. Technical Memo on Related Correspondence 13. Public Correspondence 14. Notice of Public Hearing ATTACHMENT 1 VICINITY MAP CALVFORMA Ar•‘47 titlift:1*\:*ite atimortelois ASMan-- ATTACHMENT 2 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS (APN) ATTACHMENT 3 ALTAIR SITE PLAN Civic Use • •-•,. • • 1 I, Cid Town Oty_HaN Temecula M•1•6111 • 10 ...111.6. SITE CONOT PEDESTRIAN PATH BICYCLE/PEDF_STRIAN PATH PUBLIC SPACE MAIN ROAD carrierjohnson + CULTUR3 ATTACHMENT 4 ALTAIR ZONING MAP IN SPECIFIC PLAN I>~t�rir ZONING MAP Temecula, CetibaN ZONING MAP LEGEND 5P -AQ Active Open Space fl ] SP -NO Natural Open Space • SP -R Residential Zone SP -M Mixed -Use SP -MR Mixed -Use Residential N IB SP -E Educational SP -C Civic E lerINS 1 • sw� r =err' - 5355A0 S. 6 x015 j ATTACHMENT 5 PC RESOLUTION RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF EIR AND ACTIONS RELATED THERETO (NC) PC RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (AP N 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 9401-310- 016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities, filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161 a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance on the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal, Code Regs. § 14000, et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project. D. Pursuant to CEQA, City staff determined that the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment and therefore an environmental impact report (EIR) should be prepared for the proposed Project. E. On November 5, 2014, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the proposed Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (#2014111029). The NOP was circulated from November 14, 2014 through December 15, 2014 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issue to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). F. On December 3, 2014, a scoping session was held, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the EIR for the proposed Project. G. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project, including preparation or review, as applicable, of all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the proposed Project. H. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearinghouse from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ron Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. During the comment period, the City received 26 written comments on the Draft EIR from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. J. The "Final EIR" consists of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the Errata to the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and Appendix A to the Final EIR. The Final EIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies on November 3, 2017, which is at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). K. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final EIR and the proposed Project, at which time the Commission heard and considered information presented by City staff on the proposed Project and its environmental review. In addition, interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify regarding this matter. L. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the entire record, including the Final EIR, evidence presented at the hearing, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, and other materials. Section 2. After due consideration of the proposed Project and in its independent judgment, the Planning Commission hereby finds and resolves that: A. All of the above recitals are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated into this section as though set forth in full. B. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the proposed Project. The proposed Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. C. The Planning Commission has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR and Final EIR, responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony. D. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. E. The Planning Commission, in the exercise of its independent judgment, hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the proposed Project, make appropriate environmental findings, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The Planning Commission further recommends that the mitigation measures set forth therein be made applicable to the proposed Project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15s" day of November, 2017. John Telesio, Vice Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson 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. - was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary ATTACHMENT 5.1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EIR AND ACTIONS RELATED THERETO (NC) RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940- 310-015, 9401-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310- 048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities, filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-01 E0, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161 a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance on the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14. Gal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. D. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the proposed Project. E. On November 5, 2014, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to all agencies and persons that might be interested in or affected by the proposed Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2014111029). The NOP was circulated from November 14, 2014, through December 15, 2014, to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Project. On December 3, 2014 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. F. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft EIR. G. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project, including preparation of review, as applicable, of all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the proposed Project. H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in April 2016, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on Friday, April 28, 2016. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. J. In response to the Draft EIR, 26 written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to ail comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.. K. The "Final EIR" consists of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the Errata to the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, Appendix A to the Final EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final EIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies on November 3, 2017, which is at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). L. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled and duly noticed meeting, considered the proposed Project and the Final EIR, at which time the City staff presented its report and interested persons had an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the proposed Project and the Final EIR. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the Altair Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution Nos. 17- , recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Agreement related to the approval of the proposed Project. N. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. 0. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 1. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as no impact or less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Sections IV and V, respectively, of Exhibit A. 2. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A, Section VI. 3. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Exhibit A, Section VII. 4. Alternatives to the project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution. P. CEQA Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. Q. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. R. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR and Final EIR, responses to comments, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony presented during the public hearings on the proposed Project.. S. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and hereby incorporates them herein by this reference. B. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the proposed Project. C. Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues regarding the proposed Project. D. Find and determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. E. Find and declare that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. F. Certify the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit C. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit C, by itself, would individually justify proceeding with the proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged in the record of proceedings. G. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Altair Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA 1, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. - was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 5A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS (NC) TO BE PROVIDED ATTACHMENT 5B MITIGATION MONITORING AN❑ REPORTING PROGRAM (NC) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DRAFT— NATURE CENTER MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Monitoring Phase Agency Verification of Compliance Agency Compliance Initiates Date Remarks Aesthetics Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all future development within the project area: • The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures in public areas contain "sharp cut-off' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. Pre -Construction / Construction / Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the development shall take advantage of landscaping, onsite architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. ■ The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens; Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 1 ESA! 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Respansible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance InitiaFs Date Remarks Air Quality Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -la: No fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield; A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting; = Specification of each light fixture and each light shield; City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1 b: The lease or purchase agreements Per -Construction Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and City of Issuance of for all non-residential units shall include the following: Temecula Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. Certificate of • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the development is in compliance with the design standards in Altair Specific Plan, Mitigation a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all or other City of Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. buildings, b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Designee Temecula 655. Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep. Air Quality Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -la: No fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. Pre -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1 b: The lease or purchase agreements Per -Construction City of City of Issuance of for all non-residential units shall include the following: Temecula Temecula Certificate of Building Official Occupancy by a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all or other City of buildings, b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Designee Temecula Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep. Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 2 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuling, and/or work -at-home programs as appropriate to the business developed. (non -quantifiable) Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1c: All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically operated. Landscape contracts for all multi -family residential and non-residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be electrically operated, Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1d: All residential and non-residential buildings shall be constructed such that they meet ane of the following conditions: a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by 15 percent; or b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy, for example the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Pre -construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -le: The lease or purchase agreements for all multi -family residential and non-residential units shall: a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi -family residential buildings and employee/student areas for non-residential buildings. Additionally, building management shall encourage a ride -share program within the specific plan area such that employees as well as residents have more access to car-pooling opportunities. (non -quantifiable) b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as, but not limited to, special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles, (non -quantifiable) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces (per multi -family and non-residential development) shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles. (non - quantifiable) Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2: The site shall be watered four times per day during ground disturbance (grading) activities for all project Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 3 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Respansible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks development phases. During drought conditions, defined as Water Pre -Construction 1 City of City of Issuance of Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by the Rancho California Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit Water District, use of reclaimed water or non -water chemical stabilizers shall be implemented such that fugitive emissions reductions are comparable. Permission to use potable water for dust control activities during drought conditions shall be granted by the Qualified and sign -off by City of Temecula Building Official if the General Contractor shows in writing that (1) Reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from recycled wastewater treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site', and (2) Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from wells and groundwater sources located within 10 miles of the construction site. Biologist City of Temecula Biological Resources Mitigation Measure MM-B1O-1: To the extent feasible, clearing and Pre -Construction 1 City of City of Issuance of grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian breeding Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit season, which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If clearing Qualified and sign -off by and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season, a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys. The survey shall occur no more than 7 days prior to any clearing, grubbing, construction or ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project area, the nest shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own and are no longer relying on the nest for survival). A 500 -foot construction setback from any active raptor nesting location (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified biologist. A 300 -foot construction setback (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, and the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be established for all other migratory birds. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. AJI construction setbacks shall be clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate material (flagging, staking, construction fencing, etc.) and verified by a qualified Biologist City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 4 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks biologist. Such fencing shall be maintained and monitored until the nest is confirmed to be inactive, If an avoidance buffer is not feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City, noise walls or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent disturbance to the nest. Mitigation Measure MM-Bl0-2: Suitable burrowing owl habitat Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of a identified on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist Temecula Temecula grading permit using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Qualified and signed off Instructions for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biologist by the City of (EPD, 2006) no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine presence or absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified, no additional mitigation is necessary and activities may commence. If a burrowing owl is detected, the Temecula City of Temecula and the RCA will be notified. If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the applicant shall implement the following measure: Take of active nests shall be avoided. Passive or active relocation (use of one way doors and collapse of burrows), as approved by the RCA, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 - August 31). If active relocation is selected, translocation sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. Translocation sites will be identified, taking into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species. Selected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior to translocation site development. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3: The following Best Management Construction City of City of Issuance of Practices shall be adhered to: Temecula Temecula Grading Permit ■ Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, or grading Qualified and signed off permit for the project, a qualified biologist (Project Biologist by the City of Biologist) with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites, shall be retained by the applicant to oversee compliance with the protection and avoidance measures for biological issues associated with the project. The Project Biologist shall have the authority Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 5 ESA! 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks • • to halt construction activities in the event of non- compliance. The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to: vegetation removal, tree removal or trimming, grading, and restoration landscaping to ensure project activities remain in compliance with all applicable biological resource permits. Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife species shall be prohibited. • Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the project site, and from feeding wildlife. = Proposed and existing Western Riverside Multiple Species = = Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Areas shall be protected in place by the installation of orange silt fencing. Fencing shall be maintained in working order and inspected weekly. Fencing repair shall occur within 2 working days following inspection, All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and trash removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens and feral cats and dogs, All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas beyond 100 feet of any drainage course, and be contained using appropriate protection measures. • Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project -proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. Nighttime construction which does occur outside these areas shall use directional lighting to minimize the impacts of increased artificial nighttime lighting. • All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than 45 minutes to minimize ambient noise produced by the project, Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 6 ESA f 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -B10 -0a: Prior to the issuance of a grading Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of a permit for the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary agency Temecula Temecula grading permit permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters, wetlands and riparian Building Official by the City of resources, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the or other Designee Temecula Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Impacts to riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to unvegetated channel shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options: on- or offsite habitat restoration; purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective resource agencies (USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW), it shall be prepared according to agency requirements and shall include, at a minimum, the following information: • Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas • An evaluation of the existing function and values, and a description of the function and values to be achieved through compensatory mitigation ■ Detailed plant and seed mix requirements • Detailed planting plan • Specific and measurable five-year success criteria • Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements • Invasive species management • Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of irrigation for at least two years prior to final sign -off • Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 7 ESA (150642 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-Bl0-0b: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) shall be approved by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority to address impacts to 1.24 acres of riparianlriverine habitat. The DBESP shall include the following information: • Definition of the project area • A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible • A written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping • Quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools associated with the project, including direct and indirect effects • A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects, such as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation difference, minimization and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement • A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted, used for comparison of biological equivalency • A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation, including habitat type, location, functional lift, and long- term stewardship responsibility A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts, the habitat mitigation would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which is being impacted and would result in a net equivalent or superior ecological condition Pre -construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Qualified Biologist Issuance of a grading permit by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -810-6a: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, or any phase thereof, the applicant shall pay Local Development Mitigation fees, as determined by the City of Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of a building permit by the City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 8 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15, to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species. Mitigation Measure MM -1310 6b: At the time of final map recordation for the project, or any phase thereof, lands identified to contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project (Conserved Lands) and included on the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) or deed transfer of said parcels to the RCA. Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The project shall conserve onsite a minimum of 82.77 acres, which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to include Cells 7077, 7161, 7078, 7164, 7258, 7264, 7355 and 7356. Pre -construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Approval and Recordation of final map by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -B10 -7a: The portion of Camino Estribo that lies between the South Parcel and the main development area within the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular speeds. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineering Official or other Designee Issuance of a grading permit verified and signed off by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -B10 -7b: The applicant shall install permanent fencing along the Western Bypass where the Bypass right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSFICP Conserved Lands, to keep animals within the wildlife corridor. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed fencing plan for review by the City of Temecula and the wildlife agencies (CDFW and USFWS), and approval by the City. The fencing plan shall include, at a minimum, the fencing location, fencing specifications, plant list, and method and timing of installation. The fence shall be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading and Building Permits by the City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 9 ESA/ 1506,12 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-Bl0-7c: A Slope Revegetation Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. The Plan shall be submitted for approval to the City prior to the construction of the Western Bypass. The Plan shall include at a minimum: • The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to the first six inches along selected portions of the ground disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in restoring disturbed areas Pre-Constructionf Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of grading and building permits by the City of Temecula • Equipment and methods for planting Temecula Temecula grading permit • A planting plan, including the amount and species of seed necessary to revegetate the target habitat types Qualified and project • Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year period following installation Archeologist approval by the • Specific BMPs for erosion control during and after revegetation City of Temecula • A requirement far five years of maintenance of the revegetated areas, including removal of invasive species and irrigation (if necessary) A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance with the success criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using an adaptive management approach Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -la - Retention of a Qualified Pre -construction City of City of Issuance of a Archaeologist: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the Temecula Temecula grading permit start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a Qualified and project qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Archeologist approval by the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiserlo Indians (Pechanga City of Temecula Tribe), The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 10 ESA f160642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initiars Date Remarks the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1h - Retention of a Professional Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of Pechanga Tribal Monitor: At least 30 days prior to seeking a Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga qualified Project Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed Archaeologist Approval; grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop and Pechanga verification by a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The tribal representatives City of in Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional cowith consultatimecuon Pechanga Tribe Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist, Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -lc — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of Training: The qualified archeologist, or an archaeologist working Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a qualified Project representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction Archaeologist Approval; cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review and Pechanga verification by of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to tribal representatives City of in inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction consultation with Pechanga Tribe Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 11 ESA I150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-'ld — Archaeological and Native pre-canstructioni City of City of Issuance of a American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel: Prior to Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation qualified and project removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological Archaeologist approval by the monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the and Pechanga City of applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not tribal Temecula; limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -la and 1 b. The archaeological and Pechanga representatives City verification by City of Temecula in consultation with Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist, If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. Pechanga Tribe The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 12 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -le — Unanticipated Discovery. If Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing qualified Project activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the Archaeologist Approval; qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of and Pechanga verification by discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the tribal representatives City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif, Pub. Res, Code § 21083.2(b), Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -lb, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f — Completed Avoidance of Pre -construction/ City of City of Verification by Impacts to the TCP: The City and the Project Applicant,"Land Construction Temecula Temecula City of Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Qualified Temecula in Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Archaeologist and Pechanga tribal representatives consultation with Pechanga Tribe Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 13 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Pre -Construction City of City of Verification by Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP): The applicant shall Temecula Temecula City of implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the qualified Temecula in PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. Paleontologist consultation with The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot-checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Pechanga Tribe Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens, The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2b — Unanticipated Paleontological Construction City of City of Verification by Resources Discoveries: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the Temecula Temecula City of Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 14 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. Construction/ Post- City of qualified Paleontologist Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains: If human Pre -Construction) City of City of Verification by remains are uncovered during project construction, the applicant Construction Temecula Temecula City of shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050,5 and qualified Paleontologisl Temecula Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Mitigation Measure MMaGHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project Construction/ Post- City of City of Issuance of and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the project sponsor shall submit an application for a Pre -Certified construction Temecula Temecula Building Official Certificate of Occupancy by LEED-ND Plan through the U.S, Green Building Council. If the or other the City of application meets the LEED-ND prerequisites, the project sponsor shall continue with the certification, and the project shall receive a minimum base -level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build out. If Pre -Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied, the project applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve Designee Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 15 ESA! 150642 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen -percent (15%) reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards by undertaking the following: Pre -construction City of City of issuance of 1) Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations; Temecula Temecula Grading Permit 2) Subsidize public transit and expand transit network (e.g., help fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share programs); Building Official by the City of 3) Provide an enhanced pedestrian network, including pedestrian connections to the local community; or other Designee Temecula 4) Provide traffic calming measures and urban non-motcrized zones; 5) Install bicycle parking and storage, as well as dedicated bike lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas; 6) Prohibit wood -burning fireplaces; 7) Where practicable, install or ensure facilities are compatible with renewable energy (e,g, solar photovoltaics); 8) Install energy efficient boilers and appliances, including programmable thermostat timers; 9) Install energy efficient street and area lighting, including LED traffic lights, motion detection lighting, and limited outdoor lighting for security and safety purposes; 10) Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard equipment; 11) Provide for use of reclaimed water; 12) Install low -flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures (e.g., faucets, toilets, and showers); 13) Install water efficient irrigation systems; 14) Where practicable, reuse or recycle materials from operation and construction activities. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Prior to issuance of a grading Pre -construction City of City of issuance of permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil Temecula Temecula Grading Permit engineer in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual Building Official by the City of and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The final study shall identify storm water runoff quantities from the development of this site and upstream of the site, and shall identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property or any substantial adverse change in receiving water quality or habitat values; the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities and any or other Designee Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 16 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Respansible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance initials Date Remarks features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff impacts. Construction City of City of Issuance of a Features to be included in the site design shall conform with the City of Temecula MS4 permit and Stormwater Ordinance, and may include, for example: Temecula Temecula grading permit 1) Non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control Building Official by the City of BMPs; or other Designee Temecula 2) Infiltration basins, detention basins, vegetated swales, and media filters; 3) Pervious concrete, storm drain stenciling or signage, protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall; and 4) Other low impact development (LID) BMPs, including measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity, then onsite detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls shall be required as needed to avoid damage to public or private property and alterations in water quality or habitat values. Mitigation Measure AAM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of future development project will be required to generate a project- specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the Construction/ Post- Construction Temecula Temecula Building Official or other Building Permit, review of plans, field verification City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the Designee and sign -off by City of City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each project -specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, Temecula NOISE Mitigation Measure MM -Nal a: Prior to the issuance any grading Construction City of City of Issuance of a or building permits for a phase or sub phase (project -specific future Temecula Temecula grading permit development within a construction phase), the applicant shall Building Official by the City of provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see Table MO- or other Designee Temecula 5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 17 ESA/150642 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Factors the City shall consider when granting a noise exception include, but are not limited to, the consideration of the level of noise, duration of noise, constancy or intemiittency of noisetime of day or night, place, proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud noise. If a construction -related exception request is not approved by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Mitigation Measure MM-NC71-lb: The applicant shall comply with Construction City of City of Field verification the following noise reduction measures during construction: Temecula Temecula and sign -off by Building Official City of * Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration -sensitive land uses. or other Designee Temecula ■ Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 18 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Respansible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance InitiaFs Date Remarks dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible, as determined by the City of Temecula's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible, as determined by the City's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. • Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, and shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone numbers) shall be prominently displayed al construction locations. Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented. Mitigation Measure MM-NO1-2a: The operation of construction Construction City of City of Issuance of equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large Temecula Temecula Grading Permit bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited Building Official and field within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional or other verification and structures during construction activities to the extent feasible. Small, rubber -tired construction equipment shall be used within this area Designee sign -off by City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 19 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects, where feasible. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2b: The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities, to the extent feasible. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for future developments in the project, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the proposed development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent properties. If City noise standards at the adjacent properties would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels associated with the proposed development would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -NCI -4a: The applicant of individual development projects within the project area shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -0b: Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an L,,,, or CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval; and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5: All future residential developments located adjacent to the proposed Western Bypass in the project area shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the P, -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official Field verification and sign -off by Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 20 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Western Bypass. If this minimum setback distance cannot be pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula or other City of achieved, other measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldn, including, but not limited to, greater setback distances, the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula Designee Temecula Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts.. pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Ynez Road and Rancho California Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -3: Prior to the completion of Phase 2 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of 1-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this improvement with Caltrans. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -5: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install stop signs on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and First Street, converting the intersection from side -street stop -control to all -way stop control. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 21 ESA 7 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -6: Prior to the completion of Phase 2 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left turn lane and signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre-Constructionl Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -7: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase 1 of the project, the City shall have completed the Capital Improvement Project entitled "1-151 SR 79 South (Temecula Parkway) Ultimate Interchange"_ Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -9: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost to construct a fourth through lane to both the eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway approaches to the intersection of La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway, toward the acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -12: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 43 percent of the cost to construct improvements at the west Ridge Park Drive leg to allow for right -in / right -out turn movements only at the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making northbound left and westbound left turning movements at the intersection. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -13: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 17 percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol Street and First Street. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer ar other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -14: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities within the Specific Plan area, or at offsite locations for improvements associated with the Specific Plan, the project applicant(s) shall Pre -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer ar other Designee Issuance of Grading and Building Permits Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 22 ESA 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for review and approval by the City of Temecula as part of the permit application. The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic volumes entering the roadway system (including local roads) during AM and PM peak hours. At a minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include the following implementation measures: ■ Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and from the construction site. ■ Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction, the project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary, to minimize traffic impacts. This may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage, flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone. The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required, the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula and other affected jurisdictions (i.e., Caltrans, and/or County of Riverside) to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes. Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 23 ESA f 150642 July 2017 ATTACHMENT 5C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (NC) STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS — NATURE CENTER The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Altair Specific Plan (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to: • Air quality at the project and cumulative level give that the City is in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which is a non -attainment region for ozone; • Greenhouse gas emissions at the cumulative level for exceeding the conservative threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year even with incorporation of Smart Growth development standards, which promote walking and alternative transportation; • Noise and vibration impacts during construction; and • Traffic impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions (prior to completion of the Ultimate interchange improvements, which are under construction). Although the FEIR concludes there are significant and unavoidable impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions, it should be noted that this is a conservative approach as the ultimate intersection improvements are under construction and once complete, the improvements will reduce the project impacts below a level of significance. In making this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. Furthermore, the following primary public benefits are required by Conditions of Approval, and in the Development Agreement: A. An estimated $28 million dollars of regional infrastructure (Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge over Murrieta Creek), and improved east -west connectivity in the City; The Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge are part of a regional facility, identified in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The Regional System needs to be expanded to accommodate anticipated future growth in the City of Temecula and southwestern Riverside County; the Project provides critical infrastructure to assist the City in meeting this need. B. A 5 -acre Central Park and "Grand Staircase" connection to Main Street in Old Town on the west side of 1-15 for public use; Currently, the City does not have a park of sufficient size for residents on the west side of 1-15 to accommodate parks and recreation programs. Residents west of 1-15 have to travel to the east side sports parks. The Central Park will accommodate existing and future growth, and provide an important destination and gathering place for passive and active recreation in and around Old Town. C. An elementary school site to serve existing and future residents on the west side of 1-15; Similar to the City's current situation with a lack of parks and programming relative to population on the west side of 1-15, the elementary school site has the ability to provide a neighborhood school in walking distance for many that will help eliminate the need to rely exclusively on schools on the east side of 1-15.. D. Over eight miles of pathways and trails connecting to the City's bike lane and trail network; The Quality of Life Master Plan identifies six core values as identified by the community. Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts. Altair is designed as a 'Smart Growth" development which makes walking easy and promotes a healthy and active lifestyle. Furthermore, the proposed trails, pathways, and sidewalks connect to the surrounding network closing gaps and increasing opportunities for active transportation. E. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant will provide $150,000 dollars of "start-up" funding for a shuttle connecting to RTA transit stops and/or a bikeshare program; Again, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts. This funding will assist in promoting active transportation in an effort to relieve auto congestion in the City. F. A 55 -acre Civic Site for a Nature Center/Culture/Sustainability Center and trails to provide environmental education and protection of natural resources at the confluence of the Santa Margarita River, which is southern California's last "free flowing" river and the center of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Sacred Place/Origin Area, a recognized Traditional Cultural Place (TCP) on the National Register of Historic Places; G. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant is committed to provide Project conservation features in excess of what is required as environmental mitigation, including the following: • 55 -acre reduction in hillside escarpment/Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) impacts associated with the shortened Western Bypass alignment, as compared to the current alignment in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the approved West Side Specific Plan and MSHCP; • Facilitation of the sale of an additional 8.97 acres of hillside escarpment adjacent to the project site to the Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for conservation; • Additional funding for conservation efforts (up to $500,0000) to be used for a wildlife connectivity study, engineering feasibility, and/or land acquisition in the special linkage area south of the Project. H. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. ATTCHMENT 6 PC RESOLUTION RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF EIR AND ACTIONS RELATED THERETO (CIVIC USE) PC RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 9401-310- 016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities, filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161 a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance on the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § '14000, et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project. D. Pursuant to CEQA, City staff determined that the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment and therefore an environmental impact report (EIR) should be prepared for the proposed Project. E. On November 5, 2014, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the proposed Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (#2014111029). The NOP was circulated from November 14, 2014 through December 15, 2014 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issue to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). 11086-018212134337x1 F. On December 3, 2014, a scoping session was held, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the EIR for the proposed Project. G. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project, including preparation or review, as applicable, of all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the proposed Project. H. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearinghouse from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ron Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. During the comment period, the City received 26 written comments on the Draft EIR from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. J. The "Final EIR" consists of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the Errata to the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and Appendix A to the Final EIR. The Final EIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies on November 3, 2017, which is at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). K. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final EIR and the proposed Project, at which time the Commission heard and considered information presented by City staff on the proposed Project and its environmental review. In addition, interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify regarding this matter. L. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the entire record, including the Final EIR, evidence presented at the hearing, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, and other materials. Section 2. After due consideration of the proposed Project and in its independent judgment, the Planning Commission hereby finds and resolves that: A. All of the above recitals are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated into this section as though set forth in full. B. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the proposed Project. The proposed Project 11086-0182/2134337v1 has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. C. The Planning Commission has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR and Final EIR, responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony. D. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. E. The Planning Commission, in the exercise of its independent judgment, hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the proposed Project, make appropriate environmental findings, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The Planning Commission further recommends that the mitigation measures set forth therein be made applicable to the proposed Project. 11086-018212134337x1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of November, 2017. John Telesio, Vice Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson 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. - was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary 11086-018212134337x1 ATTCHMENT 6.1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ER AND ACTIONS RELATED THERETO (CIVIC USE) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940- 310-015, 9401-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310- 048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities, filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161 a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project') were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance on the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. D. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the proposed Project. E. On November 5, 2014, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to all agencies and persons that might be interested in or affected by the proposed Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2014111029). The NOP was circulated from November 14, 2014, through December 15, 2014, to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR') for the proposed Project. On December 3, 2014 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. F. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft EIR. G. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project, including preparation of review, as applicable, of all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the proposed Project. H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in April 2016, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on Friday, April 28, 2016. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. 1. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Meliman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. J. In response to the Draft EIR, 26 written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.. K. The "Final EIR" consists of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the Errata to the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, Appendix A to the Final EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final EIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies on November 3, 2017, which is at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). L. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled and duly noticed meeting, considered the proposed Project and the Final EIR, at which time the City staff presented its report and interested persons had an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the proposed Project and the Final EIR. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the Altair Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution Nos. 17- , recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Agreement related to the approval of the proposed Project. N. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1, Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Q. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 1, Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as no impact or less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Sections IV and V, respectively, of Exhibit A. 2. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A, Section VI. 3. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Exhibit A, Section VII. 4. Alternatives to the project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution. P. CEQA Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. Q. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. R. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR and Final EIR, responses to comments, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony presented during the public hearings on the proposed Project.. S. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and hereby incorporates them herein by this reference. B. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the proposed Project. C. Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues regarding the proposed Project. D. Find and determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. E. Find and declare that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. F. Certify the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit C. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit C, by itself, would individually justify proceeding with the proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged in the record of proceedings. G. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Altair Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of Maryann Edwards, 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. - was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 6A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS (CIVIC USE) TO BE PROVIDED ATTACHMENT 6B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CIVIC USE) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DRAFT INSTITUTIONAL USE MMRP MmGAT1ON MONtTORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Monitoring Phase Agency Verification of Compliance Agency Compliance Initiates Date Remarks Aesthetics Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all future development within the project area: • The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures in public areas contain "sharp cut-off fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic fighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. Pre -Construction / Construction / Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the development shall take advantage of landscaping, onsite architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. ■ The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens; Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 1 ESA! 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Respansible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Air Quality Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -la: No fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield; A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting; = Specification of each light fixture and each light shield; City Temeecula Tity of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1 b: The lease or purchase agreements Per -Construction Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and City of Issuance of for all non-residential units shall include the following: Temecula Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. Certificate of • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the development is in compliance with the design standards in Altair Specific Plan, Mitigation a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all or other City of Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No, 655, buildings. b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Designee Temecula Air Quality Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -la: No fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. Pre Construction City Temeecula Tity of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1 b: The lease or purchase agreements Per -Construction City of City of Issuance of for all non-residential units shall include the following: Temecula Temecula Certificate of Building Official Occupancy by a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all or other City of buildings. b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Designee Temecula Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep. Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 2 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuling, and/or work -at-home programs as appropriate to the business developed. (non -quantifiable) Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1c: All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically operated. Landscape contracts for all multi -family residential and non-residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be electrically operated, Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -1d: All residential and non-residential buildings shall be constructed such that they meet ane of the following conditions: Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by 15 percent; or b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy, for example the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Pre -construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official D s oa) Designr gnee Issuance of Building Permit and field sgn-cationCnd sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -le: The lease or purchase agreements for all multi -family residential and non-residential units shall: a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi -family residential buildings and employee/student areas for non-residential buildings. Additionally, building management shall encourage a ride -share program within the specific plan area such that employees as well as residents have more access to car-pooling opportunities. (non -quantifiable) b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as, but not limited to, special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles. (non -quantifiable) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces (per multi -family and non-residential development) shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles. (non - quantifiable) Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy by City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 3 ESA 150642 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -2: The site shall be watered four times per day during ground disturbance (grading) activities for all project development phases. During drought conditions, defined as Water Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by the Rancho California Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit Water District, use of reclaimed water or non -water chemical stabilizers shall be implemented such that fugitive emissions reductions are comparable. Permission to use potable water for dust control activities during drought conditions shall be granted by the Qualified and sign -off by City of Temecula Building Official if the General Contractor shows in writing that (1) Reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from recycled wastewater treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site; and (2) Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from wells and groundwater sources located within 10 miles of the construction site. Biologist City of Temecula Biological Resources Mitigation Measure MM -B10-1: To the extent feasible, clearing and Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian breeding Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit season, which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If clearing Qualified and sign -off by and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season, a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys. The survey shall occur no more than 7 days prior to any clearing, grubbing, construction or ground -disturbing activities, If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project area, the nest shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own and are no longer relying on the nest for survival). A 500 -foot construction setback from any active raptor nesting location (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified biologist. A 300 -foot construction setback (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, and the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be established for all other migratory birds. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence, All construction setbacks shall be Biologist City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 4 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate material (flagging, staking, construction fencing, etc.) and verified by a qualified biologist. Such fencing shall be maintained and monitored until the nest is confirmed to be inactive. If an avoidance buffer is not feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City, noise walls or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent disturbance to the nest. Mitigation Measure MM -B10-2: Suitable burrowing owl habitat Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of a identified on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist Temecula Temecula grading permit using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Qualified and signed off Instructions for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biologist by the City of (EPD, 2006) no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine presence or absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified, no additional mitigation is necessary and activities may commence, If a burrowing owl is detected, the Temecula City of Temecula and the RCA will be notified. If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the applicant shall implement the following measure: Take of active nests shall be avoided. Passive or active relocation (use of one way doors and collapse of burrows), as approved by the RCA, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 - August 31). If active relocation is selected, translocation sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies, Translocation sites will be identified, taking into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species. Selected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior to translocation site development. Mitigation Measure MM-B1O.3: The following Best Management Construction City of City of Issuance of Practices shall be adhered to: Temecula Temecula Qualified Grading Permit and signed off ■ Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, or grading permit for the project, a qualified biologist (Project Biologist by the City of Temecula Biologist) with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites, shall be retained by the Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 5 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks • applicant to oversee compliance with the protection and avoidance measures for biological issues associated with the project. The Project Biologist shall have the authority to halt construction activities in the event of non- compliance. The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to: vegetation removal, tree removal or trimming, grading, and restoration landscaping to ensure project activities remain in compliance with all applicable biological resource permits. ■ Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife species shall be prohibited. ■ • Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the project site, and from feeding wildlife, Proposed and existing Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Areas shall be protected in place by the installation of orange silt fencing. Fencing shall be maintained in working order and inspected weekly. Fencing repair shall occur within 2 working days following inspection. • All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and trash removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens and feral cats and dogs. ■ • AJI fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas beyond 100 feet of any drainage course, and be contained using appropriate protection measures, Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project -proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. Nighttime construction which does occur outside these areas shall use directional lighting to minimize the impacts of increased artificial nighttime lighting. ■ All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than 45 minutes to minimize ambient noise produced by the project. Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 6 ESA / 154642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -B10 -0a: Prior to the issuance of a grading Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of a permit for the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary agency Temecula Temecula grading permit permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters, wetlands and riparian Building Official by the City of resources, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the or other Designee Temecula Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Impacts to riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to unvegetated channel shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options: on- or offsite habitat restoration; purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective resource agencies (USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW), it shall be prepared according to agency requirements and shall include, at a minimum, the following information: • Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas • An evaluation of the existing function and values, and a description of the function and values to be achieved through compensatory mitigation ■ Detailed plant and seed mix requirements • Detailed planting plan • Specific and measurable five-year success criteria • Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements • Invasive species management • Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of irrigation for at least two years prior to final sign -off • Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 7 ESA (150642 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-Bl0-0b: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) shall be approved by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority to address impacts to 1.24 acres of riparianlriverine habitat. The DBESP shall include the following information: • Definition of the project area • A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible • A written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping • Quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools associated with the project, including direct and indirect effects • A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects, such as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation difference, minimization and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement • A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted, used for comparison of biological equivalency • A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation, including habitat type, location, functional lift, and long- term stewardship responsibility A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts, the habitat mitigation would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which is being impacted and would result in a net equivalent or superior ecological condition Pre -construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Qualified Biologist Issuance of a grading permit by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -810-6a: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, or any phase thereof, the applicant shall pay Local Development Mitigation fees, as determined by the City of Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of a building permit by the City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 8 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15, to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species. Mitigation Measure MM -1310 6b: At the time of final map recordation for the project, or any phase thereof, lands identified to contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project (Conserved Lands) and included on the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) or deed transfer of said parcels to the RCA. Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The project shall conserve onsite a minimum of 82.77 acres, which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to include Cells 7077, 7161, 7078, 7164, 7258, 7264, 7355 and 7356. Pre -construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Approval and Recordation of final map by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -B10 -7a: The portion of Camino Estribo that lies between the South Parcel and the main development area within the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular speeds. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineering Official or other Designee Issuance of a grading permit verified and signed off by the City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -B10 -7b: The applicant shall install permanent fencing along the Western Bypass where the Bypass right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSFICP Conserved Lands, to keep animals within the wildlife corridor. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed fencing plan for review by the City of Temecula and the wildlife agencies (CDFW and USFWS), and approval by the City. The fencing plan shall include, at a minimum, the fencing location, fencing specifications, plant list, and method and timing of installation. The fence shall be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading and Building Permits by the City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 9 ESA/ 1506,12 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-Bl0-7c: A Slope Revegetation Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. The Plan shall be submitted for approval to the City prior to the construction of the Western Bypass. The Plan shall include at a minimum: • The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to the first six inches along selected portions of the ground disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in restoring disturbed areas Pre-Constructionf Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of grading and building permits by the City of Temecula • Equipment and methods for planting Temecula Temecula grading permit • A planting plan, including the amount and species of seed necessary to revegetate the target habitat types Qualified and project • Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year period following installation Archeologist approval by the • Specific BMPs for erosion control during and after revegetation City of Temecula • A requirement far five years of maintenance of the revegetated areas, including removal of invasive species and irrigation (if necessary) A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance with the success criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using an adaptive management approach Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -la - Retention of a Qualified Pre -construction City of City of Issuance of a Archaeologist: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the Temecula Temecula grading permit start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a Qualified and project qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Archeologist approval by the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiserro Indians (Pechanga City of Temecula Tribe), The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 10 ESA! 150542 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initiars Date Remarks the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1h - Retention of a Professional Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of Pechanga Tribal Monitor: At least 30 days prior to seeking a Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga qualified Project Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed Archaeologist Approval; grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop and Pechanga verification by a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The tribal representatives City of in Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional cowith consultatimecuon Pechanga Tribe Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist, Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -lc — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of Training: The qualified archeologist, or an archaeologist working Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a qualified Project representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction Archaeologist Approval; cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review and Pechanga verification by of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to tribal representatives City of in inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction consultation with Pechanga Tribe Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 11 ESA I150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-'ld — Archaeological and Native pre-canstructioni City of City of Issuance of a American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel: Prior to Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation qualified and project removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological Archaeologist approval by the monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the and Pechanga City of applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not tribal Temecula; limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -la and 1 b. The archaeological and Pechanga representatives City verification by City of Temecula in consultation with Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist, If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. Pechanga Tribe The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 12 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -le — Unanticipated Discovery. If Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing qualified Project activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the Archaeologist Approval; qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of and Pechanga verification by discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the tribal representatives City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif, Pub. Res, Code § 21083.2(b), Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -lb, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f — Completed Avoidance of Pre -construction/ City of City of Verification by Impacts to the TCP: The City and the Project Applicant,"Land Construction Temecula Temecula City of Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Qualified Temecula in Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Archaeologist and Pechanga tribal representatives consultation with Pechanga Tribe Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 13 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Applicantli-and Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Pre -Construction City of City of Verification by Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP): The applicant shall Temecula Temecula City of implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the qualified Temecula in PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. Paleontologist consultation with The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot-checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Pechanga Tribe Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens, The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2b — Unanticipated Paleontological Construction City of City of Verification by Resources Discoveries: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the Temecula Temecula City of Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 14 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. Construction/ Post- City of qualified Paleontologist Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains: If human Pre -Construction) City of City of Verification by remains are uncovered during project construction, the applicant Construction Temecula Temecula City of shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050,5 and qualified Paleontologisl Temecula Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Mitigation Measure MMaGHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project Construction/ Post- City of City of Issuance of and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the project sponsor shall submit an application for a Pre -Certified construction Temecula Temecula Building Official Certificate of Occupancy by LEED-ND Plan through the U.S, Green Building Council. If the or other the City of application meets the LEED-ND prerequisites, the project sponsor shall continue with the certification, and the project shall receive a minimum base -level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build out. If Pre -Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied, the project applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve Designee Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 15 ESA! 150642 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen -percent (15%) reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards by undertaking the following: Pre -construction City of City of issuance of 1) Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations; Temecula Temecula Grading Permit 2) Subsidize public transit and expand transit network (e.g., help fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share programs); Building Official by the City of 3) Provide an enhanced pedestrian network, including pedestrian connections to the local community; or other Designee Temecula 4) Provide traffic calming measures and urban non-motcrized zones; 5) Install bicycle parking and storage, as well as dedicated bike lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas; 6) Prohibit wood -burning fireplaces; 7) Where practicable, install or ensure facilities are compatible with renewable energy (e,g, solar photovoltaics); 8) Install energy efficient boilers and appliances, including programmable thermostat timers; 9) Install energy efficient street and area lighting, including LED traffic lights, motion detection lighting, and limited outdoor lighting for security and safety purposes; 10) Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard equipment; 11) Provide for use of reclaimed water; 12) Install low -flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures (e.g., faucets, toilets, and showers); 13) Install water efficient irrigation systems; 14) Where practicable, reuse or recycle materials from operation and construction activities. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Prior to issuance of a grading Pre -construction City of City of issuance of permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil Temecula Temecula Grading Permit engineer in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual Building Official by the City of and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The final study shall identify storm water runoff quantities from the development of this site and upstream of the site, and shall identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property or any substantial adverse change in receiving water quality or habitat values; the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities and any or other Designee Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 16 ESA / 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance InitiaFs Date Remarks features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff impacts. Construction City of City of Issuance of a Features to be included in the site design shall conform with the City of Temecula MS4 permit and Stamtwater Ordinance, and may include, for example: Temecula Temecula grading permit 1) Non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control Building Official by the City of BMPs; or other Designee Temecula 2) Infiltration basins, detention basins, vegetated swales, and media filters; 3) Pervious concrete, storm drain stenciling or signage, protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall; and 4) Other low impact development (LID) BMPs, including measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity, then onsite detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls shall be required as needed to avoid damage to public or private property and alterations in water quality or habitat values, Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of future development project will be required to generate a project- specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the Construction/ Post- Construction Temecula Temecula Building Official or other Building Permit, review of plans, field verification City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the Designee and sign -off by City of City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each project -specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, Temecula NOISE Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-la: Prior to the issuance any grading Construction City of City of Issuance of a or building permits for a phase or sub phase (project -specific future Temecula Temecula grading permit development within a construction phase), the applicant shall Building Official by the City of provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see Table 3.10- or other Designee Temecula 5), If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 17 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks the project's construction noise levels would be granted an exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Factors the City shall consider when granting a noise exception include, but are not limited to, the consideration of the level of noise, duration of noise, constancy or intemiittency of noisetime of day or night, place, proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud noise. If a construction -related exception request is not approved by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Mitigation Measure MM -NCH -ib; The applicant shall comply with Construction City of City of Field verification the following noise reduction measures during construction: Temecula Temecula and sign -off by Building Official City cif • Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration -sensitive land uses. or other Designee Temecula • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 18 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance InitiaFs Date Remarks lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools. shall be used whenever feasible, as determined by the City of Temecula's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. ■ Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible, as determined by the City's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, and shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. ■ Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone numbers) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2a: The operation of construction Construction City of City of Issuance of equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large Temecula Temecula Grading Permit bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional Building Official and field verification and Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 19 ESA/150642 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks structures during construction activities to the extent feasible. Small, rubber -tired construction equipment shall be used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects, where feasible. or other Designee sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2b: The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities, to the extent feasible. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for future developments in the project, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the proposed development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable 10 adjacent properties. if City noise standards at the adjacent properties would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels associated with the proposed development would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a: The applicant of individual development projects within the project area shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 20 ES'A! 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b: Prior to City approval of a Construction City of City of City of residential development project within the project area, the applicant Temecula Temecula Temecula shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows Construction Building Official project approval; associated with a proposed residential development will be or other and field constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ian or CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. Designee verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5: All future residential developments Post -Construction City of City of Field verification located adjacent to the proposed Western Bypass in the project area Pre -Construction/ Temecula Temecula and sign -off by shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the Construction Temecula Building Official City of Western Bypass. If this minimum setback distance cannot be achieved, other measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldf, including, but not limited to, greater setback distances, the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping. or other Designee Temecula Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Temecula Temecula Grading Permit funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings Construction Engineer or and Issuance of and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since other Designee a Certificate of Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Occupancy Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts.. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit funding for system -wide signal timing optimization (phase timings Engineer or and Issuance of and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Ynez other Designee a Certificate of Road and Rancho California Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Occupancy Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system -wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 21 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Res pans ible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -3: Prior to the completion of Phase 2 Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit funding for signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle Engineer or and Issuance of length) at the intersection of 1-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula other Designee a Certificate of Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this improvement with Caltrans. Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -5: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre -Construction! City of City of Issuance of of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install stop signs Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and Engineer or and Issuance of First Street, converting the intersection from side -street stop -control to all -way stop control, other Designee a Certificate of Occupancy Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 22 ESA/ 150692 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -6: Prior to the completion of Phase 2 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left turn lane and signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre-Constructionl Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -7: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase 1 of the project, the City shall have completed the Capital Improvement Project entitled "1-151 SR 79 South (Temecula Parkway) Ultimate Interchange"_ Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -8: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost to construct one additional exclusive right turn lane to the eastbound Rancho California Road approach to the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, toward the possible acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -9: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost to construct a fourth through lane to both the eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway approaches to the intersection of La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway, toward the acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -10: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 15 percent of the cost to construct an exclusive right turn lane to the westbound Temecula Parkway approach to the intersection of Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway, toward the acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -12: Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 43 percent of the cost to construct improvements at the west Ridge Park Drive leg to allow for right -in / right -out turn movements only at the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive, to Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 23 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Miligation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Verification of Compliance Compliance Initials Date Remarks the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making northbound left and westbound left turning movements at the intersection. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -13: Prior to the completion of Phase Construction City of City of Issuance of 3 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 17 Temecula Temecula Grading Permit percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol Engineer or and Issuance of Street and First Street. other Designee a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -14: Prior to the issuance of any Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities Temecula Temecula Grading and within the Specific Plan area, or at offsite locations for improvements associated with the Specific Plan, the project applicant(s) shall prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for review and approval by the City of Temecula as part of the permit application. Engineer or other Designee Building Permits The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic volumes entering the roadway system (including local roads) during AM and PM peak hours, At a minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include the following implementation measures: • Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and from the construction site. • Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction, the project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary, to minimize traffic impacts. This may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage, flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone, The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required, the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 24 ESA/ 150642 July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Mitigation Measures Responsible Enforcement Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks and other affected jurisdictions (i.e., Caltrans, and/or County of Riverside) to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes. Cypress Ridge Project MMRP 25 SSA / 150642 July 2017 ATTACHMENT 6C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (CIVIC USE) STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS — CIVIC USE -- The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Altair Specific Plan (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to: • Air quality at the project and cumulative level give that the City is in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which is a non -attainment region for ozone; • Greenhouse gas emissions at the cumulative level for exceeding the conservative threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year even with incorporation of Smart Growth development standards, which promote walking and alternative transportation; • Noise and vibration impacts during construction; and • Traffic impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions (prior to completion of the Ultimate interchange improvements, which are under construction), and for a decrease in Level of Service at Rancho California Road and Ynez Road during the AM peak hour. Although the FEIR concludes there are significant and unavoidable impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions, it should be noted that this is a conservative approach as the ultimate intersection improvements are under construction and once complete, the improvements will reduce the project impacts below a level of significance. In making this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. Furthermore, the following primary public benefits are required by Conditions of Approval, and in the Development Agreement: A. An estimated $28 million dollars of regional infrastructure (Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge over Murrieta Creek), and improved east -west connectivity in the City; The Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge are part of a regional facility, identified in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The Regional System needs to be expanded to accommodate anticipated future growth in the City of Temecula and southwestern Riverside County; the Project provides critical infrastructure to assist the City in meeting this need. B. A 5 -acre Central Park and "Grand Staircase" connection to Main Street in Old Town on the west side of 1-15 for public use; Currently, the City does not have a park of sufficient size for residents on the west side of 1-15 to accommodate parks and recreation programs. Residents west of 1-15 have to travel to the east side sports parks. The Central Park will accommodate existing and future growth, and provide an important destination and gathering place for passive and active recreation in and around Old Town. C. An elementary school site to serve existing and future residents on the west side of 1-15; Similar to the City's current situation with a lack of parks and programming relative to population on the west side of 1-15, the elementary school site has the ability to provide a neighborhood school in walking distance for many that will help eliminate the need to rely exclusively on schools on the east side of 1-15.. D. Over eight miles of pathways and trails connecting to the City's bike lane and trail network; The Quality of Life Master Plan identifies six core values as identified by the community. Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts. Altair is designed as a 'Smart Growth" development which makes walking easy and promotes a healthy and active lifestyle. Furthermore, the proposed trails, pathways, and sidewalks connect to the surrounding network closing gaps and increasing opportunities for active transportation. E. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant will provide 5150,000 dollars of "start-up" funding for a shuttle connecting to RTA transit stops and/or a bikeshare program; Again, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts. This funding will assist in promoting active transportation in an effort to relieve auto congestion in the City. F. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant is committed to provide Project conservation features in excess of what is required as environmental mitigation, including the following: ■ 55 -acre reduction in hillside escarpment/Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) impacts associated with the shortened Western Bypass alignment, as compared to the current alignment in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the approved West Side Specific Plan and MSHCP; • Facilitation of the sale of an additional 8.97 acres of hillside escarpment adjacent to the project site to the Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for conservation; • Additional funding for conservation efforts (up to $500,0000) to be used for a wildlife connectivity study, engineering feasibility, and/or land acquisition in the special linkage area south of the Project. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. ATTACHMENT 7 PC RESOLUTION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PC RESOLUTION NO. 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 APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO REVISE THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED WESTERN BYPASS, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPOSED LAND USES IDENTIFIED IN THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN BY REPLACING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP), OPEN SPACE (OS), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (H), AND HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) WITH SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (SPI) ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310- 013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0150, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Pian and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development in the proposed Project area. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearinghouse from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR'), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17-_ and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment Application No. PA14-0158, hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest. The existing General Plan Land use designations to be replaced include Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR). The revised General Plan Land Use designations proposed in the Altair Specific Plan will be Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) to include Active Open Space (AO), Natural open Space (NO), Residential (R), Mixed -Use (M), Mixed -Use Residential (MR), Educational (E), and Institutional (1). The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest because it diversifies the City's housing stock and provides options besides single family dwelling units, builds regional infrastructure (western bypass), provides parks and trails, and a civic site for public use. B. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. uses. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The General Plan Amendment will ensure compliance with all Building, Fire and Development Code requirements. These codes set policies and standards that protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. In addition, the General Plan Amendment is tied to a Specific Plan, which establishes specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the General Plan Amendment and concluded that the General Plan Amendment is in the best interest of and is compatible with the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The development that will be allowed by the General Plan Amendment 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 clientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The General Plan Amendment will allow up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. C. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The Specific Plan that is tied to the General Plan Amendment conforms to the City's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the City's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. The Specific Plan is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well-designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preservation of open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. This area has been planned for extensively as evidenced by the General Plan, Old Town Specific Plan, and Westside Specific Plan. The proposed Altair Specific Plan is consistent with the community vision for complementary uses to Old Town. These uses include single family, multi family, mixed use (residential, office and retail), parks, trails, civic uses and infrastructure. D. The General Plan Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Amendment will implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan specific to residential development west of Old Town, and implementation of the Western Bypass Corridor. The Environmental Impact Report (E1R) prepared for the proposed Project includes Table 3.9-4, which identifies General Plan Goals and Policies with a comparison of Consistency, Non - Consistency, or Not Applicable. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable goals and polices of the adopted General Plan. Section 3. Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the proposed Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the proposed Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the proposed Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the proposed Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. B. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. C. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan, Section 4. Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, each Occupied Residential Property in the Specific Plan area shall pay Forty -Three Dollars ($43.00) per dwelling unit per year, to be increased each fiscal year by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's payment, to fund the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs. B. For the purposes of this provision, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. For the purposes of this provision "Wildlife Conservation Costs" means: (1) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority within the Interstate 15 freeway Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lions) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or (2) Acquisition by the City of lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project for conservation; and/or (3) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (i) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Specific Plan area. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. E. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan, Section 5. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO REVISE THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED WESTERN BYPASS, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPOSED LAND USES IDENTIFIED IN THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN BY REPLACING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP), OPEN SPACE (OS), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (H), AND HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) WITH SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (SPI) ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 9401-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)" in substantially the same form attached to this Resolution as Exhibits "A" for Land Use, and "B" for Circulation, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of November, 2017. ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA } )ss } John Telesio, Vice Chairperson I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. - was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary ATTACHMENT 7.1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO REVISE THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED WESTERN BYPASS, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPOSED LAND USES IDENTIFIED IN THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN BY REPLACING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP), OPEN SPACE (OS), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (H), AND HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) WITH SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (SPI) ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310- 013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development in the proposed Project area. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearinghouse from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." G. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "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 APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO REVISE THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED WESTERN BYPASS, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPOSED LAND USES IDENTIFIED IN THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN BY REPLACING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP), OPEN SPACE (OS), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (H), AND HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) WITH SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (SPI) ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." H. On December 12, 2017, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project and EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations proior to and at the public hearing. 1. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17 - and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. J. A!I legal preconditions to the adopting of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. The City Council in approving the General Plan Amendment hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest. The existing General Plan Land use designations to be replaced include Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR). The revised General Plan Land Use designations proposed in the Altair Specific Plan will be Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) to include Active Open Space (AO), Natural open Space (NO), Residential (R), Mixed -Use (M), Mixed -Use Residential (MR), Educational (E), and Institutional (1). The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest because it diversifies the City's housing stock and provides options besides single family dwelling units, builds regional infrastructure (western bypass), provides parks and trails, and a civic site for public use. B_ The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. uses. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The General Plan Amendment will ensure compliance with all Building, Fire and Development Code requirements. These codes set policies and standards that protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. In addition, the General Plan Amendment is tied to a Specific Plan, which establishes specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the General Plan Amendment and concluded that the General Plan Amendment is in the best interest of and is compatible with the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The development that will be allowed by the General Plan Amendment 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 clientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The General Plan Amendment will allow up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. C. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The Specific Plan that is tied to the General Plan Amendment conforms to the City's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the City's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. The Specific Plan is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preservation of the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well-designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preserve open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. This area has been planned for extensively as evidenced by the General Plan, Old Town Specific Plan, and Westside Specific Plan. The proposed Altair Specific Plan is consistent with the community vision for complementary uses to Old Town. These uses include single family, multi family, mixed use (residential, office and retail), parks, trails, civic uses and infrastructure. D. The General Plan Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Amendment will implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan specific to residential development west of Old Town, and implementation of the Western Bypass Corridor. The Environmental Impact Report (E/R) prepared for the project includes Table 3.9-4, which identifies General Plan Goals and Policies with a comparison of Consistency, Non -Consistency, or Not Applicable. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable goals and polices of the adopted General Plan, Section 3. Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the proposed Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the proposed Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the proposed Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. B. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. C. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan. Section 4. Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, each Occupied Residential Property in the Specific Plan area shall pay Forty -Three Dollars ($43.00) per dwelling unit per year, to be increased each fiscal year by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's payment, to fund the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs. B. For the purposes of this provision, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. For the purposes of this provision "Wildlife Conservation Costs" means: (1) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority within the Interstate 15 freeway Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lions) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or (2) Acquisition by the City of lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project for conservation; and/or (3) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (i) within Riverside County; and (11) within ten (10) miles of the Specific Plan area. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. E. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan. Section 5. Amendment to the Land Use Policy Map and Circulation Element. The Land Use Policy Map Figure LU -3 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to identify that the designation of APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007 are changing from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) as provided in Exhibit "A'. The Circulation Element, Figure C-2, Roadway Pian is hereby amended to identify the revised alignment to the Western Bypass Corridor as provided in Exhibit "B", attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference as thought set forth in full. Section 6. City Manager Authorization. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to implement this General Plan Amendment. Section 7. Consistency with the General Plan. The Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan, as amended by this Resolution, are consistent with the other elements of the General Plan, in conformity with Government Code Section 65300.5. Insofar as other portions of the General Plan need to be revised to effectuate this General Plan Amendment, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make all necessary revisions to effectuate this General Plan Amendment. Section 8. Severability. If any portion, provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution is rendered or declared to be invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Resolution. Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Section 10. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of Maryann Edwards, 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. - was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 7A ALTAIR LAN❑ USE MAP W estem aypos3 Carr trial. 1 ZONINGfOAP Tefracals.Caifomil ZONING MAP LEGEND I --1 5P -AO Active Open Space 1--] SP -NO Natural Open Space SP -R Residential Zone SP -M Mixed -Use SP -MR Mixed -Use/ Residential 5P -E Educational SP -C Civic 1 i ser +ee abs sw[i•=xtrr • • 43 5356.00 5.6 2915 ATTACHMENT 7B PROPOSED CIRCULATION ELEMENT WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR -11,41421MILdik4'>"::‘ \ I• 7 ATTACHMENT 8 PC RESOLUTION ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN (NC) PC RESOLUTION NO.17- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940- 320-007" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the propose Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development in the proposed Project area. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, ata 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Altair Specific Plan #15 No. PA14-0159, hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The Specific Plan, which is incorporated herein by this reference, complies with the requirements of California Government Code section 65451 based on, but not limited to, the following: (1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the Specific Plan (Sections 2, 3 and 8 of the Specific Plan). (2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the Specific Plan and needed to support the land uses described in the Specific Plan (Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Specific Pian). (3) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable (Sections 3, 8, 9, and 10 of the Specific Plan). (4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above (Sections 5 and 11 of the Specific Plan). (5) The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan). B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that: (1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the general plan and development code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Land Use Element identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The Specific Plan is consistent with these objectives. The Specific Plan provides a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Specific Plan respects existing topography and embraces existing scenic vistas as focal points for the community. The Specific Plan satisfies two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area," and "[1]ocating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The proposed Specific Plan is also consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which is to create a "regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." A significant portion of the Western Bypass Corridor project is accomplished in the Specific Plan, connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The Specific Plan will create a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the Specific Plan implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[ejncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r}equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." The Specific Plan development is predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the Specific Plan area as natural open space, thus consistent with Policy 1.5 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles." The Specific Plan will establish the design and development framework for the proposed Project. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as amended by this Ordinance. As proposed and conditioned, the Specific Plan will be consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of State Law and other Ordinances of the City. Further findings of consistency with the General Plan can be found in Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. (2) The proposed specific plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of, and is not detrimental to, the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The proposed specific plan is located directly adjacent to Old Town Temecula and its added residential population (3) base will support the commercial uses of Old Town. There are few housing opportunities in Old Town currently, limiting the clientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The proposed specific plan will provide up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. The General Plan sets the policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Pian area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The subject property is currently undeveloped land with only a few of the required public utilities located onsite. The proposed development within the Specific Plan area will provide the necessary connections, extensions, and upgrades as required to serve the area. (4) The proposed specific plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Specific Plan conforms to the City's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the City's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. In addition, the Specific Plan is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well- designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preserve open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. Section 3. Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the proposed Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the proposed Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the proposed Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the proposed Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. B. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. C. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan, Section 4. Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, each Occupied Residential Property in the Specific Plan area shall pay Forty -Three Dollars ($43.00) per dwelling unit per year, to be increased each fiscal year by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's payment, to fund the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs. B. For the purposes of this provision, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. For the purposes of this provision "Wildlife Conservation Costs" means: (1) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority within the Interstate 15 freeway Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lions) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or (2) Acquisition by the City of lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project for conservation; and/or (3) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (1) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Specific Plan area. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. E. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan. Section 5. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310- 015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007' in substantially the same form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of November, 2017. ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA i }ss } John Telesio, Chairperson 1, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. - was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15tH day of November, 2017, by the following vote. AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary ATTACHMENT 8.1 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN (NC) ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940- 320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development in the proposed Project area. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." G. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." H. On , the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. I. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17 - and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Altair Specific Plan hereby makes the following findings: A. The Specific Plan, which is incorporated herein by this reference, complies with the requirements of California Government Code section 65451 based on, but not limited to, the following: (1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the Specific Plan (Sections 2, 3 and 8 of the Specific Plan). (2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the Specific Plan and needed to support the land uses described in the Specific Plan (Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Specific Plan). (3) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable (Sections 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Specific Plan). (4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing (5) measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above (Sections 5 and 11 of the Specific Plan). The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan). B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that: (1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the general plan and development code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Land Use Element identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The Specific Plan is consistent with these objectives. The Specific Plan provides a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of OId Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Specific Plan respects existing topography and embraces existing scenic vistas as focal points for the community. The Specific Plan satisfies two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area," and "[1]ocating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the OId Town area." The proposed Specific Plan is also consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which is to create a "regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." A significant portion of the Western Bypass Corridor project is accomplished in the Specific Plan, connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The Specific Plan will create a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the Specific Plan implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." The Specific Plan development is predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the Specific Plan area as natural open space, thus consistent with Policy 1.5 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles." The Specific Plan will establish the design and development framework for the proposed Project. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as amended by this Ordinance. As proposed and conditioned, the Specific Plan will be consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of State Law and other Ordinances of the City. Further findings of consistency with the General Plan can be found in Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. (2) The proposed specific plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of, and is not detrimental to, the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The proposed specific plan 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 clientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The proposed specific plan will provide up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. The General Plan sets the policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The subject property is currently undeveloped land with only a few of the required public utilities located onsite. The proposed development within the Specific Plan area will provide the necessary connections, extensions, and upgrades as required to serve the area. (4) The proposed specific plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Specific Plan conforms to the City's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the City's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. In addition, the Specific Plan is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well- designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preserve open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. Section 3. Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the proposed Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the proposed Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the proposed Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the proposed Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment, B. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. C. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan. Section 4. Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, each Occupied Residential Property in the Specific Plan area shall pay Forty -Three Dollars ($43.90) per dwelling unit per year, to be increased each fiscal year by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's payment, to fund the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs. B. For the purposes of this provision, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. For the purposes of this provision "Wildlife Conservation Costs" means: (1) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority within the Interstate 15 freeway Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lions) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; andlor (2) Acquisition by the City of lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project for conservation; and/or (3) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (i) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Specific Plan area. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. E. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan. Section 5. Section 17.16.070 (Approved specific plans.) of Chapter 17.16 Specific Plan Zoning District (SP-) of Title 17 (Zoning) is hereby amended to add the following, with all other provisions of Section 17.16.070 remaining the same: "SP -15 Altair Specific Plan" Section 6. Zoning Map Amendment. The City Council hereby amends the Official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula to change the zoning classification for the property located on 270 acres in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, west of Old Town (APNs 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007) to the Altair Specific Plan #15. The amended Zoning Map is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 7. Consistency with General Plan. On , the City Council adopted Resolution No. , which amended the Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan, in conformity with Government Code section 65300. Therefore, the foregoing amendments outlined in this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula. Section 8. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is on file in the City Clerk's office and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. Section 9. Severability. If any portion, provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Ordinance. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 11. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of Maryann Edwards, 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. - was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 8A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN - NC) Planning Application No.: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: QUIMBY Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA14-0159 A proposed Specific Plan to include the four -lane divided Western Bypass, up to 1,750 residential units, an elementary school, up to 7,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, a clubhouse, civic site, parks, trails, and hillside preservation. The Specific Plan will also include off-site improvements far public infrastructure including, but not limited to, construction of the Western Bypass bridge over Murrieta Creek, road widening of Vincent Maraga, construction of Main Street north of Pujol, and off-site sewer, water and dry utility extensions 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310- 044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007 Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Exempt per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Within 48 Hours of Approval 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,128.00) which includes the Three Thousand and Seventy Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,078.00) fee, required by Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Fifty Dollars ($50.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above. the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City and its attorneys from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deerned for purposes of this condition. to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. Expiration. This approval shall be used within twenty (20) years per the Development Agreement, otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. Consistency with Specific Plans. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 15, Altair Specific Plan. Consistency with Development Agreements. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to Development Agreement (PA14-0161). Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the ER for Altair (SCH No. 2014111020). Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 10. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers, equipment, walls, or other structures. 11. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, itis illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at ail times. 12. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 13. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 14. Subdivision Map Act. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. An Extension of Time may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 60 days prior to the expiration date. 15. Subdivision Phasing. If subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 16 Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's PublicArt Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 17. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median, landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. 18. Class I Multi -Use Trails. Class I multi -use trails shall be provided as per the City of Temecula's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan. The construction plans for the Class 1 trails shall be included on the perimeter landscape plans and constructed in concurrence with the installation of the landscaping. 19. Class II Bicycle Lanes. Class 11 bicycle lanes, as specified in the City of Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan, shall be identified on the street improvement plans, and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 20. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Altair project is required to comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 21. Maximum Number of Rental Units (Apartments). Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City for a residential community in the Project, the Guest Builder shall provide a fetter to the City declaring whether the project will include residential units for sale to homeowners (a "For -Sale Community") or residential units for rent (Apartments) to tenants (a '`For -Rent Community.), and if it is a For -Rent Community, the number of Rental Units being proposed for the For -Rent Community. Further, in conjunction with the overall development of the Project. the Guest Builder will also provide a list of all previously approved For -Sale and For -Rent Communities in the Project and the number of Rental Units for each For Rent Community. There shall be a maximum of 750 Rental Units within the Project. Notwithstanding the forgoing, homes that are in a For -Sale Community that are sold to individuals and then later rented to the public shall not count towards the 750 Rental Unit threshold. 22. Project Phasing. The project shall be built in four phases per the attached "Phasing Exhibit, 10D.' Infrastructure shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits in each phase per the phasing plan. 23. Fiscal Impact Compliance. Any development within the Altair Specific Plan will be required to address impacts to the City's budget as a result of the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the Project area substantially exceeding the municipal revenue generated from the Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has a received a Fiscal Impact Analysis dated October, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the Project; and their successors of interest, at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for a residential dwelling, shall pay the City the sum of two - hundred thirty-seven ($237) per residential dwelling unit within the project each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit. Owner and its successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through a Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq., provided however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to the pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owner and its successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 24. Trail Siting and Location on the South Parcel/Civic Site. to addition to the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for cultural resources, MM -CUL -1 a through MM -CUL - 3, City Staff will work with the Pechanga Tribe to determine the final trail alignment for an out and back, or loop trail. Using trail siting guidance identified in the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Section 7.0, the trail will utilize existing dirt roads whenever possible. Portions of existing trail may be eliminated, and revegetated to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Any new trail segment will be designed to discourage and prevent intrusion into adjacent environmentally sensitive areas. 25. Direction Fencing. Directional Fencing for wildlife shall be required as identified in the Specific Plan, EIR, and in conformance with the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 26. Central Park Design Meeting. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits associated with the Central park area, a pre -design meeting shall be held to include Planning; TCSD, and Public Works to complete a final design for the Central Park. The Altair Specific Plan includes a conceptual plan for the park, however, final arrangement and location of amenities shall be determined prior to any grading and/or construction. 27. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check valves prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 28. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development, 29. Pechanga Mitigation Measures, The Altair project is required to comply with Mitigation measures MM -CUL -la through MM -CUL -3. 30 Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent; fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development.' 31. Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 32. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find. and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation." 33. Archaeological Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property." 34. Tribal Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer." 35. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition " 36. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 37_ Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -la — Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. 38. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 b - Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor. At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation andlor re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. 39. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 c — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. The qualified archeologist, or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. 40. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1d — Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -la and 1 b. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily andlor weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. 41, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1e — Unanticipated Discovery. If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -1 b. 42. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f — Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP. The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. 43. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The applicant shall implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP, In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot- checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. 44. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2b - Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries. If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. 45. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains. If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. to the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. 46. MSHCP Pre -Construction Survey. A 30 -day preconstruction survey. in accordance with MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The results of the 30 -day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. 47. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30 -day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist.' 48. Rough Grading Plans. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 49. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 50. Development Impact Fee (D1F1. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). 51. Quimby Requirements. Per the Development Agreement, the developer has satisfied the City's parkland dedication (Quimby) requirement through the provision of parks and open space identified in the Altair Specific Plan. These parks will be privately maintained, but open to the public. The Central Park in Village C will be dedicated to the City per the Development Agreement (PA14-0151). 52. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of subrnittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 53. Landscaping_ Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly; and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance far release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 54. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection.' 55. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0,70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 56. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 57. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate; "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without Toss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 58. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include. but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas. 59. Wall and Fence Plans. Wall and fence plans shall be reviewed with all landscape plans, and shall be consistent with the Altair Specific Plan. 60. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 61. Landscaping Requirement for Phased Develo_pment. If any phase or area of the project site is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of grading; the landscaping plans shall indicate it will be temporarily landscaped and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. 62. WQMP Landscape Compliance. The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with Appendix A, Table 31 of the Low Impact Development (LID) Manual for Southern California for plant materials and treatment facilities, and shall reference the approved precise grading plan for WQMP features. 63. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 64. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. AH required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 65. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 66. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 67. Final Map. A copy of the Final Map for each phase shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division, 68. Environmental Constraint Sheet. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division with the following notes: a. This property is located within 30 miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No, 655. 69. Submittal of CC&Rs. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project or any phase thereof shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development. The CC&Rs shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings, and landscaped and open areas, including parkways. Applicants shall provide a deposit in the amount of $3,750 for the review of the CC&Rs. Amended CC&Rs will require a $2,000 deposit. The applicant shall be responsible for al costs incurred during review of the CC&Rs and additional fees may be required during the course of the review. 70. Form and Content of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and its residents. 71. Preparation of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. 72. Review of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owners Association are subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development, Public Works Director, and the City Attorney. 73. CC&Rs and Management and Maintenance of Common Areas. The CC&Rs shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas, drainage facilities, and pollution prevention devices outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan for the project or any phase thereof. 74. CC&Rs and Public Nuisance. The CC&Rs shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated, and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. 75. Termination of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall provide that the association may not be terminated without prior City approval. 76. CC&Rs and Maintenance of Property. The CC&Rs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&Rs, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&Rs or the City Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. 77. Interest in Association. Every owner of a suite or lot governed by CC&Rs shall own as an appurtenance to such suite or lot, either: (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. 78. Maintenance of Open Areas. All open areas and landscaping governed by CC&R shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning Divisions and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 79. Reciprocal Easements. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives, parking areas, drainage facilities, and water quality features, shall be provided by the CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 80. Consent of City of Temecula. An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs, following the Declarant's signature, to read as follows: CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 36959, -1, -2, and -3, require the City of Temecula to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolutions of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs. Luke Watson Director Community Development Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 81. Operation of Association. No lot or suite in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owners group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&Rs, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or suites and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&Rs shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 82. Recordation of CC&Rs. CC&Rs shall be finalized and recorded at the time of Final Map Recordation. 83. Copies of CC&Rs. Three copies of the final recorded CC&Rs shall be provided to the Planning Division. 84. General. The CC&Rs shall contain a provision requiring the HOA to perform yearly inspections of garages to ensure adequate parking. 85. General. The CC&Rs shall contain a list of all disclosures (tax rate — Mello Roos, wildlife, noise, etc.) as required by the City of Temecula and State of California. OUTSIDE AGENCY LETTERS 86. Rancho Water. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water transmittal dated August 26, 2014, a copy of which is attached. 87. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the RCFCWD transmittal dated March 5, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 88. Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the MWD transmittal dated April 14, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 89. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the ACOE transmittal dated May 18, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 90. Southern California Edison (SCE). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the SCE transmittal dated September 17, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 91. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the EMWD transmittal dated September 21, 2016, a copy of which is attached. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 92. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure for a 2 -hour duration for this projects. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 93. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x (2) 2'/2" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent public streets. For all multi -family projects hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant for all and for single family dwellings and tract homes hydrants shall be 500 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 94. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 95. Water Maintenance Agreement. An agreement for the maintenance and repair of any and all existing underground Fire Department water systems, including all fire sprinkler supplies, and all fire hydrants and supplies, will be in place as a condition of this division to maintain available water in perpetuity Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 96. Turning Radius (Culdesac). Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 37 -feet for single family dwelling tracts and 45 feet for multi -family dwelling tracts. (CFC Chapter 5 along with the Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 97. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 98. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 99. Gradient Of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 100. Knox Box. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5) 101. File Format Requirements. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format, must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of alternative file formats which may be acceptable PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 102. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. 103. Developer shall execute a City Standard Subdivision Improvement Agreements for the applicable phase of the development to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map. These improvements include, but are not limited to paving, base, signing & striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, pedestrian ramps, drainage structures, and best management practices for stormwater treatment, reconstruction, replacement and repair of adjacent improvements where the subdivision transitions and connects to existing improvements as applicable. Said improvements shall be installed to City Standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 104. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map for each phase, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the Water District Engineer. 105. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase, Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along and within the subdivision boundary. 106. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots abutting the Western Bypass Corridor Road. 107. Developer shall cause Owner to make an offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for the Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. 108. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the Director of Public Works, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. 109. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights -of -ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 110. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Works, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 111. AU easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 112. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with all street improvements on and off-site grading. Perimeter walls, where required, shall be treated with graffiti -resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 113. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06, unless otherwise provided for by a written agreement between the City and the Developer. 114. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein or by development agreement, and State laws, and shall conform to the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. 115. Approval of this Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are certified by the City Council. 116. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Temecula Valley Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to comply with all school district requirements. 117. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans for each phase shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans. 118. A detailed noise attenuation evaluation shall be conducted in a supplemental acoustical study to be submitted when the tract map is filed with the appropriate agency. 119. Prior to the approval of a development plan or tentative map for individual planning areas, the developer and City staff will review plans, especially for multi -family housing areas, commercial uses, and parks for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 120. Prior to approval of any development projects, appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review shall be obtained by the developer. These agencies shall be determined by the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works. 121. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the Director of Public Works for recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. 122. The developer or the developer's successor -in -interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement, litter removal and erosion control as applicable. 123. Prior to approval of any development projects, the developer shall investigate the feasibility of a reclaimed water system, to irrigate landscaping within the roadway medians, parkways, drainage channel, schools, the community park, the paseo park, neighborhood parks, and other common open space areas. The developer shall provide evidence that compliance with this condition is in accordance with Senate Bill 2095. 124. Developer shall provide to the Director of Public Works, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements (e.g. roads, driveways, sidewalks, utilities, water quality treatment facilities and private storm drain improvements, etc.) located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. 125. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 126. All lighting shall be reviewed by the City to assure compliance with the Ordinance No. 655. 127. Any signs proposed for this development shall ata minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs consistent with the Specific Plan. Grading 128. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 129. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 130. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, erosion control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements as applicable. 131. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: a) Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. b) Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. c) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. d) Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. e) Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. f) Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 132. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 133. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of completion of grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 134. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 135. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 136. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 137. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 138. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 139. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 140. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Drainage 141. Floodplain/Floodway Development. If applicable, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, which requires a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. A FEMA -approved CLOMR shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The developer shall pay all fees required by FEMA (and City) for processing of the FEMA reviews. 142. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100 -year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site as required by the City. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 143. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 144. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 145. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 146. All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100 -year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 147. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the interim detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 148. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 149. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site as required by the Director of Public works. 150. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements as necessary. 151. During review of any future tentative map, an updated geotechnical/geologic report shall be prepared to include any necessary revisions to earthwork, foundation, design, and construction recommendations. 152. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 153. Geological Report. The developer shall complete any outstanding County geologists requirements, recommendations and/or proposed Conditions of Approval as identified during entitlement. 154. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The documents format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. WQMP / SWPPP 155. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board: b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; or other affected agencies 156. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal for any phase approval by Public Works. A copy of the final project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: httq://www.cityoftemecu€a.orq!Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/WQM Pand N PD ESIW QMP.htm 157. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http:/1www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/GovernmentlPublicWorkslengineeringconstman ual.htm 158. 0 & M Agreement: The developer shall submit a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement for review and approval 159. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 160. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDJD) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml Circulation 161. Prior to Final Map recordation for each phase, the Developer is responsible to bond for or construct the traffic signals at the project's accesses, as required, including the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications. 162. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to and from developments areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual tentative maps and/or development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works, consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 163. The exact location and number of access points shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works upon future tentative map and/or development plan approvals consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 164. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards or as approved with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Map. 165. All intersection intervals shall comply with City standards and requirements. 166. Developer, at its sole cost, shall design and improve Vincent Moraga Road to ensure that all driveways providing access from to adjoining properties shall be allowed for safe ingress and/or egress. Improvements may include, but not be limited to, truck deceleration, acceleration and turn -in lanes. The improvements shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for public roadway and rights of way consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 167. Developer, at its sole cost, shall fund the acquisition and installation of traffic signals and related roadway and right of way improvements, when warranted. The design and installation shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula, consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 168. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in accordance with City Engineering Standards. The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on all improvement, grading, or landscape plans prepared in association with the development. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor as defined by City of Temecula Engineering Standards. 169. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). Additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. 170. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Temecula Standards based on R -value tests. AH private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. 171. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown in the Altair Specific Plan. Any substantive re -phasing of the development must be approved by the Planning and Public Works Director through a re -phasing application. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. 172. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program 173. The Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be established in compliance with the approved mitigation measures identified in the approved Traffic Impact Analysis and shall be completed prior to issuance of first occupancy permit in each additional phases of the development as required by the Director of Public Works. Water and Sewer 174. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applicable thru completion of this development. 175. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase as subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 176. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 177. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at locations approved by the Water District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 178. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean -outs at locations approved by the Sewer District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. Final Map Notes 179. Add the following notes to the final map as non -mapping data: "All improvements within private Streets are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with including but not limited to: Curbs, gutter, A.C. paving, street lights, storm drains. All Storm Water treatment control facilities are considered private requiring private maintenance." Master HOA 180. Developer shall establish a Master homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a phase, the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: d. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. e. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to reasonably disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. f. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the "Common Area Lots and/or the Association's Easements," the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements within the period specified by the City's notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. g. Special Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association's Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal pro rata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. h. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth on the "Developer Responsibility Map" of the Specific Ran. Lighting Restrictions on Private Residential Lots: Restrictions on lighting within residential lots adjacent to open space conservation areas shall be as set forth in the Specific Plan and Final EIR. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 181. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance when applicable, from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; e. Riverside County Health Department; f. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau; g. Planning Department; h. Department of Public Works; i. Community Services District; j. Caltrans; k. Rancho California Water District; I. Eastern Municipal Water District; m. Verizon; n. Telephone Company; o. Southern California Edison Company; p. The Gas Company; and q. Metropolitan Water District or other affected agencies 182. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid or fee credits have been provided. 183. Securities. For each of the phases, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the grading and erosion & sediment control improvements. 184. Area Drainage Plan (ADP) Fee to RCFC&WCD. For each phase, the developer shall demonstrate to the City that the flood mitigation charge (ADP fee) has been paid to RCFC&WCD. If the full ADP fee has already been credited to this property, no new charge will be required. 185. The developer shall provide proof to the Department of Public Works and Planning that the conditions of any Wildlife Agency or Army Corps permits if necessary for any restoration have been bonded for and shall be implemented consistent with the timing requirements of the permits. 186. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided in Altair Specific Plan and the Development Agreement. 187. The project shall comply with the latest disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the California Building Code. 188. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for each phase of this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the Director of Public Works. 189. This project requires off site grading. No grading for any improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records, and submits a recorded copy to the Director of Public Works a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the Director of Public Works and Planning Director. 190. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained: a. from Public Works for public offsite improvements; b. from the California Department of Transportation if encroaching within their right- of-way; and c. from Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) if encroaching within their right-of-way. 191. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the Director of Public Works for the proposed haul route. 192. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an "as -graded" geologic plan with the Director of Public Works. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based an a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24"x 36" mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 193. Final Map. Final Map shall be approved and recorded for the applicable phase. 194. The developer shall provide proof to the Director of Public Works that the has contributed its fair share towards regional traffic improvements systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area the area through a Development Agreement. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development of each phase. 195. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. Phasing 196. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 197. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. 198. The Developer shall be permitted to seek a reimbursement agreement for qualifying facilities and improvements. The City and the Developer shall proceed in good faith to allocate appropriate reimbursements to the Developer pursuant to the City's then enforceable ordinance applicable to such reimbursement pursuant to Development Agreement. Tract Map 36959-1 (North Phase) In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of North Phase and prior to 1st building permit in North Phase: 199. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side of Vincent Moraga between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor northbound right turn lane improvements within this road segment. 200. Acquisition of right-of-way on the south side of Rancho California Road between Vincent Moraga Drive and the Murrieta Creek Bridge and construction of all intersection improvements within this road segment including an additional westbound left turn lane on Rancho California Road to Vincent Moraga Drive. 201. Traffic signal and utility relocation where needed and construction of the ultimate build -out of the Rancho California Road, Diaz Road and Vincent Moraga Drive intersection. 202. Construction of the designed onsite Western Bypass Corridor Phase 1 improvements from the project's northern property line to the future Altair Vista intersection. 203. Construction of the Ridge Park Drive and Western Bypass Corridor intersection improvements to provide left -turn ingress and right-in/right-out to Ridge Park Drive. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 204. Install Multi -Way Stop Controls at the First Street & Pujol Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 205. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the North Phase and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 350`h building permit in North Phase, or ii) the 1st building permit in the Central Phase: 206. Acquisition of right-of-way on the west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 207. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side and west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Ridge Park Drive and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 208. Following the occupancy of both villages within this North Phase (Village A and Village B), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road; (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-2 (Central Phase) In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Central Phase and prior to 1st building permit in Central Phase: 209. Construction of the designed Coromell Trail road segment between Altair Vista and First Street. 210. Installation of one (1) new left turn lane (re -stripe only), and modify signal operation, install signal indications and necessary equipment at Ynez Road and Santiago Road. 211. Construction of traffic signals at the Pujol Street and First Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 212. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase and completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on pads south of the Village C Park: a. Construction of the "A" Street vehicular bridge that crosses over the Village C Park. 213. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase, shall commence before the 700th building permit is issued in the project and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 950th building permit in the project, or ii) the 1St building permit in the South Phase: a. Construction of either the Western Bypass Bridge or construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Civic Phase. 214. Following the construction of the Western Bypass Bridge and Phase 2 Road, optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-3 (South Phase) 215. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of South Phase and prior to 1st building permit in South Phase: a. Construction of both the Western Bypass Bridge and construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Nature Center Phase. b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass Corridor and Altair Vista intersection. c. Construction of the designed "`B" Street North road segment between Altair Vista and the Western Bypass Corridor. 216. Following the completion of the villages in this South Phase (Village D, Village E and Village F), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959 (Civic Phase) 217. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Civic Phase and prior to 15f building permit in Civic Phase: a. Construction of all remaining Western Bypass Corridor improvements (Phase 3 which includes 2 western lanes; southbound). b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass and "B" Street intersection. 218. Following completion of both villages in this Civic Phase (Village G and Nature Center), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road. (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (d) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (e) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (f) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 219. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 220. The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the 5 acre community park, the proposed private Parks that are HOA owned and maintained including recreational areas identified in the Altair Specific Plan. 221, The actual design of the 5 acre community park in Central Phase shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. Construction plans and specifications must be approved by the Director of Community Services. 222. All park plans submitted for consideration shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process, 223. The design of the community park in Central Phase shall provide for pedestrian circulation and access for the disabled throughout the park. 224. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, or Master HOA shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites and slopes/landscaping areas except as defined in the Development Agreement, on Developer Responsibility Map. 225. The 5 acre community park shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any Hens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 226. The developer may receive a credit against the park component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) based upon the actual cost of improving the community park in Central Phase. The fee/credit issue shall be addressed pursuant to the execution of a Development Agreement or a Park Improvement Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. ATTACHMENT 86 ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN COMPLETELY TEMECULA. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 November 2017 „1\,\/ 01I{'O11C SPECIFIC PLAN Prepared by: 179 Calle Magdalena, #201 Encinitas, CA 92024 ELZEt*IEEEN carrierjohnson + CULTUR3 2850 Womble Road Suite 100-403 San Diego, CA 92106 1 301 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 November 2017 2020 Camino Del Rio North Suite 1000 San Diego. CA 92108 November 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 1-1 1.1 Document Purpose 1-1 1.2 Related Application and Studies 1-1 1.3 Legal Authority and Process 1-1 1.4 Organization 1-2 2 INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.1 Vision 2-1 2.2 Smart Growth 2-1 2.3 Site 2-6 2.4 Design Concept 2-9 2.5 Land Use 2-15 2.6 Relationship to the General Plan 2-17 3 LAND USE 3.1 Summary 3-1 3.2 Relationship of Land Uses to Zoning 3-7 3.3 Open Space 3-7 3.4 Altair Villages 3-7 3.5 Village A 3-9 3.6 Village B 3-17 3.7 Village C 3-23 3.8 Village D 3-33 SPECIFIC PLAFJ November 2017 (TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 3.9 Village E 3-41 3.10 Village F 3-49 3.11 Village G 3-57 3.12 School Site 3-63 3.13 Civic Site 3-69 CIRCULATION PLAN 4.1 Pedestrian Walkways, Trails & Bikeways 4-3 4.2 Circulation Plan - Vehicular 4-19 5 GRADING PLAN 5.1 Grading Description 5-1 5.2 Grading Plan Standards 5-1 6 INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES 6-1 6.1 Drainage 6-1 6.2 Water 6- 8 6.3 Sewer 6-17 6.4 Dry Utilities 6-21 PUBLIC SERVICES 7-1 7.1 Schools 7-1 7.2 Libraries 7-1 7.3 Fire Protection 7-3 7.4 Police 7-3 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 7.5 Parks 7-3 7.6 Hospitals 7-4 7.7 Public Transit 7-4 7.8 Waste Management 7-7 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN 8-1 8.1 Natural Open Space 8-4 8.2 Interstitial Open Space 8-5 8.3 Active Open Space 8-7 8.4 Private Open Space 8-10 8.5 Park Programming 8-10 8.6 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design 8-11 9 DESIGN GUIDELINES - 9.1 Design Objectives 9-1 9.2 Building Placement 9-1 9.3 Building Form 9-2 9.4 Building Frontage 9-9 9.5 Utility Placement and Screening 9-22 9.6 Fences, Walls and Gates 9-25 9.7 Slopes and Retaining Walls 9-27 9.8 Materials, Textures and Colors 9-32 9.9 Public Art 9-34 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS fll (TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 !V 9.10 Monuments and Gateways 9-41 9.11 Wind Screening 9-45 9.12 Outdoor Lighting 9-45 9.13 Streets 9-46 9.14 Signage 9-47 9.15 Accessibility 9-48 10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10-1 10.1 Application 10-1 10.2 Zoning 10-1 10.3 Height Limits and Vertical Projections 10-1 10.4 Setbacks and Build -To Line 10-4 10.5 Signage 10-8 10.6 Conceptual Landscape Plan 10-10 10.7 Parking 10-24 10.8 Fences, Hedges and Walls 10-26 10.9 Refuse and Service Areas 10-27 10.10 Building Types 10-28 10.11 Detached Housing 10-29 10.12 Multi-Plex 10-38 10.13 Rowhouse 10-42 10.14 Live/Work 10-47 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 10.15 Multifamily Walk -Up 10.16 Multifamily Podium 10.17 Micro -Units 10.18 Mixed -Use 10.19 Iconic Tower 10.20 Civic Buildings / Nature Center 10.21 School Buildiings 10.22 Community Buildings 11 IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Regulations that Administer the Specific Plan 11.2 Capital Improvements 11.3 Phasing 11.4 Maintenance 11.5 Density Transfer 11.6 Lot Reconfiguration or Consolidation 11.7 Financing Strategies 11.8 Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments 11.9 Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee 11.10 Severability APPENDICES Appendix A - Plant Lists SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-51 10-55 10-58 10-60 10-63 10-64 10-66 10-68 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS V V{ November 2017 3 LAND USE Table 3-1 Zones and Development Intensity Table 3-I Cont. Zones and Development Intensity B OPEN & RECREATION Table 8-1 Open Space Summary Table 8-2 Park and Open Space Areas DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table 10-1 Permitted Uses Table 10-2 Zoning Regulations Table 10-3 Parking Requirements Table 10-4 Building Types 3-4 3-5 8-2 8-2 10-2 10-3 10-25 10-28 SPECIFIC PLAN November2017 TABLES aThir r vil Vlll November 2017 'SPECIFIC PLANK TABLE OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map 2-6 Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map 2-8 Figure 2-3 Connection to Open Space 2-10 Figure 2-4 Connection to Old Town Temecula 2-11 Figure 2-5 View Opportunities 2-12 Figure 2-6 Outdoor Rooms Linked Enfilade 2-13 Figure 2-7 Outdoor Rooms Linked in a "Daisy Chain" 2-14 Figure 2-8 Aerial Photograph 2-16 LAND USE Figure 3-1 Natural Open Space 3-2 Figure 3-2 Land Use 3-3 Figure 3-3 Zoning Map 3-6 Figure 3-4 Village A - Plan Area 3-8 Figure 3-5 Vehicular Access - Village A 3-10 Figure 3-6 Pedestrian Circulation - Village A 3-11 Figure 3-7 Park Plan at Village A 3-14 Figure 3-8 Village B - Plan Area 3-16 Figure 3-9 Vehicular Access - Village B 3-18 Figure 3-10 Pedestrian Circulation - Village B 3-19 Figure 3-11 Park Plan at Village B 3-20 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 IX (TABLE OF FIGURES 1 Figure 3-12 Village C - Plan Area Figure 3-13 Vehicular Access - Village C Figure 3-14 Pedestrian Circulation - Village C Figure 3-15 Park Plan at Village C Figure 3-16 Park Section at Village C Figure 3-17 Village D - Plan Area Figure 3-18 Vehicular Access - Village D Figure 3-19 Pedestrian Circulation - Village D Figure 3-20 Park Plan at Village D Figure 3-21 Village E - Plan Area Figure 3-22 Vehicular Access - Village E Figure 3-23 Pedestrian Circulation - Village E Figure 3-24 Park Plan at Village E Figure 3-25 Village F - Plan Area Figure 3-26 Vehicular Access - Village F Figure 3-27 Pedestrian Circulation - Village F Figure 3-28 Park Plan at Village F Figure 3-29 Village G - Plan Area Figure 3-30 Vehicular Access - Village G Figure 3-31 Pedestrian Circulation - Village G Figure 3-32 School - Plan Area 3-22 3-24 3-25 3-29 3-30 3-32 3-34 3-35 3-38 3-40 3-42 3-43 3-46 3-48 3-50 3-51 3-54 3-56 3-58 3-59 3-62 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK Figure 3-33 Vehicular Access - School Figure 3-34 Pedestrian Circulation - School Figure 3-35 Conceptual Site Plan - School Figure 3-36 Civic Site - Plan Area Figure 3-37 Vehicular Access - Civic Site Figure 3-38 Pedestrian Circulation - Civic Site 4 CIRCULATION PLAN Figure 4-1 5 Minute Walk Figure 4-2 Circulation Plan - Pedestrian and Bicycle Figure 4-3 Class 1 Bikeway Section Figure 4-4 Key Walkway Section Figure 4-5 Plan at Mid -Block Crossing Figure 4-6 Typical Village Sidewalk Section Figure 4-7 Hiking Trail Section Figure 4-8 Bicycle Facilities Figure 4-9 Crossing at Coromell Trail Figure 4-10 Conceptual Plan at Grand Stair Figure 4-11 Vehicular Entries Figure 4-12 Vehicular Circulation Plan Figure 4-13 Street Section - Western Bypass Corridor 1 Figure 4-14 Street Section - Western Bypass Corridor 2 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 1 TABLE OF FIGURES 3-64 3-65 3-66 3-68 3-70 3-71 4-2 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-9 4-10 4-11 4-13 4-16 4-17 4-18 4-23 4-24 4-24 XI (TABLE OF FIGURES 1 Figure 4-15 Street Axon - Western Bypass Corridor 2 4-25 Figure 4-16 Street Section - C Street + B Street South 4-26 Figure 4-17 Street Axon - C Street + B Street South 4-27 Figure 4-18 Street Section - Coromell Trail 4-28 Figure 4-19 Street Section - Coromell Trail - Split Lanes 4-28 Figure 4-20 Street Axon - Coromell Trail - Split Lanes 4-29 Figure 4-21 Street Section - Altair Vista - Planted Parkways 4-30 Figure 4-22 Street Axon - Altair Vista - Planted Parkways 4-31 Figure 4-23 Street Section - Altair Vista + A Street - Urban 4-32 Figure 4-24 Street Axon - Altair Vista + A Street - Urban 4-33 Figure 4-25 Street Section - Altair Vista one way 4-34 Figure 4-26 Street Axon - Altair Vista one way 4-35 Figure 4-27 Street Section - Altair Vista 4-36 Figure 4-28 Street Axon - Altair Vista 4-37 Figure 4-29 Street Section - Altair Vista Culverts + A St Bridge 4-38 Figure 4-30 Street Axon - Altair Vista Culverts + A St Bridge 4-39 Figure 4-31 Street Section - B Street North 4-40 Figure 4-32 Street Section - B Street North with Bikeway 4-40 Figure 4-33 Street Axon - B Street North 4-41 Figure 4-34 Street Section - Alley 4-42 Figure 4-35 Typical Alley at Cottages at Harveston 4-43 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANT GRADING PLAN Figure 5-1 Project Grading Diagram Figure 5-2 Project Grading Sections Figure 5-3 Retaining Wall Diagram 6 INERAS1UO URE AND UTILITIES Figure 6-1 Typical Drainage Draw Plan Figure 6-2 Typical Drainage Draw Section Figure 6-3 Storm Drainage Plan Figure 6-4 Enlarged Storm Drainage Plans Figure 6-5 Domestic Water Plan Figure 6-6 Enlarged Domestic Water Plans Figure 6-7 Sewer Plan Figure 6-8 Enlarged Sewer Plans PUBLIC SERVICES Figure 7-1 Public Services Figure 7-2 RTA Route Map Figure 7-3 Smart Shuttle Route Proposal OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN Figure 8-1 Parks, Open Space and Amenities Plan Figure 8-2 Open Space and Recreational Images SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 5-3 5-4 5-5 6-3 6-3 6-4 6-6 and 6-7 6-9 6-11 and 6-12 6-16 6-18 and 6-19 7-2 7-5 7-6 8-3 8-9 1 TABLE OF FIGURES XIII (TABLE OF FIGURES 1 DESIGN GUIDELINES Figure 9-1 Figure 9-2 Figure 9-3 Figure 9-4 Figure 9-5 Figure 9-6 Figure 9-7 Figure 9-8 Figure 9-9 Motor Court Elements Building Frontage Straight Stoop Sideways Stoop Projecting Porch Integral Porch Recessed Entry Walled Yard Raised Yard Figure 9-10 Entry Court Figure 9-11 Shopfront Figure 9-12 Arcade Figure 9-13 Utility Locations Figure 9-14 Retaining Wall Section where Visible to Public Figure 9-15 Stepped Buildings Figure 9-16 Roundabout 1 - Plan Figure 9-17 Roundabout 1 - Elevation Figure 9-18 Roundabout 2 - Plan Figure 9-19 Roundabout 2 - Elevation Figure 9-20 Roundabout 3 - Elevation 9-6 9-8 9-10 9-10 9-12 9-12 9-14 9-15 9-16 9-19 9-20 9-21 9-22 9-27 9-28 9-36 9-37 9-38 9-39 9-39 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANT Figure 9-21 Figure 9-22 1 TABLE OF FIGURES Roundabout 3 - Plan 9-40 Major Entry Monument A - Plan Figure 9-23 Major Entry Monument A - Elevation Figure 9-24 Entry Monuments + Gateways Figure 9-25 Major Entry Monument B - Elevation Figure 9-26 Major Entry Monument C - Elevation Figure 9-27 Gateway Bridge Figure 9-28 Street Organization 10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Figure 10-1 Figure 10-2 Figure 10-3 Figure 10-4 Figure 10-5 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Porch Allowable Setback Encroachments - Stoop Allowable Setback Encroachments - WaIIs+Trellises 9-41 9-41 9-42 9-43 9-43 9-44 9-47 10-4 10-5 10-5 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Awnings, Balconies, Roofs 10-6 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Arcades Figure 10-6 Building -Mounted Signs Figure 10-7 Figure 10-8 Figure 10-9 Monument Signs Conceptual Landscape Plan Landscape Exhibit 1 Figure 10-10 Landscape Exhibit 2 Figure 10-11 Landscape Exhibit 3 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-7 10-8 10-9 10-11 10-12 10-13 10-14 xv (TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 10-12 Landscape Exhibit 4 10-15 Figure 10-13 Street Tree Plan 10-16 Figure 10-14 Urban Parkway with Tree Grate 10-23 Figure 10-15 Urban Parkway with Planter Pocket 10-23 Figure 10-16 Detached Housing with small entry yard 10-29 Figure 10-17 Detached Housing clustered around common green space 10-30 Figure 10-18 Detached Housing Facing Street 10-31 Figure 10-19 Detached Housing around Motor Court 10-32 Figure 10-20 Detached Housing Clustered around Green 10-33 Figure 10-21 Typical Landscaping at Bungalow Court and Rose Court 10-34 Figure 10-22 Typical Front Yard Landscaping at Detached Housing 10-35 Figure 10-23 4th Floor Limits in Detached Housing 10-36 Figure 10-24 Typical Massing at Detached Housing 10-36 Figure 10-25 Detached garages and/or accessory dwelling 10-37 Figure 10-26 Typical Massing at Multiplex 10-39 Figure 10-27 Multiplex Housing with shared Driveway & Motor Court 10-40 Figure 10-28 Rowhomes along a street facade 10-42 Figure 10-29 Rowhouse massing and articulation 10-45 Figure 10-30 Typical Live/Work Building 10-47 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN I TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 10-31 Example Live/Work Building Section 10-48 Figure 10-32 Typical Massing at Multifamily Walk -Up 10-51 Figure 10-33 Motor Court at Multifamily Housing 10-52 Figure 10-34 Multifamily Walk -Up Housing Arrangement 10-53 Figure 10-35 Multifamily Podium example with street -level entries 10-55 Figure 10-36 Multifamily Podium Building 10-56 Figure 10-37 Resident Courtyard at Multifamily Podium Housing 10-57 Figure 10-38 Micro -Units Typical Layout 10-58 Figure 10-39 Building with Micro -Units 10-58 Figure 10-40 Iconic Tower 10-63 11 IMPLEMENTATION Figure 11-1 Public and Private Roads at Altair 11-4 Figure 11-2 Altair Conceptual Phasing Plan 11-6 Figure 11-3 Developer Responsibility Map 11-8 XVII SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 November 20$7 SUMMARY 1 SUMMARY 1.1 Document Purpose The Altair Specific Plan serves as the regulatory document and planning instrument for the future development of a 270 -acre land parcel west of the Old Town planning area in the City of Temecula. This Specific Plan is a mechanism for implementing the City of Temecula General Plan in the area defined therein as Altair. 1.2 Related Applications and Studies The Altair Specific Plan is ane of several concurrent studies and approvals necessary for the complete entitlement of Altair. These include: • PA14-0158 General Plan Amendment to amend the land use and allowable density and to revise the alignment of the Western Bypass Corridor. • PA14-0159 Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2014111029) • PA14-0160 Tentative Tract Map • PA14-0161 Development Agreement, including a Fiscal Impact Analysis and formation of a Community Facilities District. 1.3 Legal Authority and Process The City of Temecula General Plan authorizes in its Land Use Element the use of Specific Plans that comply with Section 65451 of the California Government Code and with the City's Development Code. California Government Code Section 65450-65457 grants local planning agencies the authority to create specific plans to execute the applicable general plan for any area within that general plan. Both the General Plan and the Development Code of the City require approval of a specific plan prior to any land use entitlement or building or grading permit in designated specific plan areas of 100 or more acres. Altair is in such a designated area and, therefore, requires an approved specific plan for development. Both the General Plan and the official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula designate the majority of the subject property as SP -8, Westside Specific Plan. This was a previously adopted document that never developed as a built project. Therefore, the new Altair Specific Plan requires a rezone process with a general plan amendment to revise the land uses for the site and remove the SP -8 designation. Specific plans in the City of Temecula require a Planning Commission hearing and City Council hearing, both with public notice. Additionally, the EIR j CEQA process requires a public scoping meeting. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council based on findings listed in the Development Code. Council will then consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission as well as the findings to determine whether to SPECIFIC LAN November 2017 adopt the Specific Plan, Adoption will be by ordinance. The findings that must be made are: 1. The proposed specific plan is consistent with the general plan and development code. 2. The proposed specific plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. 3. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. 4. The proposed specific plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. Upon adoption of the Altair Specific Pian, it becomes the regulatory document for Altair. All future development plans, tentative maps, parcel maps or other entitlements and public improvements located within the boundaries defined by this plan must be found to be consistent with this Specific Plan. All regulations, policies and implementation measures described in this Specific Plan shall be considered individually. If any provision is determined to be without legal basis by a presiding State or Federal court, the remaining document and stipulations shall continue to be valid and enforceable, 1.4 Organization The Altair Specific Plan is organized in eleven sections to cover the various aspects of planning and regulation for development and construction at Altair. Section 1 offers a short summary of the purpose and process of this document and associated approvals. Section 2 introduces the vision and design concept for the Altair community, discusses the smart growth principals that guide this concept and explains the plan's consistency with the City of Temecula General Plan. Section 3 discusses land use and describes the individual Villages and civic plan areas. Section 4 outlines the circulation plans for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles to achieve a walkable community, Section 5 explains the grading work needed for the site and provides standards to prevent erosion and minimize the visual impacts of grading. Section 6 discusses infrastructure and utilities, including stormwater drainage and treatment, water, sewer, electricity and natural gas services. Section 7 discusses public services available to the project, including libraries, police, fire and rescue, parks, public transit, waste management, schools and the site available for a new elementary school. Section 8 describes the extensive network of parks and open space proposed for Altair, and how open spaces are integrated with the villages concept and with the historic terrain. The Design Guidelines that will ensure the aesthetic quality of development in Altair are located in Section 9. Section 10 includes development standards regulating the site for zoning, building parameters, building type, parking and landscaping. Finally, Section 11 outlines the implementation of this Specific Plan, including proposed phasing, capital improvements and maintenance responsibilities. November 2017 INTRODUCTION 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Vision The name "Altair" derives from the Latin roots for "a high place" and "an altar". The combined meaning is "a high place of significance or prominence". Altair is also the name of a star in the constellation Aquila. The name is appropriate to this site that sits above the heart of Temecula and is easily seen from many points in the City. The ridge line above Altair has long been a visual backdrop to the City and will only be enhanced by this neighborhood at its base. The community of Altair will play a prominent role in the physical, social and economic evolution of Temecula. OLD 'OWN FRONT STREET IN TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 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 clientelle 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. 2.2 Smart Growth "Smart growth" is a collection of land use and development principles that aim to enhance our quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Smart growth principles ensure that growth is fiscally, environmentally and socially responsible and recognizes the connections between urban development and quality of life. Smart growth enhances and completes communities by placing priority on infill, redevelopment, and densification strategies. The Altair Specific Plan is founded in the philosophy of smart growth. The following is a summary of 10 smart growth principles and how the Altair project embodies each. 2-1 SPECIFIC FLAN November 2017 IN II ODUC1ION 2 M 10 Smart Growth 'Principles 1. Mix Land Use, Each neighborhood has a balanced mixture of homes, retail, business, and recreational opportunities to stimulate vitality throughout the day. A. The Altair Specific Plan meets this principle by providing a mix of housing types and active open space in an area of the City currently dominated by commercial uses, B. Old Town is the shopping and nightlife center of Temecula. However, it is separated from the existing housing base east of 1-15, the majority of which is suburban in nature, predominantly single-family homes dependent on vehicular circulation. Altair introduces urban housing adjacent to Old Town to form a larger community integrating a mix of mutually supportive uses. 2. Build well-designed compact neighborhoods Residents can choose to live, work, shop and play in dose proximity. People can easily access daily activities, transit is viable, and local businesses are supported. A. Altair is inherently compact and walkable due to the size, scale and density of the development. Figure 4-1 of this Specific Plan overlays 1/4 mile walking radius on the project map to demonstrate ease of access to Old Town and other parts of the community without driving. B. Safety — landscaping, lighting and visibility are considered and integrated into the design, C. Eyes on the street - dense communities with buildings that face circulation routes and public spaces have many observers to deter crime or notice someone in trouble. D. Livability — each unit has access to private and public open space. Functional needs, such as parking and trash service, are fully considered and accommodated with no negative impacts on the neighborhood. E. Environmental design — homes and open spaces have shade and shelter from the wind. Stormwater is treated and contained to prevent flooding. 3. Pri variety of transport Neighborhoods are attractive and have safe infrastructure for walking, cycling and transit, in addition to driving. A. The Altair plan focuses on walking and cycling for both transportation and recreation. Residents walk between villages, to parks, to the neighborhood elementary school, nearby Old Town, and can access a regional trail system. B. Altair features complete streets, that equally accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete streets support sociat interaction and neighborhood vitality beyond the simple need for circulation. C. A potential shuttle route has been coordinated with RTA to connect with the bus system. D. A variety of bike lanes and trails, from sparrows to Class !trails, are provided to match different cycling modes. E. A true walkable neighborhood like Altair results in physical and social public health benefits. Residents are more fit, interact more with their neighbors and breathe cleaner air. November 2017 3PECS21C. 2 INTRODUCTION 4. Create diverse housing opportunities. People in different family types, life stages and income levels can afford a home in the neighborhood of their choice. A. The Altair development is very different from the rest of the City, especially east of the freeway, which is characterized by single family housing interspersed with shopping centers and few apartments. B. At Altair, housing is available for all stages of life. Housing types range from micro -units and apartments to rowhouses to detached housing on small lots. Development parcels are small and in close proximity to encourage a mix of people of different ages and lifestyles. C. The Elementary School site will serve younger families. D. The zoning allows day care, either in homes or day care centers, to support young families and provide opportunities for employment. E. Senior housing is encouraged. More importantly, Altair strives to provide communal resources, flexible housing and a supportive neighborhood that allows inhabitants to age in their own homes. 5. Preserve open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas. Development respects natural landscape features and has a higher aesthetic, environmental, social and financial value. A. Altair preserves over 58 acres of the existing hillside west of OId Town as MSHCP corridor. The Western Bypass Corridor alignment has been revised from previous designs to achieve this significant conservation land, an increase from the land conserved by the prior alignment. This hillside is a critical viewshed seen from Old Town, the freeway and surrounding neighborhoods. B. Additionally, Altair conserves almost 35 acres of land containing native oak trees at the south end of the site. C. Altair features active and passive recreation parks in each village to form a "string of pearls", The main park at Village C is directly visible from OId Town along Main Street, so that the visual Zink is to open space. D. Altair protects Temecula's green infrastructure, which is as important to the health, happiness and welfare of its residents as roads and utilities. E. Altair sustains the region's shade trees and urban forests, the organic plant and soil materials that filter our water and air, attenuate noise, ease wind, prevent erosion and flood damage, and moderate temperatures. F. Bio-swales and stormwater retention basins are designed to look natural, and are not fenced -off detention ponds. SPECIFIC FLAN November 2017 2-4 INTR°DOCT40N 2 6. Urban resign is important. Site plan trumps architecture, meaning the basic arrangement of the building an the site is far more important than the exterior appearance and "envelope" of the structure. There are three rules of urban design which when combined result in well designed compact neighborhoods: A. Require build -to lines, As opposed to setbacks that establish areas where a building cannot be constructed, build -to tines specify where a building is to be built on the lot. Establishing build -to lines can facilitate a sense of enclosure, and provide a method of creating visually interesting, pedestrian -oriented streetscapes by arranging buildings and entrances to the front of lots. B. Make the building front "permeable" {i.e., no blank walls} and building entrances easily identifiable. Whether commercial or residential, patios, porches, windows and doors are important to activate the street, create pedestrian scale and define public and private space. It is never appropriate to have a blank facade or sidewatl along a pedestrian thoroughfare, regardless of topography. All buildings respect this principle and front on Altair Vista. C. Prohibit parking Tots in front of buildings. Pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods start with the location of the parking lot. In an urban village, there are no parking lots along the street front. While parking lots are a necessity, on-site parking should be located below, behind through an alley, or behind from a street, and buildings should be placed at or near the sidewalk. Pedestrians interact with building facades, not cars. While site plan trumps architecture, building height, massing, and materials are alt extremely important and should be designed to have a lasting permanence, both programmatically and materially. 7. Foster a unique neighborhood identity Each community is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive. A. Rooftop patios and balconies take advantage of spectacular views overlooking the City, and help define the unique character of Altair. B. The clubhouse has portions open to the public, including a large terrace overlooking a central park, which helps create synergy between Old Town and Altair. C. Public art is strategically located throughout Altair and helps to define place. D. "Hidden treasures" - utilitarian components treated in creative and fun ways - are woven throughout the community, such as messages or footprints in concrete, painted utility boxes, wayfinding or informational signage, creative bike racks, etc. E. Spaces under bridges are decorated or landscaped to discourage graffiti. F. Design guidelines and regulations are flexible to encourage design ingenuity and altow neighborhoods to express their own November 2017 INTROO1JCTIOtt distinct ideas of beauty and form. This means that rigidly historical styles are not imposed. G. Strong neighborhood identity increases a sense of ownership and belonging, resulting in better maintained communities, less turnover and higher property values. 8. Direct development toward existing communities with urban infrastructure. Avoid the physical impact and high cost of new infrastructure associated with suburban development by building adjacent to existing infrastructure. A. The Altair development is a logical and efficient extension of existing gray infrastructure — streets, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water, cable, gas, electric - and essentially defines the southwestern edge of the City. B. The project provides much needed infrastructure, in the Western Bypass and bridge over Murrieta Creek, to ease existing traffic congestion. Old Town, in particular, will have Tess vehicular through - traffic and will therefore be more pedestrian -friendly as a result of these improvements. C. Technology — wireless communications, cell towers, satellite, street lights - will be thoughtfully considered and planned into the design to promote modernization with little impact. D. Solar energy opportunities exist. 9, Nurture engaged citizens. Places belong to those who live, work, and play in them. Engaged citizens participate in community life and decision-making. A. People are more aware of social opportunities when they are discovered in the course of daily activities. The centrally located community center overlooking a central park in close proximity to the elementary school, City Hall, museum, theater, Children's Museum, shopping, and special events in Old Town create a synergy that will help to promote civic engagement. B. The site zoned for civic use lies in close proximity to the 1-15 interchange and serves as an anchor to Altair and Old Town. 10. Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair, and Cost Effective. For a community to be successful in implementing smart growth, its vision, objectives, and actions must be embraced by the private sector. Local governments must make an effort to make development decisions that support innovation in a more timely, cost effective, and predictable way that is mutually beneficial to the City and its residents, and to developers. A. The Altair Project includes a General Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, Specific Plan, Development Agreement, Environmental Impact Report (LIR), and Fiscal Impact Analysis. The resulting documents and associated Conditions of Approval will provide clear direction for preservation of natural resources, development processing requirements, timing of infrastructure improvements, and mitigation of impacts. Sources: Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation (ICMA.org) City Comforts: How to Build an Urban Village (David Sucher) 10 Smart Growth Principles (www.smartgrowth.bc.ca) FW ci *i[ P4.Ari November 2017 2-6 2.3 Site The Altair Specific Plan area encompasses 270 acres west of Old Town and Murrieta Creek within the City of Temecula in Riverside County in southern California. The City limits form the western edge of the property. The subject land area is comprised of two portions: the majority 215 acres 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 ©Id 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. Riverside r NG% Sprtrk]].1� Mpc¢hin P'rk wrnore Canyon ilderoe-s Park • Yucaipa Uptaile Game Hunting Area Mystic Lake Lake Penis State Recreation Area 1erris ReservOir Lake Mathews San Bernadino National Forest Bi+ Morongo Canyon Preserve Mt. San Jacinto Lake Mathews Estelle Mountain Reserve Palm Springs Hemet Santiago Peak Idyllwild County Park Ronald W. Caspers Wildernes Park Diamond Valley Lake San Bernadino Nationa Forest Lake Elsinore Murrieta! Skinner Reservoir Doheny State Park Santa Rosa Plateau Rancho Santa Hasa Histnne Area Vail Lake Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Cleveland National Forest Camp Pendleton PalOrnar Mountain Pa]nmar Miuntain St le Par[ Cleveland National Forest Los Coyotes Reservation Capistrano Pa Hellhole Canyon Reserve Oceanside Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map November 2017 2 IUTROOtJCTIarr The Western Bypass proposed in the Altair Specific Plan establishes the western edge through most of the planned development and acts as a buffer and fire break between development and the MSCHP wildlife corridor, providing a clear line of distinction between urban civilization and natural habitat. The alignment of the Western Bypass Corridor is determined by several factors. It's southern end is anchored by the approved and permitted design of the bridge over Murrieta Creek that will connect the Bypass to Temecula Parkway (5R-79) and planned interchange improvements at Interstate 15. The position of this bridge also constrains the curve and slope of the Bypass as it climbs above the proposed development. The bridge, improved interchange and high visibility from Interstate 15 make the 55 -acre portion of the site south of the Bypass ideally suited for civic or visitor uses, offering direct access to Interstate 15 and Temecula Parkway. The potentially higher traffic volumes associated with these uses are, therefore, separated from the main community, maintaining its safe, walkable character. A civic use at the south parcel will be an anchor to Altair and Old Town due to its function, visible location, and history. This proposed civic site is proximate to the Temeku Village Site where the Luiseno Native Americans originally settled. A facility to pay respect to the Traditional Cultural Place (TCP) and Origin Area, in partnership with the Pechanga Tribal Council, is one possible use for the civic site or a portion thereof. The north end of the Bypass is controlled by the existing alignment of Vincent Moraga Drive, which will become the link to Rancho California Road. A previous plan extended the Bypass further to the north and west, crossing Rancho California Road with a flyover bridge. Traffic studies did not support the high cost of this approach or it's impact to natural habitat. The revised alignment preserves more habitat corridor, specifically Linkage 10 of the MSHCP. Access points off the Western Bypass are restricted, allowing only two vehicular entries into the project from the Bypass, at the north and south ends respectively. This separates the grading and geometry of the Bypass design from the project's internal streets and allows for the most efficient bypass alignment, with less impact to existing terrain. The north entry is the ideal location for the elementary school, allowing convenient pick-up and drop-off from Rancho California Road and the Bypass with minimal disruption to the Altair neighborhood. The east entry to Altair is via Coromell Trail from First Street. This will be the most direct vehicular route to Old Town Temecula. The First Street entry allows Coromell Trail the necessary length to negotiate the grade up to Altair Vista, A vehicular connection at Main Street is not possible, given the topographical constraints of the site. However, direct pedestrian connectivity to Old Town is provided, indeed celebrated, with a grand staircase and plaza at the west end of Main Street. The Main Street axis extends into Altair through the community's focal park and terminates at a plaza and second set of grand steps with seating framed by the recreation center and clubhouse. This axis aligns with Temecula's Civic Center, Town Square and Main Street Bridge. Benefitting from the topography, the park and clubhouse will be visible from Old Town, and the club house terrace will look out onto the park, town and hills beyond. The sloping park lends itself to a natural ampitheater where the public may relax and enjoy the view. Because of this vantage point, a destination restaurant or event facility may possibly be located in the clubhouse. 5111 SPE November 2017 2-7 VIA taPAT E tmpoiAs. RENA WY I= City Limits Highways Roads 215 -Acre Parcel Altair Specific Plan Area 55 -Acre Parcel N CD Figure 2 - 2 Vicinity Map November 2017 2 IHTROotJCTIO 2.4 Design Concept Altair consists of several neighborhood "villages", each centered on a node or focal point and separated by landscaped terrain. The open space between the villages mimics the existing ravines extending from the hillside above and preserves the sculptural quality of the site. It is the character of the node that gives identity to each village. These public spaces are shared outdoor rooms, typically a plaza or park, that function as the "living room" of each neighborhood. View opportunities from these common spaces are featured. The edges of the villages are less important. There are no high walls or entry monuments. None of the communities at Altair are gated. One should feel as if they have arrived at the center, not entered through a boundary. The village nodes are linked by a main north -south road, Altair Vista, and by a network of pedestrian and bicycle paths, a "string of pearls". This concept provides cohesion to a very linear site while conserving much ofthe existing land forms, allowing similar drainage patterns and maintaining views to the hillside above. There is a hierarchy to the scale and character of the neighborhoods reflecting their environment and location within the overall scheme. The primary village occupies an existing promontory with views to and from Old Town. This neighborhood encompasses a large park and features a community center at the high point, directly on axis with Main Street and Temecula City Hall. A pedestrian path allows direct access to Main Street. This primary village is higher in density and scale with buildings potentially up to five stories in height. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 INTRODUCTION 2 2-10 .r� tiS A d • c ho a"nEa Ci 4 • } r Civic Center First Street i Figure 2-3 Connection to Open Space November 2017 qrf j- 0 0 300' 600' View to Open Space Gully Altair Vista Natural Open Space 1200' l n I SCALE: 1" - 1200'-0" SPECIFIC PLANI'%= • r„,„ Grand LL Staircase Civic Center tree0t� 0 O Pedestrian Promenade First Street co 4.` 3c Figure 2-4 Connection to Old Town Temecula SPECIFIC: PLAN November 2017 2 INTRODUCTION • • •> Visual Axis MEM Park/Open Space Altair Vista Natural Open Space 0 300' 600' 1200' 2-11 INTRODUCTION 2 2-121 • , ! 'k>50 Qr A 0)10 . • 0114[1111] :I- Main _ ' '10 - F CIVIC center LJ, First Street 1 co ILJ +mu Figure 2-5 View Opportunities November 2017 0 300' 600' Panoramic View View Up to Open Space/Ridge Park/Open Space Altair Vista Natural Open Space 1200' SPECIFIC PLAN= 2 INTRODUCTION The village centers are linked by a primary north -south road, Altair Vista, and by a network of pedestrian and bicycle trails, forming a "string of pearls". The experience when traveling along the string is a rhythm of intensity followed by release, just as a well-designed series of interior spaces will play upon volumetric compression and expansion between rooms. The enfilade arrangement of the villages, where one leads to the next, is critical to the spirit of Altair. By passing through each village, residents understand the community as a whole, the personalities of different neighborhoods, and what makes their own village unique. it Figure 2-6 Outdoor Reams Linked Enfilade Each village node has an open space with a vantage point unique to its geographic and topographic location. These views combine with the design, function and materials of the open space and the buildings framing it to imbue each village with its distinct character. Artwork, special activities or events add to the individuality of a village. 2-13 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 2-i4 INTRODUCTION 2 Altair Vista, the principal roadway linking the villages, is designed in straight segments that hinge at each village node. This arrangement brings focus to the nodes at the same time that it creates a sequence of unfolding events from village to village. Important to this progression are the exterior spaces formed by the buildings framing the nodes. These spaces serve as outdoor "rooms" for community gathering and neighborhood identity. To extend the analogy, the more narrowly framed sections of Altair Vista between nodes serve as corridors and the ravines separating villages are like natural, diaphonous walls. The buildings framing the outdoor rooms and corridors are, therefore, extremely important to the overall design concept for Altair. Setbacks are minimized and build -to lines are mandated in this Plan in order to create a strong and consistent building edge that clearly defines the outdoor spaces between. 4C<> C:%1)0) Figure 2-7 Outdoor Rooms Linked in a "Daisy Cbain." ,CopfigurgiM November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANT 2.5 Land Use 2 INTRODUCTION The predominant land use at Altair is residential, consisting of multifamily, attached and detached housing types. Housing types are further defined in Sections 10.10-10.20. Densities range from 4 to 33 dwelling units per net acre, with the higher densities at the village nodes, in the primary village and at the north end of the property. Development will be phased, achieving 870 to 1,750 dwelling units at full build -out. A Community Center to include a recreation center and clubhouse is provided for residents. Some ancillary retail or restaurant space may be included, depending on market demand, as well as a limited number of live/work units located within certain village centers, where street frontage lends itself to ground floor business storefronts. Commercial and live/work uses are allowed in all residential and mixed-use zones with a limit on the total area of such uses in Altair, as described in Table 3-1. An approximate 7 -acre site is set aside for an elementary school and playfield. The school site is located adjacent to the recreation center and near the main park to facilitate shared parking and common amenities. The separate 55 -acre property to the south, referred to as the CivicSite in this Plan, provides the opportunity for a public amenity or tourism use for the City of Temecula to promote its culture and its connection to nature. Possible uses include a nature center with cultural and/or environmental sustainability exhibits. The existing oak tree groves at the west side of the Civic Site will be preserved for their ecological and historical significance. Land Use is discussed in further detail in Section 3. 2-15 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 INTRODUCTION 2 Mgure 2-8 Aerial Photograph November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANW=i 2 INTRODUCTION 2.6 Relationship to the General Plan The City of Temecula General Plan presents a Vision for the Future that creates and maintains a "strong business community, quality housing stock, scenic open space, and cultural amenities" to support a "positive community identity". The Altair Specific Plan aligns with this vision by increasing and diversifying housing choices in close proximity to the existing business and mercantile community of Old Town. The Specific Plan also preserves open space and provides park and civic amenities for use by residents and the surrounding community. The General Plan is organized into elements addressing key City planning issues. Each element lists goals and policies to achieve those goals. The Altair Plan supports many of these policies, as described below. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates certain specific plan areas to establish policies, planning guidelines and implementation strategies for those segments of the City. The Altair development area is already anticipated in the General Plan as Specific Plan Area SP -8 Westside/ Villages at Old Town. The identified Plan Area Objectives are: "To provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." .11151/4 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 2-17 INTRCUUCTfON 2 BIKE 1 I 1 The Altair Specific Plan is consistent with these objectives. The Plan provides a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Plan respects existing topography and embraces existing scenic vistas as focal points for the community. The Altair Specific Plan satisfies two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: • "Providing infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area. • Locating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The Circulation Element of the General Plan presents several measures to improve mobility in the Temecula region. One of these measures is the Temecula Five Year Capital Improvement Program, which lists multiple projects, including a "Western Bypass Corridor from SR -79 South to French Valley Parkway." The Western Bypass will help to satisfy a major goal of the Circulation Element: Goal 2 A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goads to and from the community. Policy 2.2 Develop a bypass system of roadways on the east, west and south sides of the City to accommodate traffic flow from development outside the City and improve center -of -town traffic conditions. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANA= 2 INTROOt1CTIOP A significant portion of the Western Bypass project is accomplished in the Altair Specific Plan, connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. This proposed route differs from the bypass route shown in the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2 of the General Plan). The advantages of the proposed route are discussed further in Section 4 of this document. The Western Bypass route will be revised through a General Plan amendment, concurrent with the adoption of this specific plan. Goal 3 An efficient City circulation system through the use of transportation system management and travel demand management strategies. Policy 3.3 Provide a comprehensive system of Class 1 and/or Class 11 bicycle lanes to meet the needs of cyclists traveling to and from work and other destinations within the City. Goal 5 Policy 5.1 Safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City. Promote pedestrian and bicycle safety by adhering to uniform trail standards and communicating safety practices to the public. Policy 5.3 Ensure the accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled. Policy 5.4 Provide a comprehensive network of multi -use trails and bikeways between residential areas and commercial/ employment activity centers, public institutions, and recreation areas. The Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was developed to advance these policies. Altair is designed as a pedestrian -oriented community with its own system of trails and bikeways that will complement and tie into the citywide system and master plan. The trail system is discussed further in Section 4 of this specific plan. The Housing Element explains that single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in Temecula. A greater range of housing types is needed. Goal 1 Provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical,. social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula. Policy 1.2 Encourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types. =IRANSPEOFiC PLAT. November 2017 iN!i ODUC1ION 2 Policy 1.3 Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people 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. The Land Use section of this specific plan describes the diversity of residential types and the concentration of densities at village nodes and plazas. Development is predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the property as natural open space. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan addresses both the need for active parks and recreational space for residents and conservation of natural open space to protect wildlife and resources. Goal 1 R high quality parks and recreation system that meets the diverse recreation needs of residents. Policy 1.1 Ensure sufficient parkland and recreation facilities to support new development through acquisition and/or dedication that meets the requirement for 5 acres of useable park land per 1,000 population. Policy 1.5 Coordinate long-range park, trail and open space planning with Riverside County and the City of Murrieta. Policy 1.6 Encourage the establishment of natural habitat spaces for recreational hiking and nature education. The neighborhoods at Altair are designed around village greens and parks that serve as focal points identifying each village. These urban green spaces are then linked by a system of pedestrian walkways and trails across open space — a "string of pearls". The core village is developed around a large central park linked to Main Street in Old Town Temecula, both visually and via a pedestrian path. The proposed nature center at the civic site will conserve open space, add trails and educate the public about the natural environment in Temecula. An historic stand of oak trees will be preserved, as will open space views to this parcel from the Temeku Village Site. November 2017 GoDi 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. INTROO1JCTIp1Y The Altair Specific Plan is consistent with the many General Plan policies aimed at achieving this goal. Water conservation and protection strategies are detailed in the Drainage Plan and Water Plan portions of Section 6, as well as in the Landscape Guidelines in Section 10. Goal 3 Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors and general biodiversity. Policy 3.3 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Policy 3.4 Encourage developers to incorporate native drought -resistant vegetation, mature trees, and other significant vegetation into site and landscape designs for proposed projects. Goal 5 Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment .... and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. Policy 5.13 Utilize natural, undeveloped greenbelts as buffers between developments and an outskirts of the City to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula. Portions of the Altair site lie within Proposed Linkage 10 in the Southwest Region of the MSHCP Plan Area. This linkage is intended to provide both "live-in habitat" for various species and a movement corridor connecting the Santa Margarita and the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserves. The proposed Western Bypass as well as roads at the north and south ends of the site will serve as a buffer between development and the Linkage. Edge treatment along these roads will be developed through the environmental review process with input from Riverside County and MSIICP stakeholders. The Linkage conserves the ridgeline and escarpment west of Old Town and includes the highest elevations of the Altair property. SPEG1F+C PLAi. November 2017 2-2i 2-22 IN IRODUC ION 2 The Growth Management I Public Facilities Element seeks to ensure that growth in the City occurs in such a manner that services may be provided efficiently and adequately. Goal 2 Orderly and efficient patterns of growth that enhance quality of life for Temecula residents. The proximity of Altair to Old Town Temecula lends efficiency to the project and City since the facilities needed to serve the land uses are dose by. The location eliminates the need to install and maintain long utility distribution mains. In addition, on site facilities such as the school and parks can serve the surrounding neighborhood. Goal 4 A quality school system with adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula. Policy 4.4 Coordinate with the School D strict to provide safe access for school children walking, bicycling, or driving to and from school sites. Policy 4.5 Pursue the establishment of a trade school, a junior college, and/ora four-year college that offers education required by the engineering, biotechnical and biomedical industries located in Temecula. Policy 4.5 Plan for the Joint use of school/municipal facilities wherever feasible and desirable, including: school grounds, buildings, City parks, multi-purpose buildings, and recreation facilities. Altair includes a site of approximately 7 acres for a public elementary school and playfield to be built by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The school site is near the main park and community center. Opportunities for shared use of school and community facilities will be pursued with the School District. The Civic Site also has the potential to be developed as a nature center, which could include an educational program. November 2017 SPEC:=1C, fi�w;+k15ir! 2 INTRODUCTION The Air Quality Element strives to improve regional air quality through better land planning, reduction of automobile emissions and energy conservation. Goal Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula. Policy 2.2 Encourage infill development near activity centers, within Mixed Use Overlay Areas, and along transportation corridors. Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions. Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. Altair is a walkable community connected with pedestrian and bicycle trails to the employment, shopping and entertainment activities of Old Town Temecula. Both the location and design of the project will give residents a choice other than automotive transportation. The CommunbDesign Element proposes to enhance the City's image through quality design that strengthens Temecula's many assets. Goal 2 Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs. Goal 4 A streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image. Goal 5 Protection of public views of significant natural features. Goal 7 Community gathering areas which provide for the social, civic, cultural and recreational needs of the community. Altair is a comprehensive plan that strongly integrates landscape design with the planning and architectural concept. The overlay of the trail system and streetscapes with communal open spaces highlighting major vistas results in a composition that engages the surrounding context and natural beauty of the region. speciFIc PLAN November 2017 INTRODUCTION 2 November 2017 SPECIFIC NLACdFJ7 LAND USE LANAE 3.1 Summary The Altair Specific Plan depicts a 270 -acre community of primarily residential development with supporting civic uses and open space. It presents an urban lifestyle in its density, convenience of activities and dose relationship to the shopping, dining and entertainment venues of Old Town Temecula, Altair is intended to house multiple demographics, spanning age groups and household types. A dominant pedestrian network linking active open spaces encourages interaction amongst these diverse residents. Due to the property's shape and location, the Altair Specific Plan area is physically and conceptually divided into three main parts. To the south is a 55 -acre area that is separated from the remaining site by a parcel under ownership of the Metropolitan Water District. The location of the original Luiseno Native American settlement, the Temeku Village Site is immediately adjacent to the south. The parcel also lies within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) corridor, discussed in more detail in Section 8 of this Specific Plan, and supports an existing stand of oak trees. Because of these significant cultural and biological considerations, the southern parcel is mostly reserved as open space. The remaining area of approximately 13 acres is intended for civic or community use that will provide opportunities for environmental and/or cultural education, recreation trails benefitting the public, and that will promote civic pride and engagement. Possible uses include a nature center or visitor center. The remaining 215 -acre parcel is bifurcated by the Western Bypass road that carries through - traffic around Old Town Temecula. To the west of this road is predominantly natural open space that is a component of the Proposed Linkage 10 of the MSHCP (discussed in Section 8.4 Only two small residential components lie west of the Bypass, villages A and G. The area east of the Bypass is developed with the most density. Uses are mainly residential with supporting civic and community uses (including a school) and interstitial and active open space. These residential uses are described in the following Community Design narrative and in the village descriptions that follow. All residential uses allow a small amount of accessory commercial use to support the neighborhood. These might be a corner coffee shop, ice cream parlor or live/work units with ground floor offices. Accessory commercial uses shall be at street level near village cores. TABLE 3-1 describes the acreage and density of each land use. FIGURE 3-2 shows the location of each use on the Altair site and FIGURE 3-3 shows zoning per parcel. 5PEdaFit ; November 2017 3 Offsite Space Open Ili S s c_ ilNatural -< •- Open ..'":--11) Space y ` L..� tLL" i 1.,...--_,...m..,4iiilll i .� s iii 1., m..r- —771 r * Civic L i a _rt a Center 1 .Main Street T /1 0 9e r -n J e 215 -Acre Parcel Line o Western ]mss~ Bypass r 55 -Acre Civic Site Parcel Line Natural or Revegetated Open Space Off -Site Natural Open Space Property Line Figure 3-1 Natural Open Space November 2017 0 300' 600' I n 1200' SPECIFIC PLANC/!/' O r 1 iSchool Civic Center Tri711 • .... i .... i0 111 3 LAND USE 1.1 Open Space •Civic/Community 1.1 Residential - Property Line 111111111MMINILW INI SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 N 3-3 L a}t iagr `Planning District Tract Map 4 Lot No. 2 Land Use 2 Zone Area Density Range (for Net Lot Area) Intensity Range Open Space Buildable Lots Min. Max. 1 Min. Max. 1 upper rnlls'a_,;. Conservation Area 36959-1 8 Open Space SP -NO 2937 ac Conservation Area 36959-2 25 Open Space SP -NO 8.06 ac Conservation Area 36959-3 20 Open Space SP -NO 830 ac Open Space 36959-1 7 Open Space SP -NO 4.83 ac Open Space 36959-2 18 Open Space SP -NO 4.60 ac Open Space 36959-3 12 Open Space SP -NO 5.40 ac Open Space 36959 7 Open Space SP -NO 426 ac Conservation Area 36959 8 Open Space SP -NO 4.23 ac Villages VILLAGE A 36959-1 1 Residential SP -R 6.18 ac 9 - 18 D.U.fac 56- 110 D.U, 36959-1 2 Residential SP -R 4.17 ac 9 - 18 Q.U./ac 38 - 75 D.U. 36959-1 3 Residential SP -R 2.36 ac 9 - 18 D.U./ac 21- 42 D.U. 36959-1 4 Residential SP -R 2.89 ac 9 - 18 D,U,/ac 26 - 52 D,U, r140 - 280 Village A Subtotal (D.U. ) VILLAGER 36959-1 5 Residential SP -R 7.24 ac 9 - 18 D.U,/ac 64- 128 D,U. 36959-1 6 Residential SP -R 5.16 ac 9 - 18 D.U,fac 46- 92 D.U, 1110 - 210 village El Subtotal (O. U.) I VILLAGE C: Recreation Center 36959-2 14 Mixed Use SP -M 1.75 ac Clubhouse 36959-2 13 Mixed Use SP -M 0.30 ac Park 36959-2 19 Open Space SP -A0 5.04 ac North Core 36959-2 2 Residential SP -R 2.37 ac 18 - 29 D.U,/ac 43 - 69 D.U. 36959-2 3 Residential SP -R 3.74 ac 18 - 29 D.U.fac 68- 109 D,U. 36959-2 4 Residential SP -R 1.63 ac 18 - 29 D,U./ac 29- 47 D.U. 1140 - l.5 North Care Subtotal (0, U.! South Core 36959-2 5 Residential SP -MR 0.40 ac 21 - 33 D.U,fac 8- 13 D.U. 36959-2 6 Residential SP -R 2.53 ac 21 - 33 D,U./ac 54- 84 D,U,, 36959-2 7 Residential SP -R 1.64 ac 21. - 33 D.U./ac 34- 54 D.U, 36959-2 8 Residential SP -R 1.84 ac 21 - 33 D,U./ac 39- 61 D.U, 36959-2 9 Residential SP -R 1.53 ac 21. - 33 D.U./ac 32 - 50 D.U, 36959-2 10 Residential SP -R 1.30 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 27- 43 D.U, 36959-2 11 Residential SP -R 1.80 ac 21 - 33 D.U./ac 38 - 59 D.U, 36959-2 12 Residential SP -R 2.28 ac 21. - 33 D,U./ac 48- 75 D,U, 280 - 440 South Core Subtotal (ELL.) VILLAGED 36959-3 1 Residential SP -R 2.55 ac 8 - 18 D.U,/ac 20- 45 D,U, 36959-3 2 Residential SP -R 2.32 ac 8 - 18 D.U,fac 18 - 41 D.U, 36959-3 3 Residential SP -R 1.96 ac 8 - 18 D.U./ac 15 - 35 D.U. 36959-3 4 Residential SP -R 2.15 ac 8 - 18 D.U.fac 17- 38 D.U. Park 36959-3 14 Open Space SP -AO 0.80 ac 70 - 160 Village 0 Satatotai (D_i1.) I VILLAGE E 36959-3 5 Residential SP -R 1.51 ac 5 - 15 D.U.fac 8 - 22 D.U. 36959-3 6 Residential SP -R 1.23 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 6 - 18 D.U. 36959-3 7 Residential SP -R 1.17 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 6 - 17 D.U, 36959-3 8 Residential SP -R 2.51 ac 5 - 15 0.U./ac 13 - 37 D.U, 36959-3 9 Residential SP -R 1.42 ac 5 - 15 D.U./ac 7 - 21 D.U. 1 40 - .t 15 Village E Subtotal (CI.U.) 1 VILLAGE 36959-3 10 Residential SP -R 4.51 ac 7 - 20 D.U.fac 30- 90 D.U, 36959-3 11 Residential SP -R 4.52 ac 7 - 20 D.U.fac 30- 90 D.U, 1 60 - 180 Village0- Subtotal (D U.) VILLAGE 36959 1 Residential SP -R 2.50 ac 4 - 18 D.U.fac 11- 46 D.U, 36959 2 Residential SP -R 4.55 ac 4 - 18 D.U./ac 19- 84 D.U. SUBTOTAL 74.89 ac 84.01 ac 10 - 21 0.lilac averaee 870 - 1,750 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS Table 3-1 Zones and Development Intensity November 2017 ErrIvillm I LAND USt School 3 36959-2 -- 36959 36959 36959 36959 36959 36959 1 3 4 5 6 9 10 Educational SP -E 7.07 ac 50,000 gsf 600- 730 students Civic Site Nature Center Nature Center Nature Center Nature Center Conservation Area Conservation Area Civic Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space SP -C SP -NO SP -NO SP -NO SP -NO SP -NO 0.31 ac 0.12 ac 0.42 ac 34.63 ac 2.61 ac 16.13 ac 5,000 gsf Interstitial Open Space Open Space {HDA} 36959-2 15 Open Space SP -AO 4.54 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 16 Open Space SP -NO 0.78 ac Open Space {HOA} 36959-2 17 Open Space SP -NO 0,52 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 20 Open Space SP -AO 0.59 ac Open Space {HOA} 36959-2 21 Open Space SP -NO 0.83 ac Open Space {HOA} 36959-2 22 Open Space SP -N0 1,63 ac Open Space {HDA} 36959-2 23 Open Space SP -AO 1.39 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 24 Open Space SP -AO 1,80 ac Open Space (HDA) 36959-3 13 Open Space SP -AO 4.88 ac Open Space {HOA} 36959-3 15 Open Space SP -NO 0.74 ac Open Space {HOA} 36959-3 16 Open Space SP -NO 0.52 ac Open Space {HDA} 36959-3 17 Open Space SP -AO 0.25 ac Open Space {HOA} 36959-3 18 Open Space SP -NO 0,38 ac Open Space {HOA} 36959-3 19 Open Space SP -AO 2.64 ac I-tu-•r, - -28.22 ac TOTALS 162.69 ac 107.21 ac 10 - 21 D.U./ac 870 - 1,750 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 269.90 ac AVERAGE Definitio.i- Gross Area: the total area within the lot lines of a lot or parcel of land before public streets, easements or other areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use Net Area: the gross project ar lot area, less that portion of the site to he used for arterial and collector roads, public parks, and/or the floodway portion of a floodplain. For the purposes of this Specific Plan, arterial and collector roads shall include only those roads provided by the Master Builder and/or public roads owned by the City of Temecula, terstitial Open Space: non -developable area installed by the Master Developer including fixed slope banks and retaining walls, floodways and drainage basins, utility easements, the Class 1 bikeway, the Western Bypass and Street 1. D.U.: dwelling unit 1. Maximum density and intensity within a village may be increased by the transfer of unused development intensity (D.U.) from one village to another, but the total number of dwelling units in the Altair Specific Plan shall not exceed 2. Commercial and live/work uses are allowed in residential and mixed use designations, but the total amount of commercial space in the Altair Specific Plan shall not exceed 22,000 square feet. See zoning regulations and Table 10-1 for permitted uses. 3. If the School District does not use the site, residential uses are permitted on this lot as described in Section 3.12. 4. Lot numbers indicated here correspond to the lot numbers in Tentative Tract Map 36959 and 36959-1, 2 and 3. SP - SPECIFIC PLAN NO - NATURAL OPEN SPACE AO - ACTIVE OPEN SPACE R - RESIDENTIAL ZONE M - MIXED USE MR- MIXED USE / RESIDENTIAL E - EDUCATIONAL ZONE C - CIVIC ZONE Table 3 -1 Continued Zones and Development Intensity - November 2017 3-5 LAND USE 3 Fgure 3-3 Zoning Map November 2017 ZONING MAP LEGEND - SP -AO Active Open Space SP -NO Natural Open Space I� SP -R Residential lane SP -M Mixed -Use SP -MR Mixed -Use/ Residential SP -E Educational SP -C Civic I I 1 IL. AIIII=111 SPECIFIC PLAN/11 3.2 Relationship of Land Uses to Zoning 1 Imo USE Adoption of the Altair Specific Plan is a rezone of the plan area. The City of Temecula Zoning Map will be amended to reflect the new Specific Plan zone. Development regulations for this zone are defined in this specific plan in Section 10 Development Standards and in Section 11.1, Regulations that Implement the Specific Plan. 3.3 Open Space A significant portion of the Altair plan area is open space, both natural and active. It is the interstitial and boundary open spaces, as well as topographic forms, that give shape to the villages. And it is active open space, in the form of plazas, parks, greens and community gardens, that distinguish and define the villages and civic places. The open space and recreation concept and standards for Altair are discussed in further detail in Section 8 of this specific plan. The Village outlines following in this section describe village nodes and other open space within each village. Requirements and guidelines for common and private open space within private developments are included in the Building Types subsection of Section 10, Development Standards 3.4 Altair Villages Altair is a community of villages arranged to promote an active and socially connected lifestyle. There are seven residential Villages at Altair, labeled A through G, in addition to the sites for the school and civic uses. Descriptions, locations and standards for each village, the school site and the Civic Site are provided in the following pages. Sa C H pL141� November 2017 3_ LAND USE 3 Pig ure 3-4 Village A - Plan Area November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200 SPECIFIC PLAN 3.5 Village A 3 LAND USE Villages A and B comprise the northernmost development area and function as a pair to frame the north entrance to Altair via the Western Bypass. The two villages are divided by the Western Bypass Corridor, but are visually engaged over the bypass. The villages occupy previously graded pads resembling plateaus that are approximately at the same elevation and above the depressed bypass road. Therefore, they have a strong visual connection over and across the bypass. They are also similar in character, defined by a higher density and scale of massing. Each village is arranged around a formal green. Village B is discussed in further detail in Section 3.6. Because it is west of the Bypass, Village A has a closer relationship with the natural open space of the MSFICP corridor. The road accessing the village is located between the open space and development to minimize wildlife encroachment into yards or other conflicts. Due to site contours and edge conditions, the outline of Village A creates a narrower "panhandle" shape at the north end. This north section of the village is better suited to lower scale development, such as rowhomes, multiplexes or clustered detached housing. The remaining bulk of the village should be higher scale multifamily development framing the central green. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 .3-10 BOUNDARIES: Open space for MSFICP corridor to the west and south, Western Bypass to the east, Ridge Park Drive and adjacent properties to the north, SIZE: Approximately 15.6 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. Secondary Access 1 Y + Connecting road -final route to be determined / / rr it Park Residential Primary Access• �� r P', Altair Vista School Figure 3-5 Vehicular Access - Village A CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANM I tilt ACCESS: Main entry is at the southeast corner from the Western Bypass. Secondary access is at the north end directly from Ridge Park Drive. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. The road connecting these two entries serves as an edge between development and open space for the MSI -ICP corridor. Pedestrian and bicycle routes paraltet the vehicular path. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1 Park Residential ti Pedestrian Crosswalk Altair Vista To Class 1 Trail Figure 3-6 Pedestrian Circulation - Village A CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL RESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 3-11 JU D USE ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village A. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Lower density uses, such as Detached Housing should be focused toward the north end of this village, with higher scale framing the urban park. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Live / Work Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Podium Community Buildings BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on the park and other open space, boundary road and secondary streets. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2, BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirernents at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Sections10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Internal Streets: From Western Bypass ROW: From Ridge Park Drive ROW: 3 ft. rein. 20 ft. min. 20 ft, min. 10 ft. max. No maximum No maximum ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-5 stories, See Table 10-2. DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. A one-way loop road or couplet, similar to Figures 4-25 and 4-26 should be provide around the Village A park. 2. A parkway and sidewalk shall be provided on the east side only of the boundary road between the development and the natural open space (MSHCP). Walkways are discouraged adjacent to the MSHCP. 3. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 4. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 5. Driveways at rowhonies should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. November 2017 SPEC:=1C. 144/1 PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on the east side only of the boundary road between the development and the open space. 2. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of the ane -way loop road around the park. 3. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is encouraged on one or both sides of internal secondary streets. 4. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 5. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages, 6. Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards. 7. Parking lots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space, or from the Boundary Road.Easement. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards 11 Implementation Plan GRADING STANDARDS: Village A occupies land that has been substantially graded to form a generally flat pad at the foot of the western slope that is significantly higher than the Western Bypass or Ridge Park Drive to the east. Grade changes within the pad area will be resolved in the park and open spaces between building types. The pad narrows at the north end, but the buildable area can be expanded with a sloped site and smaller, stepped buildings. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining wails. -1'. 5PEdaFit ; November 2017 LAND USE 3-14 Village A Park Concept The Village "A" Park, FIGURE 3-7, is a long linear park space allowing a large lawn area for general purpose passive sports and play. At one end is a playground area for children, heavily shaded with trees, while the other end is a natural landscaped area with a winding path and shaded seating spots. A planted parkway or low wall provides a buffer from vehicular circulation. The northwest end opens to views of the natural hillside and ridgeline beyond. The southeast end offers a visual connection above and across the Western Bypass to Village B. 1.U7 ACRES LEGEND: 1. NATURAL LANDSCAPE AREA 2. PLAYGROUND 3. LAWN 4. SHADED SEATING AREA 5. PLANTED PARKWAY 1* BICYCLE RACK (FINK. LOCATIONS TO B£ OETFwee.re Figure 3-7 Park Plan at Village`A" CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space is the Village A Park, an approximately 1 -acre park to be installed with the development of the village. The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10. Example of Open Space Development in Village A: Example assumes 40 detached and 170 multifamily walk-up residences are constructed, for a total of 210 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 40 detached units x 80 sf/du = 3,200 sf of common open space 170 multifamily walk-up units x 60 sf/du = 10,200 sf of common open space 13,440 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by both the detached and multifamily residents or separate spaces. A portion of the common open space requirement may be fulfilled in the primary public open space. Table 8-2 requires that 0.65 acres of the 0.95 -acre park must be open to the public. The remaining 0.3 acres (13,068 sf) may be used to satisfy a portion of the required common open space. For example, a pool and deck area of 13,000 sf could be located within the 0.95 -acre Village A Park and could be enclosed as required by code, with access limited to residents of Village A. A separate roof deck or tot lot within the multifamily development could satisfy the remaining 400 sf of required common open space. Private Open Space: May be accomplished through balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 40 detached units x 100% = 40 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 170 multifamily walk-up units x 100% = 170 of the units require 80 sf min. of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village A. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. --1E. 5PEdaFit November 2017 3-1 LAND USE 3 / 1 'School Civic Center y f Phare 3-8 Village B — Plan Area November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200 i. n .—I PECIF{C N„Ate i 3.6 Village B 3 LAND USE Village B occupies a previously graded pad and is suitable for large scale multifamily housing mirroring the building forms of Village A. The location of Village B at the north end of the property makes it a gateway site, especially as it occupies a promontory that, together with Village A, frames either side of the Western Bypass Corridor at its northerly base. Development along the edge of the plateau is favorable for views overlooking Temecula to the east. The trapezoidal outline of the plateau presents the opportunity for a triangular green or some other unique shape to distinguish this village from others. Opening the east end of the green also provides view opportunities for housing surrounding the green. Village B is next to the elementary school site making this location ideal for families with young children. Higher density is appropriate to the activity generated by a school. BOUNDARIES: Altair Vista to the west, Western Bypass Corridor to the north, adjacent properties to the east and south. SIZE: Approximately 12.4 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: Entry is at the southwest corner from Altair Vista. Secondary access for emergency only is located further north near the intersection of Altair Vista with the Western Bypass. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel the vehicular path. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-57 LAND USE 3 ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village B. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Detached Housing Micro Units Multiplex Multifamily Walk -Up Rowhouses Multifamily Podium Live / Work Community Buildings BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on the park and on Altair Vista. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Altair Vista Property Line: From Western Bypass ROW: At other lot lines: 3 ft. min. 20 ft. min. 0 ft. min. 10 ft. max. No maximum ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-5 stories. See Table 10-2. Secondary Fire access onl o Residential Altair Vista Primary Entrance Figure 3-9 Vehicular Access — Village B CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLACJIj7f DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. A one-way loop road or couplet, similar to Figures 4-25 and 4-26 should be provided around the Village B park. 2. No driveways may be located on Altair Vista, except the village access road and any required emergency access. 3. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 4. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by at 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 5. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between the pairs. PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of the one-way loop road around the park. 2. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is encouraged on one or both sides of internal secondary streets. 3. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 4. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages. 5. Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards. 6. Parking lots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space or from Altair Vista. Altair Vista Figure `3-10 Pedestrian Circulation - Village B CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPE=CIFIC PLAN November 2017 Irl 3-20 LAND USE 3 Village "B" Park Concept: The flatiron shape of the Village "B" Park, FIGURE 3-11, allows for natural open space in contemporary, geometric form. A large recreational lawn utilizes most of the space, yet there are also pockets of natural landscaped area in the corners and a children's playground. Tucked near the playground is a shaded picnic and seating area. A landscaped parkway provides a buffer from vehicular circulation. LEGEND: 1. NATURAL LANDSCAPE AREA 2. LAWN 3. SHADED SEATING / PICNIC AREA 4. PLANTED PARKWAY 5. PLAYGROUND BICYCLE RACK (FINAL LOCATIONS TO 8E DETERMINED) Figure 32-11 Park Plan at Village B CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANIR APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards 11 Implementation Plan GRADING STANDARDS: Village B occupies land that has been substantially graded to form a generally flat plateau that is significantly higher than the Western Bypass or adjacent properties to the southeast and northeast. Grade changes within the pad area will be resolved in the park and open spaces between building types. The buildable area can be expanded with stepped buildings, by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls, OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space is the Village 13 Park, an approximately 0.6 acre park to be installed with the development of the village. The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10. Example of Open Space Development in Village B: Example assumes 170 multifamily walk-up residences are constructed. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 170 multifamily walk-up units x 60 sfjdu = 10,200 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by all buildings or separate spaces. A portion of the common open space requirement may be fulfilled in the primary public open space. Table 8-2 requires that 0.40 acres of the 0,65 -acre park must be open to the public. The remaining 0.25 acres (10,890 sf) may be used to satisfy a portion of the required common open space. For example, a typical 8,000 sf tennis court could be located within the 0,65 -acre Village B Park and could be enclosed, with access Limited to residents of Viltage B. A separate courtyard or roof deck within the multifamily development could satisfy the remaining 2,200 sf of required common open space. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling, Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 170 multifamily walk-up units x 100% = 170 of the units require 80 sf min. of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village R. See Section 10,6 for Landscape Standards. M51;2Ed FIC November 2017 3-21 LAND USE 3 1 i f • /// /, ,-,-: e'R 0 X ifSchoof 1. • T w ilrT`li� 1411 hfu Civic Center ZG� Figure 3-12 pillage C - Plan Area November 2017 4 340' 600' ! n I 1240 SPECIFIC NLANW 3.7 Village C 3 LAND USE Village C is the core of Altair. It is the most densely developed Village and offers the most variety of uses and building types, It encompasses the central park, includes the community center and is adjacent to the school site. The planning is very urban with apartment buildings, row houses and tight clusters of homes punctuated by plazas. The focal point of Village C and the entire community is a promontory plaza and roundabout anchoring one end of an axis aligning with Main Street in Old Town and anchored on the opposite end by the Temecula Civic Center. From this vantage point, the relationship between Altair and Old Town Temecula is very clear. The plaza is defined by two structures comprising the community center: a recreation center with pool to the northwest and a clubhouse to the northeast. Multi -story attached or stacked residences form the south edge of the plaza, possibly with street -level commercial uses. The club house opens onto the park with terrace seating. Streets and pedestrian paths radiate from the plaza. The park and community center are described in greater detail in FIGURE 3-13 and FIGURE 3-14 and in Section 8: Open Space and Recreation of this Specific Plan. Village C overlooks Old Town and provides a pedestrian link to Main Street through the park. The village is itself divided by terrain and roads into neighborhoods linked by a semi -circular street. The street bridges over the park where it crosses the east -west path descending down to Main Street. This bridge, when seen from Old Town along the Main Street axis, is another visual gateway to the community, framing the park and set against the backdrop of the natural hillside above. It is anticipated that Village C will receive the most visitors from outside the community to use the park and school. A higher level of commercial retail space is therefore appropriate in this planning area, SPE IFIC PLAN November 2017 3-23 LAND USE 3 y3-24 Prima Access Roundabout 1 See Fig. 9-16 Altair Vista Recreation Center Roundabout 2 See Fig. 9-17 ,n Iconic Tower Altair Vista Secondary Access Il 11 Residential 1 se. sib low —MII. Figure 3-13 Vehicular Access - Village CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 Residential Bridge Over i Park A Street Roundabout 3 See Fig. 9-20 •� SPECIFIC PLANK Roundabout 1 See Fig. 9-16 Altair Vista Mid -Block Crossirl see Figure 4-5 Recreation Center Roundabout 2 See Fig. 9-17 Grand Staircase Seating Iconic Tower Class 1 Trail Altair Vista School Residential Clubhouse 3 LAND USE Walkways on Bridge , Grand Staircase Main Street a — — axis to Civic Center Mid -Block Crossin see Figure 4-9 Plaza Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Figure 3-14 Pedestrian Circulation — Village C CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY: ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 Path Under Bridge Pedestrian Promenade Outlook Roundabout 3 See Fig. 9-20 3-25 -6. BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the west, adjacent properties to the north and east, open space ravine to the south, SIZE: Approximately 21.1 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: Altair Vista from north and south, running through the village. Carom ell Trail from north and east, Major internal circulation along A Street, Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity is key to the success of Village C and the Park: • Pedestrian and bicycle routes are provided along Altair Vista and A Street. • An accessible link is provided to the Class 1 bike path paralleling Western Bypass AdditionaI pedestrian access to/from OId Town via Main Street, the grand staircase and east/west path through park • Pedestrian promenade to southeast, connecting to trail system. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village C. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Lower density uses should be focused toward the north end of this village, with higher scale framing the urban park. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Live Work Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Podium Mixed Use Community Buildings Iconic Tower BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on Altair Vista and secondary streets and on the park and other open space, Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. November 207 3Fecr:ir, 3 LAND USE BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Altair Vista Property Line: From Coromell Trail ROW: From A Street Property Line: 3 ft. min 3 ft. min Oft. min 5 ft. max. No maximum 5 ft. max. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-5 stories. See Table 10-2. DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 2. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 3. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-27 3-28 Central Park at Village C Concept In the heart of the development is a Village "C" Park to serve as a central open space to the Altair community and Old Town Temecula, FVGuRE 3-15. It is anchored by the community center at the top of the hill to the west and encircled by the homes and apartment buildings of Village C. The park is strategically situated on axis with Main Street and the City of Temecula Civic Center. The southern edge of the park is designed as a linear path on that same axis that cascades down the slope, passing under the A Street bridge and connecting to the town via a grand staircase to Main Street. Conversely, from Main Street in Old Town the view up the axis features an arched bridge framing the park, with the community center promontory above, an iconic tower and the natural escarpment beyond. The park allows residents along its perimeter to open onto the park with direct access and views. Walkways stretching out from the park allow easy pedestrian access from many points in the community and the City of Temecula. While the site offers a 50' topographical change, the park gracefully incorporates accessible walkways and stairs into the design instead of clumsy ADA ramp "switchbacks". These gradual walkways allow access to the park's recreational, natural, and commercial spaces. Various types of shade structures and planted groves of trees provide shade as users sit, picnic, and move throughout the park. The different areas of the park offer a gradient of uses. The lower end of the park to the east is less formal and features open space and native landscape planting which leads into a nature trail as topography increases. This nature trail encompasses an open lawn space which acts as a play area and amphitheater to the centrally located stage/ picnic shelter. The natural amphitheater may host movie nights, concerts and festivals as well as passive recreation and picnicking. In the upper end of the park to the west are shaded picnic areas, children's play space, and restrooms all located near the parking lot. Additional overflow parking will occur on Altair Vista, A Street and at the school site across the street when school is not in session. The community center is composed of two facilities: a recreation center west of Altair Vista and a clubhouse east of Altair Vista and contiguous to the park. The recreation center edges grand steps at the peak of the Main Street axis, a prime gathering space and scenic viewpoint. The recreation center incorporates outdoor pools and a spa, fitness and exercise rooms for residents. The clubhouse is a dual -fronted building with entry from the street side and openings to a large terrace on the park side. The Master IIOA will operate the recreation center and clubhouse facilities and may work with the City's Community Services Department and/or the general public for the potential hosting of classes, activities, wedding and event rentals at the clubhouse, At the highest point in the park, a terrace available for cafes or events has views over the park and out over the City of Temecula. The design of surrounding architecture is critical to the success of the Village C Park. Facades should face the park with entries, windows, balconies and porches to facilitate interaction between the public open space and perimeter residents. Pedestrian walkways edging the park and providing direct access between development and the park are encouraged. These "eyes" on the park will improve park safety and benefit the surrounding buildings with enhanced views. See Sections 94.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.4, 9.4,5 and 9.4.8 for examples of frontage types appropriate to face the park. As shown in Figure 10-1 and 10-3, architectural elements such as porches and trellises that soften park facades may encroach into required setbacks. Any walls or fences should be kept low to allow views across by seated persons and to avoid a defensive appearance. November 2017 1. CLUBHOUSE 2. PARKING LOT 3. PARK RESTROOMS 4. SHADE SHELTERS 5. OPEN LAWN 6. PLAYGROUND 7. LARGE SHELTER/ STAGE 8. DOG RUN 9. OVERLOOKS 10. FORMAL "URBAN AREA" 11 INFORMAL "NATURAL" AREA (NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS, BOULDER TRAVERSING AREAS * BICYCLE RACK {FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE 0 3 LAND USE VIEWS INTO PARK FROM ADJACENT RESIDENCES "EYES ON THE PARK" POLICE + EMERGENCY VEHICULAR ACCESS POLICE + EMERGENCY ACCESS POINTS (INDICATES POINT THAT CAN BE REACHED BY EMERGENCY VEHICLE FROM SURROUNDING STREETS) PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO OLD TOWN Figure3-15 Park Plan at Village C CONCEPTUAL. PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of Altair Vista 2. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is encouraged on one or both sides of internal secondary streets. 3. Parallel or diagonal on -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 4. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages. 5. Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards. 6. Residential parking lots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space, from Altair Vista, or from A Street. 7. Parking lots shall be provided for the park and for the community center. Both lots shall be accessed from Altair Vista. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards 11 Implementation Plan GRADING STANDARDS: Village C steps down from west to east, with different pad levels separated by Altair Vista, A Street and the large park. Buildings should also be stepped to negotiate grade changes and present engaged facades to these streets, with entries in reasonable proximity to street level. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing porches and entry stoops. Blank basement walls and high retaining walls must be avoided along streets and pedestrian paths. Nor should pedestrians see only exposed roofs and eaves, unless landscaped roof terraces are incorporated. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. Grading design in Village C should maximize views while maintaining a cohesive neighborhood. Certain promontories shall be maintained, such as the traffic oval and the southeast terminus of the pedestrian promenade. WESTERN BYPASS UPPER STAIR PLAZA CLUBHOUSE ty • w 4 A STREET BRiDOE Wi' ONIaL TRAIL GRANLI STAIR MAIN ST Piaci SI - 7 77 Figure 3-16 Park Section at Village C CONCEPTUAL SECTION ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space is the 5.0 -acre Village C Park, to be installed as part of the master development, The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 9. Example of Open Space Development in Village C: Example assumes 290 rowhouses and 260 multifamily podium residences are constructed, for a total of 550 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 290 rowhouse units x 60 sf/du 260 multifamily podium units x 50 sf/du = 17,400 sf of common open space = 13,000 sf of common open space = 3Q400 sf of common open space Given the large size of Village C and the central park, the common open space should be spread as separate spaces throughout the village, with some kind of exterior amenity in close proximity to all residences, particularly tot Tots. These spaces may be shared between different housing types and even distinct projects. Multifamily projects typically have exterior common space within the building footprint, such as podium -level courtyards or pools, or roof terraces, Table 8-2 requires that all 5.0 acres of the Village C Park must be open to the public. Therefore, no portion of the common open space requirement for Village C may be fulfilled by the primary public open space. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 290 rowhouse units x 100% = 290 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 260 multifamily podium units x 100%= 130 of the units require 60 sf min, of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village C. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. =115PE November 2017 LAND USE 3 Figure 3-17 Village 0 - Plan Area November 2017 0 300' 600' 1_11_1 1200 SPECIFIC FLANtFJ1 , 3.8 Village D 3 LAND USE Village D is located on axis with the First Street entrance to Altair. It occupies a stepped plateau bracketed by two open space ravines to the north and south and overlooking the First Street entry. The adjacent Western Bypass is at its highest point in this segment and is elevated above the village. Village D is situated to either side of a central green that is the social and physical focus of the neighborhood. East -west pedestrian paths link the neighborhood with the park and with trails linking to other villages. These paths shall be separate from vehicular routes for the most part and are in addition to walkways along side the vehicular system. This results in a pedestrian "green" network overlapping - but distinct from - the paved vehicular network. BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the west, open space ravines to the north and south, adjacent properties to the east. SIZE: Approximately 9.0 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/or stepped foundation systems. 3-33 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 Altair Vist Altair Vista Figure 3-18 Vehicular Access - Village D CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. ACCESS: Altair Vista from adjacent villages from the north and south. Altair Vista intersects the green at the north and south ends and splits into a one-way lane circumnavigating the open space. Traffic is forced to slow upon entering the village and the one-way configuration makes pedestrian crossing safer. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel the vehicular path. Additional pedestrian access from trails crossing and through ravines; link to bike path paralleling Western Bypass. Two points of vehicular tire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. 3-34 November 2017 3 LAND USE Altair Vista r Class 1 Trail Altair Vista IF41. VIII MIME al Figure 3-19 Pedestrian Circulation - Village D CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village D. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Higher density uses should be focused toward the center of this village, with lower scale and density along the ravine edges. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Live / Work Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Podium Mixed -Use Community Building 3-35 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 JU D USE BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should fronton the park, Altair Vista and surrounding open space. Additional frantages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Altair Vista Property Line: All other Lot Lines: 0 ft. min Q ft. min 5 ft. max. 10 ft. max. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-4 stories. See Table 10-2. DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. No individual private drives shall be located on the Altair Vista loop around the park, 2. Secondary street and/or common driveway intersections with Altair Vista shalt be limited to four locations, 3. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 4. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes, 5. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs, PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of the one-way Altair Vista loop around the park. This is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 2. Required off-street parking shail comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private garages. 3. Additional parking shall be located in motor courts or along secondary streets. See Sections 4 and 9 for motor court standards. 4. Parking tots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space, or from Altair Vista. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards 11 Imptementation Plan November 2017 SPEC:=1C. P'1144/1101= GRADING STANDARDS: Village D slopes down from west to east, with steep slope banks an all sides. Buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes as much as possible. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9,7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining watts. OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary pubtic open space is the Village D Park, a 0.8 -acre village green to be installed as part of the master development with construction of this segment of Altair Vista. The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10. Example of Open Space Development in Village D: Example assumes 90 rowhouses and 30 live/work units are constructed, for a total of 120 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 90 rowhouse units 30 live/work units. x 60 sf/du x 60 sf/du = 5,400 sf of common open space = 1,800 sf of common open space 7,200 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by both the rowhouse and live/work residents or separate spaces. Table 8-2 requires that all 0,80 acres of the Village D Park must be open to the public. Therefore, no portion of the common open space requirement for Village t3 may be fulfilled by the primary public open space, unless it is in excess of the 0.80 -acre minimum public area. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 90 rowhouse units x 100% = 90 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 30 live/work units x 100% = 30 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space =NFL FIC Pod. November 2017 -47 LAND USE 3 .91 ACRES LEGEND: 1, SHRUBS OR GRASSES 2. GROVE PICNIC AREA 3. LAWN 4. PLANTED PARKWAY 5. TOT LOT PLAYGROUND 6. SEATWALL 7. SIGN WALL 8. DECORATIVE FENCE, 36" HIGH 9. BENCHES 0 50 BICYCLE RACK (FINAL LOCATIONS TO SE DETERMFNEDI. CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK= LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent Wants should express the unique identity of Viltage D. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. Village "D" Park Concept: Strong geometric arcs divide the space of the 0.80 -acre Village "D' Park, FIGURE 3-20. The largest space is an open recreational lawn. Next to the lawn is a large ptayground with a dense tree canopy for shade. Tucked between the lawn and playground is a shaded seating area with seatwa1ls and picnic benches. Bookending the entire park are two natural landscaped areas that frame the park. A planted parkway around the entire park provides a buffer from vehicular circulation. Sa�G7Fi� s November 2017 3-3v LAND USE 3 -40 1 School / a Civic Center Figure 3-21 Vi[fage E - PFan Area November 2017 0 3001500' I n 1 1200 FECIFiC PLAN = LAND USE 3.9 Village E Village E is elongated in the north -south direction and slopes steeply down from west to east. Buildings will need to step to avoid excessive cut and fill, therefore lower scale development and lower density are suitable for this planning area. The village green is arranged in the east - west direction to give village E a different character and to take advantage of excellent vistas to mountains south and east of the site. BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the west, open space ravines to the north, B Street North and Village F to the south, adjacent properties to the east. 3-41 November 2017 LAND USE 3 SIZE: Approximately 7.8 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: Altair Vista from Village D from the north; Altair Vista from project entry from the south. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel vehicular path. Additional pedestrian access from trails crossing and through ravines; link to bike path paralleling east property line. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. Altair Vista Altair Vista •-• Secondary Access +r—ism Residential Primary rAccess B Street North Figure 3-22 Vehicular Access - Village E CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 Residential SPECIFIC PLANF 3 LAND USE ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village E. See Section 11110 for definitions and standards of each building type. Lower density uses should be focused toward the north end of this village, with higher scale framing the urban park. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Live j Work Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Community Buildings Altair Vista Class 1 Trail Altair Vista Residential Q_ i. 3 - CO CCZ LLA F- I. �+f Residential B Street North Residential Figure 3-23 Pedestrian Circulation - Village E CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 JU D USE . 3-44 BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on Altair Vista and on the village park and other open space. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Altair Vista Property Line: All other Lot Lines: 0 ft. min 0 ft. min 5 ft. max. 10 ft. max. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-4 stories. See Table 10.2. DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be no driveways to private garages on Altair Vista. Only driveways to alleys, motor courts or secondary streets are allowed. 2, Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 3. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 4. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of Altair Vista. 2. On -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 3. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages. 4. Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards. 5. Residential parking lots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space, or from Altair Vista. November 2017 SPEC:=1C. w;+klLir! APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards 3 LAND USE GRADING STANDARDS: Village E slopes down from west to east, with steep slope banks on the north, west and east sides. Buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes as much as possible. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. 3-45 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 LAN: LSE 3-46 Village "E" Park Concept The Village "E" Park, FIGURE 3-24, is split into two separate spaces by Altair Vista. The western space is a large recreational lawn with perimeter planting of shrubs and shade trees. The eastern space has a recreational lawn, a playground, and a seating area overlooking the hillside. Both sides of the park have a shaded picnic area along the sidewalk nearest the road for an urban plaza feel. 73 ACRES LEGEND: 1. NATURAL LANDSCAPE AREA 2. LAWN 3. SHADED PICNIC AREA 4. SEATING AREA OVERLOOKING HILLSIDE 5. PLAYGROUND 6. SPECIAL PAVING AT CROSS WALK WITH BOLLARDS 7. NATURE PLAY TRAIL 8. CONNECTION TO HIKING TRAIL 9 * BICYCLE RACK (FINAL LOCATIONS TO BF DETERMIHEDI Figure 3-24 Park Plan at Village CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 ilk SPECIFIC PLANL OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space is the Village E Park, an approximately 0.5 acre park to be installed with the development of the village. The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Access should be provided from the park to the Class 1 bike path to the west and the hiking trail to the east. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10, Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10, Example of Open Space Development in Village E: Example assumes 50 rowhouses and 30 multiplex units are constructed, for a total of 80 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 50 rowhouse units 30 multiplex units x 60 5f/du x 60 sf/du = 3,000 sf of common open space = 1,800 sf of common open space = 4,800 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by both the rowhouse and multiplex residents or separate spaces. A portion of the common open space requirement may be fulfilled in the primary public open space. Table 8-2 requires that 0.25 acres of the 0.35 -acre park must be open to the public. The remaining 0.1 acre (4,356 sf) may be used to satisfy a portion of the required common open space, For example, a community produce garden of 3,000 sf could be located within the 0.35 -acre Village E Park and could be enclosed, with access limited to residents of Village E. A separate courtyard or roof deck within the multifamily development could satisfy the remaining 1,800 sf of required common open space. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 50 rowhouse units x 100% = 50 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 30 multiplex units x 100% = 30 of the units require 100 sf min, of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village E. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. SPE C1Fit November 2017 3-47 LAND USE 3 1 i School 1 Civic Center l L co L ti !Lf - ►~his 4• zuf 01 y (]i ■ - ! ti _ 1 Figure 3-25 Village - Plan Area November 2017 0 300" 600" 1200 SPECIFIC FLANI , 3.10 Village F 3 LAND USE Village F is very linear and has a steep slope along the eastern edge. The west edge is relatively flat and level with the Bypass. Privacy and sound screening are important along this edge. A single street serves the neighborhood, ending at a promontory at the south end of the village. A gated access point is provided from the Western Bypass for emergency use by the Fire Department only. Multistory flats are appropriate on the west side of the street, closer to the Bypass. Attached single-family homes are better suited to the east side of the street, as the terrain slopes quickly and the lots are small. There are two park spaces in Village F. One park is centrally located adjacent to the clubhouse and pool for this village. The other park is at the southern tip and will be a destination for the community. Its elevation and location afford excellent views to the southeast. This park overlooks the south entry to the specific plan area as well as the south end of the Western Bypass and is one of the major entry monuments of Altair. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 LAND USE 3 5-561 BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the west and south; Altair Vista to the north; B Street North to the east; Village E to the north. SIZE: Approximately 9.0 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. Altair Vista Primary Access Secondary Fire Access only i Residential B Street North Park Access Figure 3-26 Vehicular Access - Village F CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANR 3 LAND USE ACCESS: Altair Vista and B Street North from the north; emergency only access from Western Bypass. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel vehicular path. Additional pedestrian and bicycle links to bike path paralleling Western Bypass and east property line. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. i Altair Vista Class 1 Trail ° Residential Residential Figure 3-27 Pedestrian Circulation - Village CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 B Street North ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village F. See Section 10,10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Lower density uses should be focused toward the north end of this village, with higher scale framing the urban park. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Podium Community Buildings BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on Altair Vista and on the village park and other open space. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries, There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From Western Bypass ROW: 10 ft. min From B Street North Property Line: 3 ft. rein All other Lot Lines: 0 ft. min No maximum No maximum 10 ft. max. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-4 stories, See Table 10-2, DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be no driveways to private garages on Altair Vista. Only driveways to alleys, motor courts or secondary streets are allowed. 2. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 3. Driveways on the same side of a street shad be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 4. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. November 2017 SPEC:=1C. P'1144/1101= PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking shall be provided on one side only of the Altair Vista or its extension into the village. 2. On -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 3. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages. 4, Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards, 5. Residential parking lots shall not be visible from the park or surrounding open space, from Altair Vista or its extension into the village. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards 11 Implementation Plan GRADING STANDARDS: Village F slopes down steeply on the south and east. Buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes as much as possible. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. =WINSPE Fit KM + tiverb r 2017 3-53 LAND USE 3 3-54 Village "F" Park Concept The Village "F" Park, FIGURE 3-28, is also split into two separate spaces by a street. To the west is a large lawn for active recreation and may be used for sports. Shade trees along the lawn's perimeter provide shade for passive recreation. To the east is a smaller lawn adjacent to a playground and shaded picnic area. Natural landscaped areas border the space to create geometry to match the style of similar park spaces in the Altair community. .58 ACRES LEGEND: 1. NATURAL LANDSCAPE AREA 2. LAWN 3. SHADED PICNIC AREA 4. PLAYGROUND 5. SPECIAL PAVING AT CROSSWALK WITH BOLLARDS a BICYCLE RACK FINAL LOCATLONS TO BE DETERMINED} Figure 3-28 Park Plan at Village F CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space are the Village F Parks, totalling approximately 1.0 acres to be installed with the development of the village. These include the central Village F Park described in FIG-uRE 3 - 28 and a Promontory Park at the south end of the village. All buildings shall be generally north of the Promontory Park to maximize views from the park. The requirements for these parks are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared arnenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10, Example of Open Space Development in Village F: Assume 40 rowhouses and 80 multifamily walk-up units are constructed, for a total of 120 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 40 rowhouse units 80 multifamily walk-up units x 60 sfJd u x 60 sf/du = 2,400 sf of common open space = 4,800 sf of common open space = 7,200 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by both the rowhouse and multifamily residents or separate spaces. A portion of the common open space requirement may be fulfilled in the primary public open space. Table 8-2 requires that 0.40 acre of the 0.60 -acre park must be open to the public. The remaining 0.2 acre (8,712 sf) may be used to satisfy a portion of the required common open space. For example, a community produce garden of 3,000 sf could be located within the 0.35 -acre Village F Park and could be enclosed, with access limited to residents of Village E A separate courtyard or roof deck within the multifamily development could satisfy the remaining 1,800 sf of required common open space. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling. Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 40 rowhouse units x 100° = 40 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 80 multifamily walk-up units x 100% =80 of the units require 80 sf min. of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village F. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. EC 1Fic PWY. November 2017 3-55 3-56 LAND USE 3 Figure 3-29 Village G - Pian Area November 2017 o 30O 6OO �n r 1200 PECIFIG PLAN iti= 3.11 Village G 3 LAND USE Village G is south of the Western Bypass an land that slopes steeply to the southeast, offering prime views. The area has a strong connection to the south 55 -acre parcel and a proposed Nature Center. The interface with the MSI -ICP corridor is a critical edge condition. A relatively Tess urban development of clustered homes is appropriate here to take advantage of the views, negotiate the terrain and complement the adjacent open space. BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the north and northeast; B Street South to the east; Metropolitan Water District pipeline area and C Street to the south; MSHCP corridor to the west. SIZE: Approximately 7.3 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. 3-57 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2[117 ACCESS: C Street from the south. Secondary fire access from B Street South for emergency use only. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parailel vehicular path. DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village G. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Buildings should be sited in a manner to maximize vistas in every direction. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Multifamily Walk -Up Community Buildings [ \ B Street $ North Residential i Primary �I Access C Street Camino Es tri ho101 B Street • C Street South Secondar Fire Access {emergency only) 1 Figure 3-30 Vehicular Access — Village G CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 =;PECIFIC PLANrT1 3 LAND USE BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on C Street, B Street South, secondary roads and on open space. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Section 10.4 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From B Street South ROW: All other Lot Lines: 3 ft. min 0 ft. min No maximum 10 ft. max. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-4 stories. See Table 10-2. C Street Camino B Street figure 3-31 Pedestrian Circulation - Village G CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY:, ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 WkilD USE DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be no driveways to private garages on B Street South. 2. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 3. Driveways an the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 4. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parallel parking may be provided on one side only of secondary streets. 2. On -street parking is primarily for visitors, guests and overflow parking at night. 3. Required off-street parking shall comply with Section 10.7 and Table 10-3 and will predominantly be provided in private and shared garages. 4. Additional parking shall be located within the developable area. See Sections 9 and 10.7 for standards. 5. Residential parking lots shall not be visible from surrounding open space, from the Civic Site, or from B Street South or the Western Bypass. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Flan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards GRADING STANDARDS: Village G slopes down from west to east, with slope banks on either side. There is also a steep slope bank on the north side down to the Western Bypass. Buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes as much as possible. This can be accomplished by placing rear garages at different levels from street entries, sloping interstitial landscape areas and terracing private patios. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. November 207 SPEC:=1C. P'1144/1101= OPEN SPACE: See Section 8 for an explanation of public, common and private open space. The primary public open space is the Village G Park, an approximately 0.35 -acre park to be installed with the development of the village. The requirements for this park are prescribed in Table 8-2. Common open space is required for each sub -development in addition to the public park. Common open space is typically a shared amenity for the residents of that development and may be secured if necessary. Requirements are factored by building type and dwelling unit quantity, as defined in Section 10. Smaller common spaces between building groups, over parking structures and at motor courts are encouraged. Private open space requirements per dwelling unit are defined by building type in Section 10. Example of Open Space Development in Village G: Example assumes 40 detached and 40 multiplex residences are constructed, for a total of 80 dwelling units. Common Open Space: Per Table 10-4, common open space is required at the following ratios: 40 detached units 40 multiplex units x 80 sfid u x60sffdu = 3,200 sf of common open space = 2,400 sf of common open space = 5,600 sf of common open space This can be one large common open space shared by both the detached and multiplex residents or separate spaces. Per Table 8-2, there is no public open space open space requirement for Village G. Therefore, the common open space and private open space calculated according to the quantity and type of dwelling units will fulfill the full open space requirement for Village G. This could be a pool and deck area, with access limited to residents of Village G, a central green or a series of linked playgrounds and smaller spaces. Private Open Space: May be accomplished with balconies, terraces or yards attached to each dwelling, Per Table 10-4, private open space is required at the following ratios: 40 detached unit x 100% = 40 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space 40 multiplex units x 100% = 40 of the units require 100 sf min. of private open space LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See Appendix A. Selections for park trees and accent plants should express the unique identity of Village G. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. 5PEdaFit November 2017 LAND USE 3 i wLCdHL. FLAN IN= November 2017 3.12 School Site 3 LAND USE Land of approximately 7 acres will be dedicated to the Temecula Valley Unified School District for a new elementary school to serve Altair and adjacent neighborhoods. The designated site for this school is at the north end of Altair Vista where it connects to the Western Bypass, south of Village B. This location is ideal for a school, as it allows convenient pick-up and drop-off from Rancho California Road and the Bypass with minimal disruption to the Altair neighborhood. It is anticipated that a percentage of the students will commute to this school from east of 1-15 via Rancho California Road. Any alternate location south of the designated site would route this traffic through Altair, creating gridlock and compromising the walkable nature of the community. Any location further north would lose connection with the neighborhoods of Altair. The designated site also has excellent views and places the school at an elevation where it can be seen as a prominent and recognizable edifice in the community. If the School District elects not to receive the land, the land may be developed with residential uses. Allowable residential density for the school site will be transferred from other villages, so that the total dwelling units for the entire Altair Specific Plan area shall not exceed the limits of Table 3-1. Access points to this parcel shall be similar to Figures 3-31 and 3-32, regardless of use. BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the west; Altair Vista to the east and north; Community Center to the south. FRANCIS PARKER SCHOOL IN SAN DIEGO, CA SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-63 Primary Access Altair Vista Coromell Tra i l Figure 3-33 Vehicular Access - School LAND USE 3 SIZE: Approximately 7 net acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: Altair Vista. Routing of bus and vehicular traffic will be further refined in cooperation with the School District. STUDENT BODY: 600-730 students in grades K-6. Park t r � Secondary Access CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANRI 3 LAND USE BUILDING TYPE: The style and scale of the building shall complement surrounding neighborhoods, but shall distinguish itself as an important civic institution. If the School District elects not to receive this land, then allowable building types include: Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Live j Work Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Podium Mixed Use Altair Vista Coromell Trail Park Figure 3-34 Pedestrian Circulation - School CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. =ffliSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 LAND IJSE 3 3-66 BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on Altair Vista. Additional frontages may be provided along internal circulation routes, quads, or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: From Altair Vista ROW: From Western Bypass ROW: 5 ft. min 10 ft. min No maximum No maximum ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 1-2 stories for school; 4 stories if residential. See Table 10-2. DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be no driveways to private garages on Altair Vista. Only driveways to secondary streets are allowed, 2. Shared driveways are encouraged wherever possible. 3. Driveways on the same side of a street shall be separated by 50 feet to centerline, except at rowhomes. 4. Driveways at rowhomes should be paired to allow more landscaped area between driveway pairs. 4110 1 AQUATICS CENTER 2 SHARED PARKING Z63 SPACES) 3 PLAY FIELDS -0 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5 ES PARKING [44 SPACES] �j- Figure 3-35 Conceptual Site Plan - School - CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN AND PROGRAM MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANrif PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parking shall be provided on site for faculty and visitors, based on the anticipated student body for the size of school that is ultimately built. See section 10.7 2. Overflow parking for special events will be shared with parking for the community swimrning pool / recreation center. 3. If residential uses are developed on the site, in the event that the School District elects not to receive the site, parking shall be provided as required in Table 10-3 for the appropriate dwelling types and quantities. APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards GRADING STANDARDS: The school site slopes down from west to east, with slope banks on either side. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. COMMON OPEN SPACE: A playfield will be provided at the school site, This field will be a shared facility with the Altair community and open to the general public when school is not in session. The play field will remain even if the School District elects not to receive the site and it is developed as residential use, In this case, the field will be maintained by the Master IfOA. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: Not applicable for school use. If the site is developed as residential use, then common and private open space must be provided as required in Section 10 for the appropriate housing type. LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See "School" section under Appendix A Plant List and Section 10.6.8 School. See "Villages" section under Appendix A plant list if residential units are developed. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards, lSf�EG7FMC PI.A11 November 2017 3-"� LANA USE 3 3-68 1 School Civic Center 1 • Figure 3-36 Civic Site - Plan Area November 2017 BUILDABLE AREA -165 0 300' 600' 1200) I n 1 SPECIFIC PLA'1 3.13 Civic Site 3 LAND USE The southernmost parcel at Altair will be reserved for a nature center that will benefit the public through recreation, tourism and education related to the culture, natural environment and sustainability of the region. A significant portion of the site will be natural open space. The site is strategically located near existing and proposed trails, near the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek, forming the Santa Margarita River, and within the Pechanga Origin Area. The nature center's hours will be limited to dawn until two hours after dusk. BOUNDARIES: Camino Estribo and open space to the west; C Street and storm water easement (open space) to the north; Murrieta Creek to the east and south. SIZE: Approximately 55 total gross acres and 16 net acres. Pad size of 3.6 acres may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: B Street South from the Western Bypass and 1-15; C Street from Village G. MAXIMUM SIZE: 20,000 s.f. max. in one or more buildings Site development to include surface parking, outdoor terraces, trails and other landscape features as needed to support the institution's program. BUILDING TYPE: Civic Building The scale, materials and style of the buildings should be appropriate for a public facility and should be an asset to the community. The buildings must also be sensitive to the adjacent natural open space and the Temeku Village site to the south. Building design is discussed further in Section 10.20. Final siting, design and location of the Nature Center will be developed pursuant to MSI -ICP guidelines. MISSION TRAILS REGIONAL PARK, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-e:: 3-70 BUILDING FRONTAGE: A clear entry shall be provided at the termination of B Street South. Procession and circulation for both vehicles and pedestrians shall be carefully designed to avoid conflicts and celebrate arrival. Development on this site shall focus on shared open space and places for outdoor gathering. The building and common spaces should take advantage of the impressive vistas from this site. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at south parcel boundary. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the overall boundary. At Camino Estribo and C Street: 10 ft. min No maximum ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: Up to 2 stories. See Table 10-2. C str Natural Open Space Secondary Fire I Access Only Buildable Pad • 1 Western Bypass B Street South Primary Access Nature Center 1 Camino #' Estribo • \\ • ■ I � , 1 `■ L f Natural Open Space with Trails Figure 3-37 Vehicular Access - Civic Site Turn Around Revegetated Open Space with Trails Natural Open Space with Trails CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIF{C PLAN g , 3 LAND USE DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be one primary driveway entry onto B Street South. 2. A secondary driveway will be provided on Camino Estribo for emergency fire access only. 3. Camino Estribo will remain a natural surface road. PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Approximately 120 parking spaces will be provided for the nature center use. Surface parking will comply with City of Temecula standards for parking dimensions, landscaping and screening. 2. Paving shall have a low impact on water quality per the model WQMP. A permeable surface is preferred. C Street Natural Open Space Buildable Pad Nature Center Western Bypass B Street South • 1 1 I 1 1 � 1 i ■. 1 i 1 • • 1 ■ I 1 L`` kFuture Trails i To Be Determined — 1 1 I' If Trail From Offsite To TraiI Network IS% 10% grade) Trail From Offsite To Nature Center 5% - 8% grade) Natural Open Spate Revegetated O.- nS.ace Trail From Nature Center To Trail Network B%- 1O%grade) Trail From Nature Center T. Trail Network IS% grade) Natural Open Space Figure 3-38 Pedestrian Circulation - Civic Site CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY: ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY, SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 3-71 LAND USE 3 3-72 APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards GRADING STANDARDS: The site slopes down from west to the east and south, with slope banks on three sides. Site grading for the building pad and trails shall result in undulating slopes that appear natural and mimic existing surrounding topography. See Section 9.7 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls. TRAIL DEVELOPMENT: 1. Trails will be 8'-10' wide and of a natural, pervious surface. 2. Trail layout will use siting guidance in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSHCP). 3. The City will work with the Pechanga tribe on the routing of trails to avoid significant cultural artifacts. 4. Existing trails will be utilized wherever possible. 5. Portions of existing trails may be eliminated through revegetation to provide a more specific trail alignment, and to protect sensitive habitat or cultural resources. 6. Proposed trails will begin and end at the Nature Center, providing a loop or out -and -back route. COMMON OPEN SPACE: Most of the south parcel will be left as natural open space. An existing stand of native oak trees at the west side of the parcel will be maintained. The south portion of the parcel will also be maintained as an open space buffer between new development and the historic Temecu Village site to the south. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE N/A LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See "Civic / Community" section under Appendix A Plant List and Section 10.6.10. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN iffli= CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES: The Environmental Impact Report for Altair describes mitigation measures that, while applicable to the entire site, are particularly relevant to the conservation open space in the south and west portions of the south parcel and the goal of encouraging wildlife movement through this tract. Noted measures include: • Control Zones for exterior lighting; • Shielded exterior Tight fixtures that avoid light spillage or uplighting; • Limit hours of operation to the period from dawn to 2 hours after dusk; • Installation of a Wildlife Fence as shown in Figure 8-1 and described in Section 8.1. • Construction period best practices to minimize noise, erosion and other disturbances; • The portion of Camino Estribo west of the development area will remain unpaved to minimize vehicular speeds. =NFL FIC PLN November 2017 3-73 November 21117 CIRCULATION CIRCULATION PLAN Transportation corridors and facilities are major components of the nation's landscape and public realm including the Altair Community and City of Temecula, The alignment, scale, and character of our thoroughfares play an integral role in determining urban form, development patterns, and a sense of place. The American Society of Landscape Architects supports the design, construction, and management of streets and highways that enhance interconnected transportation options, particularly for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people with disabil+ties. All multi -modal transportation systems should be safe, efficient, convenient, and beautiful. Communities with ''complete streets" encourage alternative transportation uses including provision of safe sidewalks and bicycle lanes enhanced with appropriate roadside plantings. Multi -modal streets provide mobility to people of all ages and abilities. Safe routes to schools are critical and encourage physical exercise. Streets should be community assets, compatible with built and natural environments, and reflect the balanced needs of the community and transportation networks, Altair embraces the concept of "complete streets", Narrow travel lanes and roundabouts calm traffic while improving traffic flow. "Sharrows" (shared bike lane symbols) as well as separate Class 1 bikeways provide multiple opportunities for bicycling. A network of large sidewalks, key walkways and separate hiking trails provide safe opportunities for walking, jogging, and rollerblading, Integrated "green infrastructure" and substantial landscape treatments wilt also help define the streets as sustainable community assets. The plan for Altair intends to return neighborhood streets to their historical function as social spaces and to free non -motorists from the defensive zones necessitated by high-speed automobile traffic. The circulation plan for Altair overlaps vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle systems to provide transportation choices and promote a safe and healthy lifestyle. While this plan recognizes the necessity to accomodate automobiles, the main focus is on human -powered circulation. Pedestrian and cycling routes due not merely parallel car lanes. In many instances, they are completely separate from vehicular streets, Several of the most prominent routes - the Main Street axis, the Promenade - are pedestrian only. Individual development projects within the villages of Altair are an important part of this pedestrian and bicycle system. It is vital to the success of the circulation plan that the final design of these sub -developments include internal pedestrian and cycling routes that connect to the community -wide system of walkways, trails and bikeways. 5PEdaFit ; November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 November 2017 SPECIFICPLAN 4.1 Pedestrian Walkways, Trails and Bikeways The pedestrian and cycling network is interwoven through all of the villages and active open spaces at Altair and connects to adjacent communities. Village nodes are within a 5 -minute walk of the next village and the majority of the developed area can be traversed north to south in about 30 minutes. See F:GURE 4-1. ft is hoped that residents and visitors alike will walk these neighborhoods as much for pleasure as for convenience. 4.1.1 Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan The Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was developed in response to a 1991 survey of Temecula residents that identified the need for a trail system that would: • Access key destinations within the City and region Serve as both recreation and transportation routes Connect neighborhoods to parks, schools employment and commercial areas Form loops that follow creeks and utility easements wherever feasible SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 1 4-3 CIRCULATION 4 The Plan developed the following goals for the trail system: "An interconnected system of pathways and bike routes is needed to supporta variety of recreational uses and non -motorized transportation requirements for Temecula residents. This system should be community -wide and should connect a variety of community and regional destinations (such as schools, parks and other areas of interest) and should utilize open space corridors, flood control channels, utility easements, publicly owned lands and roadways most appropriate for non -motorized uses. Trails and bike routes should be provided to improve the quality of life for residents of Temecula, offer transportation alternatives, accommodate recreational enjoyment and increase the value and connectiveness (sic) of the community." A trail system is provided in the Altair Plan to provide a non -motorized circulation network, separate from the vehicular system, linking villages with each other and with parks and community amenities. This will serve predominantly pedestrians and bicyclists at slow speeds. The trail system will also link to Old Town and will be accessible by non-residents, Trail and bikeway types identified in this plan are consistent with Types M1, Bi and B3 described in the Trails Master Plan. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANIr]f 4.1.2 Circulation Pian - Pedestrian/ Bicycle Altair is designed as a Walkable Community. There are numerous factors that contribute to a community's walkability besides a strong pedestrian and bicycle circulation network. Walkable,org a national Leader in defining walkable communities has developed a "Healthy Development Checklist". Altair utilizes the following principles from that checklist to enhance walkability; • The project promotes interaction between neighbors through parks, street front standards that encourage public / private transition spaces such as porches, etc. • The project is adjacent to Old Town Temecula and includes several strong pedestrian and roadway linkages. • There is a diversity of housing densities and potential diversity of income levels. • Nonresidential land uses such as parks, civic and school facilities are fully integrated with the residential land uses. • Land use is configured around walkable block sizes. Street patterns and block sizes are discussed further in Section 9,13, • Neighborhoods are permeable, There are no gated communities or other barriers to pedestrian connectivity. • Where closed motor courts or dead-end streets are unavoidable, a walkway or bike path shall be provided to connect through to the overall circulation network. • Homes are properly oriented towards streets and plazas and wit/ have windows watching over parks, streets and trails. • Architecture will be attractive and supportive of life on the streets, parks and the school. • Public buildings, parks and common destinations are properly placed to maximize the number of people that can walk to them. • The majority of people can walk safely and comfortably to the elementary school, • There are no large off-street parking lots along the street network. • The project provides mobility options for those who cannot drive. The project has a well-connected sidewalk and trail system that leads to local destinations, 5PEE1Fit ; November 2017 • Street sidewalks are generous at 6' minimum width. • Some sidewalks are at 7' width to allow small children to more safely bike on the sidewalk rather than in the street. • Sidewalks are typically separated from curbs with parkways along the main arterials. • All street corners will have accessibility ramps. • Parkways offer street trees for shade and visual comfort. • Curb extensions prevent motorists from parking too close to corners. • The project connects to a larger trail system for walking and biking. • Decorative, pedestrian height street lights will be provided. • Buildings will address the street (front doors), • Visibility at intersections will be adequate for pedestrian safety. • Speed limit on local streets will be 25mph or below. • Project will contain design elements to calm traffic such as narrow lanes, roundabouts, special pavement in key areas, and raised pedestrian street crossings. • Street sidewalk gradients are typically below 5% slope to accommodate people with disabilities, • Key walkways and sidewalks have high transparency (surveillance ability). • The school, parks and other destinations will have adequate and secure bicycle parking. • The majority of people can walk safely and comfortably in five minutes to a public gathering place such as park, plaza or community center. The Circulation Plan Pedestrian/ Bicycle, IGuRE 4-2 (FACING PAGE) , notes the locations of the four different levels of pedestrian circulation. Along the Western Bypass and on the south east edge of the community runs an 8 foot wide Class 1 Bike Way. Throughout the site run various 5 foot wide hiking trails and 8 foot wide key pedestrian walkways. Along the interior streets are 6 -foot minimum wide sidewalks (7' wide typical along Altair Vista) for ease of pedestrian circulation. This network satisfies a diverse set of needs, from the person who wants a direct and convenient walk to a certain destination, to the family enjoying a short walk with a stroller or small children, or a weekend athlete running a Targe loop. November 2017 Figure_4.-,2 Circulation Plan Pedestrian * Bicycle 4Schoo it 1 6 ji I �1 i w i CIVIC ; - _ g Site j i 0 .irsf LSI -re t • Civic ConrIftr 4 CIRCULATION C LEGEND - CLASS 1 BIKEWAY (8' WIDTH) KEY WALKWAY (8' MIN. WIDTH) • • • • HIKING TRAIL (5' MIN. WIDTH) SIDEWALKS (6' MIN WIDTH) • MID BLOCK CROSSING O CONNECTION POINT TO W.B.C. CLASS 1 BIKEWAY N SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 0 300' 600' 1200' CIRCULATION 4 '4-8 Figure 4-3 Class 1 Bikeway Section 4.1.2.1 Class 1 Bikeways A Class 1 Bikeway, FIGURE 4-3, will span the entire length of the community following the Western Bypass. At the southeast end of the Western Bypass the class 1 bikeway will also turn back north to connect with First Street. The bikeway is an 8' wide asphalt path with two 4' wide lanes, one for either direction of travel. There is a 2 foot clear zone shoulder on the outside of each lane. The uphill side will also incorporate a 3' vegetated swale (or cobble swale over concrete). Guidelines for a class 1 bike way require a 2% to 5% sustained gradient (and maximum of 12.5% gradient for 10' with landings - railings not required). Typical cross slope shall be 2%. Gaps on surface shall not to exceed 4". Clearances shall be 10' vertical and 2' horizontal November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN/ 4 CIRCULATION LANDSCAPE WALKWAY LANDSCAPE {i,QW WATER USE (LOW, WATER USE 8' Figure 4-4 Key Walkway Section 4.1.2.2 Key Walkways The key pedestrian walkways, FIGURE 4-4, can be found in the core of the community connecting the different villages and open spaces. These walkways provide a pedestrian network allowing users to move about the community while staying away from the main vehicular circulation. All key pedestrian walkways are 8 foot wide minimum. 3' BAND OF TRUNCATED DOME PARKING )0. LANE MARKINGS— RAPID FLASHING BEACONS v 4 PARKING D► RAISED CROSSWALK DECORATIVE PAVEMENT Figure 4-5 Plan at Mid -Block Crossing SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 r 4'-6" / 7' 12' SETBACK VARIES SEE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Figure 4-6 Typical Village Sidewalk Section 4.1.2.3 Sidewalks and Mews Sidewalks, FIGURE 4-6, will be located on each side of Altair Vista connecting the different villages and parks, and on A Street. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 6' wide (7' wide along portions of Altair Vista, to allow small children to ride on the sidewalk). (See Vehicular Circulation section for street -specific sidewalk configurations.) There are no requirements for separate sidewalks at alleys, motor courts and streets that are internal to lots at Altair, unless the streets frame parks or are designated to have sidewalks in other sections of this Pian. These are shared streets, or mews, where pedestrians and cyclists have priority over automobiles and where speeds are limited to a walking pace. Mews feature enhanced paving across the entire surface and no curbs. See Section 4.2.3 and the description for Alley Street Type for a further explanation of how motorized and non -motorized traffic co- exist on internal streets. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANIil 4 CIRCULATION 12' Hiking Trail Section Figure 4-7 4.1.2.4 Hiking Trails The main hiking trail, FIGURE 4-7, runs along the eastern slope of the community connecting many points of interest. Starting at the school site to the north and running along the 1st Street extension road into the main park, it splits to continue down to 1st Street and switches back to connect to Main Street. While the main portion of the trail continues along the eastern slope, other shorter segments of trails provide pedestrian connections to the different villages. The trail is 5' wide, stabilized, decomposed granite with a 2' wide bench on either side. The uphill side will have a 3' wide vegetated swale (or cobble swale over concrete.) Outdoor recreation access routes (ORAR) utilizes the following guidelines for trails and are adopted for Altair: 5% maximum for any distance (no rest interval required.) 5.1%-8.33% up to 200' maximum (rest interval required every 200'). 8.34%-10% up to 30' maximum (rest interval required every 30'.) 10%-12% for 10' maximum (rest interval required every 10'). Rest intervals shall be 60" minimum length and same width as trail. Salvaged boulders from grading operations should be used along open space trails for visual interest and to create overlooks and rest areas. 4-11 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 4.1.3 Bike Routes The circulation network recognizes that bicycling includes a wide range of cycling skills and speeds. A cyclist could be a commuter going to and from work, a small child just learning or someone out for a Saturday ride. The Temecula region is also home to an active road racing community always looking for new training routes. The Temecula Valley Century charity ride has historically gone by the Altair site. The annual Tour de Murrieta incorporates the ridgeline portion of Rancho California Road. In 2013, the Tour of California, an international professional cycling race, visited the area with the start and finish of Stage 1 in Escondido and Stage 2 beginning in Murrieta. These various cycling levels require different bikeway types. Sidewalks along Altair Vista are widened to 7 feet to allow small children to ride on the sidewalk instead of the street. Two Class 1 Bikeways, one paralleling the Bypass and another connecting to First Street, can be used by leisurely riders and children and are wide enough for cyclists to pass pedestrians. In addition, all roads in the Altair community are to have either shared or dedicated bike lanes, except for the Western Bypass. Shared lanes are indicated with "sharrows" painted on the road to inform bicyclists and to alert motorists that the lane is to be shared. Ample bike racks throughout the community, especially at parks, recreation centers and the school further encourage cycling. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAraFJ7f 4 CIRCULATION gd LEGEND CLASS I BIKEWAY PROPOSED CLASS I BIKEWAY CLASS 11 BIKEWAY PROPOSED CLASS II BIKEWAY Figure 4-811E Bicycle Facilities: Existing and Proposed SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-13 CIRCULATION 4 /I 1i 11 • 1/2 t . r,. 1l r, :, ti `.' ' aolllllllll14,6 Militli 4.1.4 Pedestrian Bridges Pedestrian bridges will be utilized when necessary to connect trail segments over drainage draws. While the site may feature bridges of various scales, all pedestrian bridges will match the modern rustic motif of the Altair community. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANT 4.1.5 Connection to OId Town A significant element of the pedestrian circulation plan is the linkage to OId Town Temecula via Main Street. This connection serves as circulation, community gateway and public open space, and is formed by four major links along the axis with Main Street leading to the central park and plaza in Village C. There is a substantial grade change between the park and the west end of Main Street. Much of this grade is reconciled by the first Zink: a sloped and meandering, accessible path leading out of the park and under the monumental bridge to Coromell Trail. The next component crosses Coromell Trail with a raised crosswalk, median and flashing warning lights to ensure pedestrian safety and priority over vehicles, as shown in FIGURE 4-9. East of Coromell Trail, a grand staircase welcomes visitors from Old Town. The stairs are complemented by an accessible path that stretches to either side of the staircase. This path will be enjoyed by all and is intended to be integral to the composition, not a tacked on necessity. The path slope will be gradual enough to avoid the requirement for railings that are visually confining. Both the stairs and path are broken up into manageable portions interspersed with shaded areas to sit and enjoy the view. Secondary stairs also connect the switchbacks periodically, so that a walker has the option to shorten their path. The design satisfies a variety of moods - a slow stroll along the full length of the path, with areas to stop and enjoy the scenery, a shorter amble along the path via intermediate steps, a direct route on the grand staircase, or merely sitting on one of the break-out landings of the stair to meet a friend or watch people pass by. The arrangement of curved steps, angular paths and segmented stone retaining walls creates a beautiful monumental entry to Altair and proclaims the importance of pedestrians to the community. 4-15 November 2017 1 CIRCULATION 4 4-16 LANE MARKINGS RAPID FLASHING BEACONS • RAISEI CROSSWALK DECORATIVE PAVEMENT BIKE LANE Figure 4-9 Crossing at Coromell Trail The visual axis with Main Street is reinforced by the offset stair segments that lead the traveler off and then back onto the axis at critical junctures, such as view platforms and seating areas. These gathering spaces are embraced by the broad arcs of the stair flights. Ornamental landscaping in color blocks between retaining walls further enhances the scheme, evoking stepped gardens that one passes between. Final design of these elements should ensure safety, discourage vandalism and damage from skateboards and employ durable, classic materials. The grand staircase is designed to be a focal public space to meet friends or relax - an event, rather than just a means of travel. November 2017 SPECIFIC PL.ANf 4 CIRCULATION The fourth link is the off-site courtyard at the west end of Main Street. A concept for improvements to this now dead-end street is shown in FIGURE 4-10, but the final plans will come about through public dialogue and should be coordinated with the stair and path design to produce a cohesive space. Raised Crosswalk Meandering Path Grand Stair Figure 4-10 Conceptual Plan at Grand Stair CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY: ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 1 CIRCULATION 4 4 A z Lij TT- 4 On Site Circulation Figure 4-11 Vehicular Entries November 2017 0 300' 600' I J a Off Site Circulation 1200' SPECIFIC PLAN('!!= 4.2 Circulation Plan -- Vehicular The vehicular circulation system facilitates resident mobility; access to the school and to parks by non-residents; and through traffic on the Western Bypass. The circulation pattern is fairly simple and is guided by grading constraints and connections to the existing off-site network. FFGURE 4-11 depicts the vehicular entries of Altair. Main connections are at Vincent Moraga Drive on the north, First Street on the east, and Temecula Parkway (SR -79) to the south, The Western Bypass makes the north and south connections and is the largest street section, but it does not provide internal circulation for the Altair community. The Western Bypass finks Temecula Parkway to Rancho California Road, It is primarily a public benefit to allow through - traffic to bypass Old Town and relieve congestion. Intersections with the Western Bypass are therefore, limited. It will be a scenic bypass due to its elevation above the City, with easterly views over the proposed development to mountains and valleys beyond. Views to the west will be into the natural hillside of the MSCHP wildlife corridor and dedicated open space, A split -lane configuration with landscaped median enhances the parkway character of the Western Bypass. Coromell Trail connects to the off-site street grid at First Street on the east side of the site. Due to slope limitations, Coromell Trail circumnavigates Village C and intersects with Altair Vista at a roundabout near the school. The Western Bypass, the round -about between First Street and Coromell Trail, and the portion of Altair Vista between the Bypass and Coromell Trail are public streets. All other streets in the Altair site are private. Altair Vista is a north -south spine through Altair that links the Villages. It is the main circulation element serving the residents of Altair, but is not intended as a through -way, A number of traffic calming measures are implemented to slow traffic on Altair Vista, including narrow lanes, street parking on one side (which should alternate sides) and frequent stops, Potential traffic congestion due to the slowing of Altair Vista will be aleviated by the parallel Western Bypass with its faster speeds. The cross section of Altair Vista varies depending on its location and the character of each Village: sometimes more urban, sometimes a couplet framing a park. ft is generally framed by a tree -lined parkway and wide sidewalks. With the exception of Streets A, B and C, all remaining automotive access will be provided as part of individual development projects, These will be predominantly alleys and private drives running perpendicular to Altair Vista. These should be very intimate, in contrast with the formality of Altair Vista, with enhanced paving in lieu of raised sidewalks and no minimum setbacks. The character of these passageways is reflective of a mews, where pedestrians, bicycles and cars share the roadway. =115PE ; November 2017 4.2.1 Roundabouts and Couplets Roundabouts are used at Altair to slow and coordinate traffic without the idling, stacked automobiles that occur at signalized intersections. In some cases, such as the entrance from First Street and at the Community Center, roundabouts are installed at important locations in the project where drivers should be more aware of their surroundings. The centers of roundabouts are prime opportunities for special landscaping and public art, as discussed further in Section 9.9. Couplets are pairs of one-way streets that are separated by more than just a median. They facilitate safe crosswalks because the pedestrian only has to look one way and has a narrower street to cross. Couplets are used at Altair to frame the park at Village D. and are strongly encouraged around greens at Villages A and B. See FIGURE 4-25 and FIGURE 4-26 for an example of the Altair Vista couplet at Village D. November 2017 Lei 4 CIRCULATION 4.2.2 Internal Streets Alleys, motor courts and streets that are internal to lots at Altair are shared streets where pedestrians and cyclists have priority aver automobiles and where speeds are limited to a walking pace. These are referred to as "mews" or "home zones" in Britain and as "woonerven" in the Netherlands. They have been shown to be safer than streets having separate sidewalks because drivers are forced to be more aware of pedestrians. They also become social spaces that are more intimate than parks but more interactive than a private yard, serving as a transition between public and private space. Mews feature enhanced paving across the entire surface, no curbs, landscaping and smaller pockets of parking that do not form a roadway edge or barrier. Drainage can occur through a central gutter or, preferably, through pervious pavement or to a landscaped area. See also the description for the Alley street type, SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 4.2.3 The Vehicular Circulation Plan FIGURE 4-12 notes the locations of the eleven different types of street sections and three roundabouts. Site specific conditions such as additional turn pocket lanes at intersections shall be determined by the traffic study and shall be designed per the Tentative Map. Specific roads (listed from widest to narrowest) shall be constructed as: The Western Bypass Corridor 1- Standard Section -100' R.O.W. The Western Bypass Corridor 2 - Split Section -100' R.U.W. C Street and B Street South - Local Street (Modified) - 60' R.U.W. Coromell Trail (Public) -Split Lanes, Separate Trail, with no Parking - 58' P.U.A.E. Altair Vista & A Street - Landscaped Parkways with Parking one side - 56' P.U.A.E. Altar Vista & A Street - Urban Parkways with Parking one side - 56' P.U.A.E. Altar Vista - One-way Street with Parking one side - 45' P.U.A.E. Altar Vista - Public - 70' to 83' R.U.W. Altair Vista Culvert / A Street Bridge - 48' R.U.W. B Street North - 46' to 50' P.U.A.E. Alley Private streets are shown with Public Utility and Access Easements (P.U.A.E's) to allow for utility infrastructure. The utilities will primarily be located under sidewalks, with utility boxes or vaults located in the parkway. See Figure 9.13. Above -grade utility boxes and devices shall be screened with landscaping (with required clearances) and irrigation control valves shall be located in parkways or residential setbacks (if I -10A maintained). See Section 9.5 for utility placement and screening guidelines. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANT COROMELL TRAIL OLD TOWN ALTAIR VISTA WESTERN BYPASS C STREET B STREET 5 LEGEND: 4 CIRCULATION - STREET SECTION - WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR 1 (PUBUC) - STRtt 1 SECTION - VJESTEF(N BYPASS CORRIDOE 2 (PUBLIC) STREET SECTION - C STREET E. B STREET 5. IPUBUC] - STREET SECTION - COROMELL TRAIL SPLIT IPTWATE] • • a STREET SECTION - COROMELL TNAJL (PRIMATE) - STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA & A STREET, PLANTED PARKWAYS IPRNATE) STREET SECTION-.ALTAIR VISTA & A STREET, URBAN PARKWAYS (PRIVATE) STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA ONE WAY WITH PARKING ONE SIDE (PRIVATE) STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA IPLIBJJC) STREET SECTION - ALTAER VISTA CULVERT 1 A STREET BRIDGE STREET SECTION - 6 STREET N. WITH CLASS 1 BIKE TW L (PRMATEj STREET SECTION - B STREET N. WFFH SHARED BIKE LANE (PRIVATE) - TRAFLSFIIOr••LAL AREA PER TENTATIVE MAP ROUNDABOUT -1 ROUNDABOUT -2 ROUNDABOUT - :i ROUNDABOUT -4 Figure 4-12 Vehicular Circulation Plan SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-23 1 CIRCULATION 4 7' 2% Western Bypass Corridor (Public) 12' 12' 14' 12' 12' 07' 6' 8' ,2'f2 LANE Ia6CAPE0 MEDIAN LANE LANE ' PKWAY CLASS1 1 38'BIKEWWAY 100' ROM. Figure 4-13 Street Section - Western Bypass Corridor 1 ( Public, TTM Tots D, N and portion of J ) The Western Bypass Corridor 1 FIGURE 4-13 (Section), running along the western perimeter of the developed portion of Altair. • 12 -foot travel lanes. • 7 -foot shoulder running in either direction. • 14 -foot landscaped median separates the different directional lanes of travel and is planted with native trees, shrubs, and ground cover. • 8 -foot wide class 1 bikeway runs alongside the Western Bypass separated by a parkway with similar planting to the median. Trees for both the parkways and the median shall be clustered and spaced 15 feet to 100 feet apart with an average count of 40 foot on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 50% 15 gallon size, 45% 24" box, and 5% 36" box. 0 100° IVARIES 3' 2' 8' 3' CLASSI BIKEWAY P(.4. VV. Figure 4-14 Street Section - Western Bypass Corridor 2 ( Public, TTM lot I_ ) 4-24 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN/1 4 CIRCULATION The Western Bypass Corridor The design intent is to create a very natural/SoCaI native landscape character for this street type. Trees shall be clustered to provide a dynamic experience of openness and enclosure as well as to enhance scenic views. These areas shall use a combination of primarily SoCal native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers in natural organic patterns with limited non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 85% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 15%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 90% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 10%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways or median, (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list,) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. TREE SPACING PER GUIDELINES Figure 4-15 Street Axon - Western Bypass Corridor 2 ( Public) The Western Bypass Corridor 2, FIGURE 4-14 (Section) and FIGURE 4-15 (Axanometric), running along the western perimeter of the developed portion of Altair. Two 12 -foot travel lanes and a 7 -foot shoulder running in either direction. 22 -foot landscaped median separates the different directional lanes of travel and is planted with native trees, shrubs, and ground cover. 8 -foot wide class I bikeway runs alongside the Western Bypass lower in elevation and separated by a parkway with similar planting to the median. Trees for both the parkways and the median shall be clustered and spaced 15 feet to 100 feet apart with an average count of 40 foot on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 50% 15 gallon size, 45% 24" box, and 5% 36" box 4-25 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 C Street & B Street South Figure 4-16 Street Section - C Street (TTM lots D+E) & B Street South (lots B,C +F) (Public) C Street and B Street South - 60' ROW , FIGURE 4-16 (Section) and FIGURE 4-17 (Axonornetric). Features: • Two 12 -foot travel lanes with 6 -foot wide bike lanes each side. • Parking along one side. • 5 -foot contiguous sidewalks along both sides. • 3 -foot landscaped parkways. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. • Dedicated bike lanes shall be provided. • Street trees shall be spaced at 24 feet on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. 4-26 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANIiJ 4 CIRCULATION NATIVE SLOPE SCORED CONCRETE NATIVE SLOPE STREET LIGHT DEDICATED BIKE LANE Figure 4-17 Street Axon - 0 Street & B Street South ( Public') C Street and B Street South These areas shall use a combination of primarily SoCal natives with limited non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 85% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 15%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 90% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 14%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. 4-27 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 Coromell Trail X12' 12' Q. 6' 24' LANE PKWJY1 40' PUBLIC JTI1JTY & ACCESS EASEMENT Figure 4-18 Street Section - Coromell Trail ( Private, TTM lot G ) VARIES 4' 6' MIN. BIKE LANE 14' 2'„VARIES 2' 14' 6' 4' LANE 6' MAXI LANE BIKE MIN.~ LANE 58' PUBLIC UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT Figure 4-19 Street Section - Coromell Trail - Split Lanes ( Private. TTM lot G} Split Lanes (portion of street), Separate Trail with no Parking=40'tos 58' Easement FIGURE 4-18 and FIGURE 4-19 (Sections), FIGURE 4-20 (Axonometric) Features: ■ Two 12 -foot travel lanes. • Split lane portion features 14 -foot travel lane and 6 -foot bike lane each side, separated by a landscaped median. ■ While there are no sidewalks along this street type, there will be a 5 foot wide hiking trail alongside higher in elevation. Rolled curbs are included for ease of emergency vehicle access. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. Native street trees and various shrubs, grasses, and ground covers will be planted in the median and along the sides of the road on the slopes. • Trees for both the parkways and the median shall be clustered and spaced 15 feet to 100 feet apart with an average count of 40 foot on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 50% 15 gallon size, 45% 24" box, and 5% 36" box. Trees shall be a minimum of 50% 15 gallon size, 45% 24" box, and 5% 36" box. • Dedicated bike lanes shall be provided when road width allows. 4-28 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN r:!l,f'?" 4 CIRCULATION f3EL7lCA, I LD BRE LANE Figure 4-20 Street Axon - Coromell Trail Split Lanes (Private ) Coromell Trail - Split Lanes, Separate Trail, no Parking The design intent is to create a very natural/ SoCaI native landscape character for this street type. Trees shall be clustered to provide a dynamic experience of openness and enclosure as well as to enhance scenic views. These areas shall use a combination of primarily SoCaI native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers in natural organic patterns with limited non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 85% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 15%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 90% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 10%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. =ffliSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4- CIRCULATION 4 Altair V4sta SETBACK VARIES y SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 12' B' 5' 7' LANE PARKING PKWAV 16' 32' 561 PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT R. SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Figure 4-21 Street Section - Altair Vista - Planted Parkways ( Private, TTM lot K j Altair Vista - Landscaped Parkways with Parking one side , FIGURE 4-21 (Section) and FIGURE 4-22 (Axonometric) Features: • Two 12 -foot travel lanes with an 8 -foot parking lane on one side. Each side has a 5 -foot landscaped parkway and 7 -foot sidewalk. ■ On the parking side, there are breaks in the landscaped parkway with concrete pads allowing pedestrians to exit their parked vehicle. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. Shared bike lanes shall be indicated by "sharrows" painted in the travel lanes. Street trees shall be spaced 24 feet on center. • Street trees at every 24 feet provide shade. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. 4-30 November 2017 ;PECIFC PLAIT 4 CIRCULATION PLANTED PARKWAY SCORED CONCRETE 24' 0,0. x ^ STREe..1 LIGHT SHARED BIKE LANE Figure 4-22 Street Axon - Altair Vista - Planted Parkways Altair Vista - Landscaped Parkways with Parking one side It is intended that the urbanized Village streets use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Although the plant species will be the same ar similar to the natural areas, this street type shall be designed in more defined patterns (such as blocks of matching plant material, interesting angles, ar geometric patterns) rather than natural organic patterns. These areas shall use a combination ofSoCal native and non-native shrubs and groundcavers. SaCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. 4-31 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 1 7 S' 12'r 12' I 8' 5' 7' PKWAY LANE E PARXtNG PKWAY 16' 16 ,URBAN 32' 2% _ 56` PUBLIC UTILTfY & ACCESS EASEMENT SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 1 Figure 4-23 Street Section - Altair Vista ( TTM lot F) & A Street ( lot 1) - Urban Parkways ( Private ) Altair Vista & A Street Altair Vista and AStreet—Urban Parkways with Parking one side, FIGURE 4-23 (Section) and FIGURE 4-24 (Axonometric) Features: • Two 12 -foot travel lanes with an 8 foot parking lane on one side. Each side has a 5 -foot decorative hardscaped parkway and 7 -foot sidewalk. This streetscape is found in the main Village nodes and high pedestrian use areas. + The hardscape parkway provides a larger walkable area for pedestrians and a zone for benches, potted plants, and decorative paving such as brick, granite cobbles, or concrete unit pavers. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. Shared bike lanes shall be indicated by "sharrows" painted in the travel lanes. • Street trees at every 24 feet provide shade and may be in planting beds or with tree grates. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. 4-32 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANr11f /—.FACE OF BUILDING 4 CIRCULATION -PO NCH�' PArm SPECIAL PAVING " a SCARED CONGRE iE s�. '-- STREET IJGh-IT 66' -"'---TREE PLANTER WITH PLAN PING OR TREE GRATE �'-- SHARED BIKE LANE Figure 4-24 Street Axon - Altair Vista & A Street - Urban Parkways Altair Vista and A Street - Urban Parkways with Parking one side It is intended that the urbanized Village streets use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Although the plant species will be the same or similar to the natural areas, this street type shall be designed in more defined patterns (such as blocks of matching plant material, interesting angles, or geometric patterns) rather than natural organic patterns. These areas shall use a combination ofSoCal native and non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants maybe added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list,) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. 4-33 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 Altair Vista - One Way SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 7' WALK PKWY' PARKING URBAN 14' 45' PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT R. Figure 4-25 Street Section - Altair Vista One Way ( Private. TTM lot K ) Altair Vista - One -Way Street with Parking one side, FIGURE 4 - 2 5 (Section) and FIGURE 4-26 (Axonometric) Features: • 20 -foot travel lane with an 8 -foot parking lane on the developed side. The developed side also has a 5 -foot hardscaped parkway and 7 -foot sidewalk. This streetscape type is found around the Village "A", "B" and "D" parks with a 5 -foot landscaped parkway around the park side. • The hardscape parkway provides a larger walkable area for pedestrians and a zone for benches, potted plants, and decorative paving such as brick, granite cobbles, or concrete unit pavers. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. Shared bike lanes shall be indicated by "sharrows" painted in the travel lanes. • Street trees at every 24 feet provide shade and may be in planting beds or with tree grates. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. 4-34. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK FACE OF BUILDING 4 CIRCULATION SCORED CCNCRE i r_ TREE PLANTER WITH PLANTING OR GRATE / POI 1 ED PLANTS SHARED BIKE LANE '`` VILLAGE PARK Figure 4-26 Street Axon - Altair Vista One Way Street with Parking One Side Altair Vista - One-way Street with Parking one side It is intended that the urbanized Village streets use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Although the plant species will be the same or similar to the natural areas, this street type shall be designed in more defined patterns (such as blocks of matching plant material, interesting angles, or geometric patterns) rather than natural organic patterns. These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL PNFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. 4-35 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 1 CIRCULATION Altair Vista (Public) OBIlett 2 6' 6' B 14'-27' VARIES 14'.2/ WALK DIKE LANE 1'-13' LANE 12' 33'-39' 33'-39 { PKWAY 70'-B3" 5' 6' BIKE WALK 11` PKWAY R.O.W. 3 3 c o a of Figure 4-27 Street Section - Altair Vista ( Public, TTM lots C and E ) Altair Vista (Public) - Split Lanes with no Parking, FIGURE 4-27(Section)and FIGURE 4-28 (Axonometric) Features: • Split lane design with 14-27 foot (varies) travel lane and 6 -foot wide bike lane each side, separated by a landscaped median. • This streetscape type is found northeast of the proposed school site, between Coromell Trail and the Western Bypass and will be the main route to the school. • The southwest (school) side features a contiguous 6 -foot sidewalk with a landscaped parkway against the right-of-way tine. • The opposite side features a 5 -foot landscaped parkway between the curb and a 6 -foot sidewalk. • Street trees at every 24 feet provide shade. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. • Dedicated bike lanes shall be provided. 4-36 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANIrII 4 CIRCULATION STREET LIGHT 'or SCORED CONCRE I h TREE SPACING PER GUIDELINES R.O.W. DEDICATED RIDE LANE Figure 4-28 Street Axon - Altair Vista ( Public ) Altair Vista (Public) It is intended that the urbanized Village streets use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Although the plant species will be the same or similar to the natural areas, this street type shall be designed in more defined patterns (such as blocks of matching plant material, interesting angles, or geometric patterns) rather than natural organic patterns. These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, Cow water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways or median. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list,) - REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. - REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. 4-37 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 CIRCULATION Altair Vista Culverts & A Street Bridge 5" WALK ' LANE 12' 12' P 7' 5' 24" 48' PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT LANE WALK Figure 4-29 Street Section Altair Vista Culverts & A Street Bridge (Private) Altair Vista & A Street jBridgel Culvert Lacationsj, FIGURE 4-29 (Section) and FIGURE 4-30 (Axonometric) Features: ■ Two 12 -foot travel lanes and 7 -foot sidewalks with 5 feet of bridge treatment. Since th s type of streetscape bridges (or faux bridges) there is no parking and no landscapedparkway. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. Shared bike lanes shall be indicated painted in the travel lanes. • Shared bike lanes shall be indicated by "sparrows" painted in the travel lanes. 4-38 November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN is found at the by "sharraws" 4 CIRCULATION Figure 4-30 Street Axon - Altair Vista Culvert and A Street Bridge Contiguous Sidewalks with no Parking These areas do not have landscaping since they are bridges or faux bridges (culverts.) SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 4-39 lCIRCULATION 4 B Street North 10' 12' E 12' PI -MAY LANE24' LANE PIMP.'r 46' SIDEWALKi PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT .144 Figure 4-31 Street Section - B Street North ( Private, portion of TTM lot L ) R. LANE LANE PKWAY a' TT 24' BI�AY 50' PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING GRADE PER TRACT 36568 R. Figure 4-32 Street Section - B Street North with Class 1 Bikeway (Private, TTM Tots L and M ) B Street North (Private) Landscaped Landscaped Parkways with no Parking, FIGURE 4-31 (Section), FIGURE 4-32 (Section),and FIGURE 4-33 (Axonometric), features: • Two 12 -foot travel lanes and no parking. The side adjacent the retaining wall features a 10 -foot heavily planted parkway to screen the wall. The other side has a 5 -foot landscaped parkway and either an 8 -foot class I bikeway or key walkway, depending on the portion of the street. • This streetscape is found at the south entry to the community off the Western Bypass road. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. • Shared bike lanes shall be indicated by "sharrows" painted in the travel lanes. • Street trees shall be spaced 15 feet to 100 feet apart with an average count of 40 feet on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 50% 15 gallon size, 45% 24" box, and 5% 36" box. 4-40 November 2017 : PECIFIC PLANL 4 CIRCULATION ------ SCORED CONCRETE ''. EEET LIC HT NATIVE SLOPE , I REE SPACING PER GUIDELINES SHARED BIKE LANE Figure 4-33 Street Axon - S Street North ( Private ) B Street North (Private) - Landscaped Parkways with no Parking The design intent is to create a very natural/ SoCal native landscape character for this street type. Trees shall be clustered to provide a dynamic experience of openness and enclosure as well as to enhance scenic views. These areas shall use a combination of primarily SoCal native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers in natural organic patterns with limited non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 85% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 15%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 90% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 10%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based an water usage. (However, tow water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) There is a considerable grade change to the west of this street section. See Section 9.7 for standards for slopes and retaining walls, including allowances for stepped walls or taller segmental walls where necessary at steep slopes. — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. 4-41 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 CIRCULATION 4 AIIey Street Type SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 24' SETBACK VARIES SEE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Figure 4-34 Street Section - Alley ( Private ) AIIey Street Type FIGURE 4-34 (Section) This street type is found in interior developments only and is not part of the primary circulation plan. Features, • One 24 -foot drive aisle • No minimum set hack; dimension from alley to face of building varies • No sidewalks are required. Drive aisle is also the pedestrian route. • Provide landscaping on one or both sides, Landscaping depth and location should vary traffic and creates a more intimate path. • Avoid dead-end alleys. Where a dead-end is necessary, provide adequate turn -around path through to connect with other paths. • Where appropriate, alleys should be widened to allow parking. November 2017 so that drive aisle meanders. This slows for a fire truck and continue pedestrian SPECIFIC PLANR 4 CIRCULATION Figure 4-35 Typical Alley at Cottages at Harveston in Temecula Alley Street Type - 24' Width -SEE VILLAGE SECTION AND VILLAGE PLANT LISTS. 4-43 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 November 2017 GRADING PLAN 5.1 Grading Pian Description GRADING PLAN Al f"Ai r The Grading Plan for the Altair Specific Plan is tailored to the existing topography of the project site. It is intended that the proposed grading plan be sensitive to and reflect natural landforms where possible. Site planning is carefully integrated with these landforms, so that the individual villages are distinguished and separated by topographicat features as shown in Figure 5-1 Grading Plan, An earthwork quantity take -off conducted by the project engineer anticipates that the project site grading will approximately balance and will require minimal soil export. During the development of the project, the Master Developer may need to stockpile dirt on the Civic Site for an interim period. This would require a stockpile permit from the City. The Conceptual Grading Plan (Exhibit A for TTM No. 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959-3 and 36959) also accommodates a street system that meets the City of Temecula standards for acceptable grades. The associated Water Quality Management Plan, described in Section 6.1, establishes a basis for appropriate treatment of drainage requirements. The grading concept implements techniques to ensure that the overall shape, height, and grade of any cut or fill slope is designed to simulate the natural terrain and blend as much as possible with the adjacent natural open space. The plan proposes that graded slopes be revegetated and that drainage devices and erosion control facilities be constructed in accordance with project design objectives as well as City standards. Interim erosion control measures shall be provided during construction phases to address water quality regulations. Grading west of the Western Bypass Corridor shall not exceed a maximum slope ratio of 1.51 This will reduce amount of grading in the hillside areas. 5.2 Grading Pian Standards 1. All grading activities shall be in substantial conformance with the overall Grading Plan and shall implement any grading related mitigation measures outlined in the Preliminary Geotechnical Studies as contained in the Technical Appendices of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 2. Prior to any grading permits a soils report and geotechnical study shalt be prepared to further analyze onsite soil conditions and slope stability. An erosion control plan and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared and approved. These documents shall include appropriate measures to control erosion and dust. 3. For erosion control purposes, slopes exceeding ten (10') feet in vertical height shall be hydro -mulched, prior to final acceptance and prior to the beginning of the rainy season (October - March). ,SPEQFic POO. November 2017 G lAD MG PLAN 71 4, All on-site grading shalt be performed to the City of Temecula standards. 5. Graded slopes shall be oriented to minimize visual impacts (i.e., inclusion of complimentary slope plants) to surrounding areas, .specifically areas adjacent to proposed structures. 6. Grading work shall be balanced on-site wherever possible. 7, Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed free and planted with interim landscaping, such as hydro -seed, within ninety (90) days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. 8, Unless otherwise approved by the City of Temecula, alt cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no steeper than two (2) horizontal feet to one (1) vertical foot. The Grading Plan shall reflect a contouring and landscaping program for the purpose of controlling slope erosion. 9. Slopes in hillside areas shall not exceed a maximum ratio of 1.5:1. This ratio will reduce the amount of grading west of the Western Bypass Corridor, thus reducing potential impacts. Ail other slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 unless approved by the Public Works Department and considered safe in a slope stability report prepared by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist, The slope stability report shall also contain recommendations for landscaping and erosion control. 10. Prior to commencing any grading activities, including clearing and grubbing, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City of Temecula, 11. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to ascertain the significance of any historic or prehistoric remains. 12. Soil stabilizers shall be used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. 13. All grading activities shall comply with the mitigation measures as outlined in the Altair Final Environmental Impact Report. 14. Recycled water shall be utilized for all grading activities, November 2017 Figure 5-1 Project Grading Diagram =1011 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 f_7,1;AEWK FLAP, 5-3 1 GnADNIG Pi -AN 5-4 TR 36959-1 LOT 2 PAD GRADED HEW - 8/W 8' TER ACE DRAIN MKT 8d1 f5451 TR 38959.2 LOT 25 TR 369543 LOT 20 R _ JOPEN SPACE I (CONSERVAT1ONy 4~ I EASTON pRpF =,1 I r 1 WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR TR 345959-1 LOT "0" Ur I2' WATEA 8' RECYCLED WA IER TR 36956-2 LOT 18 TR 35959 3 LOT 12 OPEN SPACE fi 1NIFASF10N 5R401 e 1E435ACE 58414 (NA%. SLY 4ER1R'AL 5F151) 3 1EIRiACE WuX TR 35959-3 LOT 10 P GRADED 5WALE RETAINING WALL (HUNT PER SEPARATE MIMI) 190° R.O.W. 1r- 15151105 GRADE VARIES SECTION A -A NIS WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR TR 36959.2 LOT "A" TR 36959-3 LOT •A" 3E- SQ 51' S4' 'II 5 40' TR 38959-3 LOT 104- KS* SECTION K•11 NTS 'EY 11RETT NORTH PRIVATE ACCESS & UTIL]TY EASEMENT 10' 20 6' WATER 04' A6' WY SECTION 5.5 NTS TR 38959-1 LOT 5 PAD TR 38959-2 LOT 24 TR 36959-3 LOT 19 Wi'W {' 30103 RAIL PER CAL18IWS STA'S i 16 PURL ACSa 2�1 r J i5l�u f WARES ` 4- PAD 4tl-EWAr GRADED 0ERIA TR 36959-2 LOT 1 TR 30959-2 LOT 12 TR 36959-3 LOT 1 ❑ 4 RECYCLED WATER TR 36959-3 LOT 13 OPEN SPACE M)' ACCESS k LrnI1TY t I EASEMENT • / T44CT 594.I15ARY I 6051. 2 I 10" 1 30' DAM '1 I rA5`f k"?7T TRACT 36588 6A. CRDW10 r fi' 901E ---1--'-' q i EN. IB" SRI -1 IV i EL- 39' WO 944 TRAIL Figure 5-? Project Grading Sections November 2017 3s=�s~s=or. > t�4tflQ� -11 ; . . ' - - ' - Zj. • , ' - . . . . /4', ....... , ,,, . ' 1 7.4 :'," '''''...-- 7 . • ' I , ' r' .../. Ir. 1 1 h 11 0 , 11 1 ! r . ." : ...,..''' /1 ''',....:".--....,,,.. ,...2.7,7._. 1 1 ) -,,."--......".',....',.--. .. --. :'------; —1 co COROMELL TRAIL SECTION A -A RPOOR SUPPORT 5 GRADING PLAN EXHIBIT E - TRACT 36959 ALTAIR RETAINING WALL .r.dargo Figure 5-3 Retaining Wall Diagram MI SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 5-5 November 2017 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES A��Air INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES The Altair Specific Plan project site is currently undeveloped land with only a few of the required public utilities located onsite. Proposed development within Altair will provide the necessary connections, extensions, and upgrades as required to serve Altair. As part of the Altair Specific Plan, associated public utility plans have been developed to identify these anticipated facilities. This section reviews the availability of public facilities to serve the Altair Specific Plan as well as the project demands based upon the type and intensity of land uses proposed. The information included in the following infrastructure and utility facilities plan sections is preliminary. The final location and size of all public facilities will be based upon final improvement plans prepared under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer and based upon the review and approval of the agency with jurisdiction. 6.1 DRAINAGE 6.1.1 Project Description The project site is situated at the base of the Santa Rosa foothills on the westerly side of Temecula Valley. Under pre -project conditions, runoff from these foothills and the project site flows easterly across the project site and directly or indirectly into Murrieta Creek. The project will maintain storm runoff into Murrieta creek. The project proposes storm drainage system to collect and transport the 100 -year on- and off-site storm flows through the site as required by the City of Temecula. Murrieta Creek is a regional drainage facility and under the jurisdiction of Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD). The proposed drainage systems will include separate storm drain facilities (streets, curb and gutter, drainage ditches, drainage swales, inlets, catch basins, and pipe) to convey on-site and off-site (open space) runoff through the project to Murrieta Creek. This dual system will avoid commingling of runoff from the developed (on-site runoff) and non-developed (off-site runoff) areas of the project. The off-site runoff drainage system will collect and carry storm flows from the natural open space hillsides immediately west of the project, through the project site along the proposed Western Bypass, and into Murrieta Creek at two locations. The first location is near the northerly end of the project and the second location is near the southerly end of the project. The storm drain facilities used to convey the off-site runoff consists of catch basins, ditches, and storm drain pipes, SPEC1 November 2017 6-1 wFrtASIF UCTURis i intLli*E9 6 The on-site runoff drainage system will collect and treat surface runoff from the proposed development, before exiting the site. The treatment control best management practices (BMP) include desiltation basins and bioretention basins. Desiltation basins will collect and store sediment from several of the mass -graded pads. Biorention basins will treat storm water from the majority of the remaining graded areas as well as the proposed streets. In addition, the project includes some proposed perimeter slopes along its easterly boundary. The slopes will be landscaped and the runoff will flow directly off-site to existing drainage facilities. The runoff from these slopes is self -treating and does need to be directed to a BMP. The project runoff will discharge into Murrieta Creek at several locations along the easterly boundary. Some locations are at existing storm drain outfalls. In this situation, the proposed drainage system will connect to an existing system prior to reaching the creek. Other locations are new outfall locations into the creek. Each storm drain will be sized to convey its tributary 100 -year flow. 6.1.2 WQMP/NPDES The onsite drainage plan utilizes the project's streets, open channels, ditches and underground storm drains to convey storm water flows. To adequately control storm water quality, both point and non -point sources of urban pollutants must be identified and controlled. As required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the runoff from the proposed developed surfaces will be treated for water quality purposes. This treatment train will incorporate a variety of desiltation basins and bioretention facilities to reduce any potential water quality impacts on Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River Watershed. See Figures 6-1 and 6-2. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan has been prepared that identifies the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water treatment facilities, source control and site design. The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project specific constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of storm water runoff. The project will also be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. This permit will be required prior to receipt of a grading permit from the City of Temecula and requires the submission of a Storni Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which will also identify proposed BMPs. The proposed onsite drainage and water quality system facilities located on privately held land will be privately owned and maintained by the proposed Home Owners Association (HOA), while portions of the system within a public R.O.W. will be maintained by the City of Temecula. All storm water and associated water quality facilities will be designed to comply with the City of Temecula and, where applicable, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements, November 2017 Figure 6-1 Typical Drainage Draw Plan Figure 6-2 Typical Drainage Draw Section SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 6INFRASTRUCTUREI & UTILITIES II 6-3 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 „,,F0pRIA EXHIBIT F - TRACT 36959 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN PLAN LEGEND' EXISPNEI CRMY LINE PROP.= =RN MAN UNE PROPOSED CONCRETE CMINE. N November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANR= 6.1.3 Drainage Plan Standards G tfistriASTFIDCTUITE I 1 u11LmE3 Drainage and Flood control facilities and improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Temecula and, where applicable, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements. 1. Major backbone drainage/flood control facilities shall be accepted and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Local drainage devices, including inlets/catch basins and storm drains to be constructed within street rights-of- way will be maintained by the City of Temecula. Only those drainage easements serving inlets/outlets to facilities to be maintained by the City will be accepted by the City. Onsite easements will not be accepted for maintenance by the City. 2. All drainage facilities shall be designed to provide 100 -year protection. The 10 -year storm Flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 -year storm flow should be contained within the street R.O.W. When either of these criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities will be installed. 3. Erosion control and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) incorporating Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be prepared and implemented for the project grading and construction phases in accordance with the City of Temecula and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES). All projects proposing construction activities including; clearing, grading, or excavation which results in the disturbance of at least five acres of total land area, or activities which are part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater, shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit and pay the appropriate fees. All development within the Specific Plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula to implement the NPDES program. 4. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared under the Clean Water Act and the City of Temecula's Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Temecula Municipal Code Title 8.28). 5. The EIR mitigation measures, standard Conditions of Approval, and Project Design Guidelines shall be followed. :ALL FIC PLAN November 2017 INFRASTRUCTURE 8 UTILITIES 6 6-6 J I EX. S.CONC. CSLVMEL 6' CONC. CFL4NNEL 13" CMN EX. 24" X 24 - UN Ex. ea' a dr JOIN E%. 6 conc. CHANNEL RAF CONC. /I — 38" Clw1NEL - 30" EX. CONC aeon VINCENT MORAGA 24" FN. CA4C COWONEJ. 72' F�L�xVPQ� ';tiESTEf2N BYPASS CO 0 C7 0 r- 7 Z 2" 0 v D A2 ROAD NORTH PHASE TR 36959-T 6' 0 7" CONC. CF'41F1E:_ -COR®AhE.LLTRASL. 8. 24" EX. CONC. CHANNEL Ex. 42` 24". 2- 24" 1 Ex. 48 J PIJJOL STREET Ex. 46" rn 36 JOIN E%. 48" m -1 7u 1r m CENTRAL PHASE TR 36959-2 Figure 6-4 Enlarged Storm Drainage Plans by Phase November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK 6 i NFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES ••••••-•'<' 2e, 6. CONC. CHANNEL 2 _ AS 6r CONC. CHANNEL ign ALTAIR a- 1 a 24-" I EL" Ex 24" (1# CIVIC PHASE TR 36959 / EM SPECIFIC PLAN am . 36" 36 - InC 6" conc. CHANNEL EX 24" EX 36" 42' PuJOL STREET EX. 2-24" 2 CONC CHANNEL Ex. .6° CONC. CHANNEL "P SOUTH PHASE TR 36959-3 / ... . / / /\ /7/ —1° 7 2 / D STREET I-18' ,- '---7/ / \ I ...----'"------- \ , ‘ : • ` \ / 24 7 / ' GI" November 2017 LEGEND: •••=1.11. POSTING STORNI DRAIN LINE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ONE PROPOSED CONCRETE CHANN I 6-7 W F FtASIFWCT1,01 i UlfLli*E9 5 6.2 WATER 6.2.1 Water Description Domestic Water & Fire Service The proposed domestic water system is diagrammed in Figures 6-5 and 6-6. The Altair Specific Plan is located within the service area of the Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The project is located within the District's Rancho division and more specifically the 1305 Pressure Zone. The District's main source of domestic water is from the Metropolitan Water District's two existing San Diego Aqueduct pipelines Numbers 4 and 5, These pipelines traverse the southern end of the project site between the proposed Civic Site and Village G. The project's domestic water service can be broken down in three systems as follows: Backbone, Onsite (to be constructed by the subsequent merchant builders) and Offsite. Backbone The backbone public systems will be broken down into four Tracts as follows: Tract 36959-1 is located at the most northerly portion of the project and will connect to the existing 12 -inch main in Ridge Park Drive at the intersection of the proposed Western Bypass public ROW and Ridge Park Drive public ROW. A 12 -inch main will be brought on site within the Western Bypass public ROW to the intersection with Altair Vista public ROW and continuing in Altair Vista to the southerly Tract 36959-1 boundary. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide domestic and fire service to Villages A and B. Tract 36959-2 is located in the north central portion of the project and will connect to the existing 24 -inch main in Pujol Street at First Street. A 12 -inch main will be brought an site in First Street ROW to the Coromell Trail public access and utility easement which shall loop through Coromell Trail public access and utility easement, A Street public access and utility easement and Altair Vista public access and utility easement and eventually terminate at the northerly Tract 36959-2 boundary. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide domestic and fire service to Villages C North and South as well as the School Site and Park Site. Tract 36959-3 is located in the south central portion of the project and will connect to the existing 24 -inch transmission main in the Pujol Street ROW at the most southerly portion of Tract 36959- 3. A 12 -inch main will extend northwesterly in the proposed Western Bypass ROW to the park area (Open Space Lot 17 in said Tract) between Villages E and F. At this location the 12 -inch main will traverse the project northerly within the Altair Vista public access and utility easement to the northerly potion of said Tract 36959-3 and terminate. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide domestic and fire service to Villages' E', 'F' and 'D'. November 2017 _ ; 'Sig • e e 6 INFRASTRUCTURE I & UTILMES EXHIBIT D — TRACT 36959 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL WATER PLAN • LEGEND: \ .'r .1 . • \I MS -RHO DCMIESTIC VAIFJR UNE E.STIRG Ra,,CLED HAAR WM FRCPOSS) DC6IESITC HATER UNE FmCf0SE0 PLEV.CM PRCPOSEE, FIRE HYDRANT 1 1 —1 ,il) t r r ,1 • I 4. / 7;1 \ • Figure 6-5 Domestic Water Plan November 2017 1! 6-9 19FR0JfUCWf i 1 U1 rtJil•E$ S Tract 36959 is located at the most southerly end of the Altair Specific Plan and will connect to the existing 30 -inch transmission main within the proposed public ROW of 'C' Street and 'B' Street South in separate locations. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide domestic and fire service to Village `G and the Civic Site. Offsite Offsite water main improvements would be limited to the following: For Tract 36959-1 an offsite connection is required within the existing Ridge Park Drive public ROW where the proposed Western Bypass public ROW intersects with Ridge Park Drive. This will be a 12 -inch connection to the existing 12 -inch domestic water line at that location. This offsite connection will provide domestic and fire service to Villages 'A' and 'IT. For Tract 36959-2 an offsite connection is required at the intersection of existing Pujol Street public ROW and First Street Public ROW. This will be a 12 -inch connection to the existing 12 - inch domestic water line at that location. A 12 -inch line will then extend up within the existing First Street public ROW to the proposed Coromell Trail public ROW. This offsite connection will provide domestic and fire service to Villages 'C' North and South as well as the School site and Park 5 ite. For Tract 36959-3 an offsite connection is required at the intersection of existing Pujol Street public ROW and the proposed Western Bypass public ROW. This will be a 12 -inch connection to the existing 12 -inch domestic water line at that location. This offsite connection will provide domestic and fire service to Villages 'E', 'F' and'D'. For Tract 36959 two offsite connections will be required and will connect to the existing 30 -inch transmission main within the proposed 'C' Street and 'B' Street public ROW in separate locations. This offsite connection will provide domestic and fire service to Village 'G' and the Civic Site. Onsite Onsite water systems serving the various villages would be constructed by subsequent merchant builders and may become private systems. Final sizes, and systems will be determined at final engineering. November 2017 `' 1 6INFRASTRUCiURE & UTILITIES i i c Tey // 9 \ bid NORTH PHASE TR 369594 2 -IF" Rw PER BRIDGE PIANS% 1 (PW 06-04) OLD TOWN FRONT STREET I SOUTH PHASE TR 36959-3 Figure 6-6 Enlarged Domestic Water Plans by Phase SPECIFIC PLAN: November 2017 INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITIES 6 WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR 8 12- W S" Rw 12" w 12" W z" W 2RW " in a' W 12" W - COROMELL TRAIL 8" Rw 8" w FL" PUJOL STREET1 >33 I to \ If to 4,4)w co PArER LAE am 1 m m m-1 I -I EX. 8' w �ex24' m PUJOL STREE1 , /It CENTRAL PHASE TR 36959-2 CIVIC PHASE TR 36959 EX ING L .ESRC 1111IE1 EWE E 97' or) £ a VW:WI 1 sa' r as' woo \ 11 /� 11 1•l i 1111 1 f ltll a RW Ar. R!' w EX .b' w r F.S�®,�� 112. \. J Gro LEGEND: 11 10-w IE \ B. ,RwS s. 12- W a _ Ip"';, 12" W 8" Rw 4 Ex 34 // 9r° S.o EX."1- s 08900 ;•7._i2 Rte¢ ¢EF Os 94) / 8" Rw q a_Vw 1 - EXISTING DGWESTIC WATER LINE EXISTING RECYCLED WATER LINE PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER LINE PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER LINE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXHIBIT D-2 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL WATER PLAN MAY 2017 Figure 6-6 ( continued) Enlarged Domestic Water Plains by PhaseAMMIll November 2017 SPECIFIC PLArJU1( G RistriASTFIDCTUITE I 1 unLmE3 Reclaimed Water The proposed reclaimed water system is diagrammed in Figures 6-5 and 6-6. Reclaimed water is provided by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The district maintains existing 24 -inch reclaimed water lines within the District's 1381 Pressure Zone, These existing lines are located in a looped system from the in Vincent Moraga/Felix Valdez intersection and extending southerly to the existing 24 -inch reclaimed main in Pujol Street at the intersection with First Street, At the southerly end of the project, the City's approved Western Bypass bridge plans propose to bring two 12 -inch reclaimed water mains westerly across Murrieta Creek from the existing 20 -inch reclaimed water main in Old Town Front Street, This westerly extension within the proposed bridge from Old Town Front Street to the intersection of the Western Bypass and B Street North will provide a secondary connection point to the RCWD's reclaimed water system and meet the project's irrigation demands. The projects reclaimed water service will have a looped system that will be connected to the existing system described above and can be broken down into two systems as follows: Backbone and Offsite, Backbone The backbone public systems will be broken down into the four Tracts as follows: Tract 36959-1 is located at the most northerly portion of the project and will connect to the existing 24 -inch reclaimed water main at the intersection of the Vincent Moraga and Felix Valdez public ROW. An 8 -inch reclaimed water main will be brought on site within the existing Vincent Moraga public ROW and continue within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the southerly Tract 36959-1 boundary. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide reclaimed water service to Villages 'A' and 'B'. Tract 36959-2 is located in the north central portion of the project and will connect to the proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main located at the southerly end of Tract 36959-1 within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW with a proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main. The proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main will continue within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the southerly end on Tract 36959-2. An additional proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main will connect to the proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main within the Western Bypass public ROW adjacent to the Recreation Center and traverse easterly through the Recreation Center and Park Site to the easterly boundary of Tract 36959-2 and continue offsite to connect with the existing 24 -inch reclaimed water main located in Pujol Street at the intersection of First Street. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide reclaimed water to Villages 'C' North and South as well as the School Site and Park Site. :ALL FIC PLAN November 2017 U-14 Tract 36959-3 is located in the south central portion of the project and will connect to the proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main located at the southerly end of Tract 36959-2 within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW with a proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main. The proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main will continue within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the southerly end on Tract 36959-3. An additional proposed 8 -inch main will connect to the proposed 8 -inch main within the Western Bypass public ROW adjacent to Village 'E and 'E' and run easterly through to a terminus at Altair Vista a Private Street. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide reclaimed water to Villages'€', 'F' and'p", Tract 36959 is located at the most southerly end of the Altair Specific Plan and will connect to the proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main located at the southerly end of Tract 36959-3 within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW with a proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main. The proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main will continue within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW and extend offsite to connect with one of the two proposed 12 -inch reclaimed water mains shown on the approved Western Bypass bridge plans. A proposed 10 -inch reclaimed water main will be provided via a connection with the second proposed 12 -inch reclaimed water main shown on the approved Western Bypass bridge plans and extend westerly within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the intersection with proposed B' Street public ROW and then extend southerly within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the Civic Site. A proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main will then connect to the proposed 10 -inch reclaimed water main at the intersection of proposed 'B' Street and proposed `C' Street both public ROW. The proposed 8 -inch reclaimed water main with then extend westerly through the proposed 'C' Street public ROW and transition to a 6 -inch reclaimed water main within the proposed `C' Street public ROW and terminate adjacent to Village 'G', This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide reclaimed water to Villages `G' and the Civic Site and also close the reclaimed water loop system within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW. Offsite Offsite reclaimed water main improvements would be limited to the following: For Tract 36959-1 an offsite connection is required to connect to the existing 24 -inch reclaimed water main at the intersection of the Vincent Moraga and Felix Valdez public ROW. An offsite 8 -inch reclaimed water main will be brought on site within the existing Vincent Moraga public ROW and continue within the proposed Western Bypass public ROW to the northerly Tract 36959-1 boundary. This offsite connection will provide domestic and fire service to Villages A' and B. November 2017 6,NFRASTRuCTIljf I R UTILITIES For Tract 36959-2 an offsite connection is required to connect to the existing 24 -inch reclaimed water main located in Pujol Street at the intersection of First Street. An offsite 3 -inch reclaimed water main will be brought on site within the existing First Street public ROW to the easterly boundary of the Altair Vista Specific Plan, This offsite connection will provide reclaimed water to Villages 'C' North and South as well as the School Site and Park Site. For Tract 36959-3 no offsite connections are required. For Tract 36959 two offsite connections will be required, connecting the two proposed 12 - inch reclaimed water mains shown on the approved Western Bypass bridge plans. These two connections will bring two proposed offsite 12 -inch reclaimed water mains on site within the existing Western Bypass public ROW to the easterly boundary of the Altair Vista Specific Pian. These offsite connections will provide reclaimed water to Villages `G' and the Civic Site. Final sizes and systems will be determined at final engineering. 6.2.2 Water Development Standards Alt water tines shall be designed per the Rancho California Water District and the Eastern Municipat Water District requirements for the reclaimed water system. The project shalt comply with Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604 (f) (Appliance Efficiency standards), which establishes efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, as well as Health and Safety Code Section 17621,3 which requires tow -flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings. 3. The EIR mitigation measures, standard Conditions cif Approval, and Project Design Guidelines shall be followed. =115PE ; November 2017 6-15 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 EXHIBIT C - TRACT 35959 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN LEGEND: EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER UNE EXISTING FORCE MAW PROP. GRAVITY SEWER UNE PROP. 24" SEWER FORCE MAIN BY EMWO ig ! r No+issnbi: 2017 SPECIFIC PLANrT G 04 FFtASTFIuC-TURE I a UTILMIES 6.3 SEWER 6.3.1 Sewer Description The proposed sewer system is diagrammed in Figures 6-7 and 6-8. The project is within the boundaries of the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) sanitary sewer service area. All project generated wastewater flows will be transported via a proposed network of onsite and offsite gravity pipes which will be tributary to the District's existing offsite Pujol Street lift station. A Plan of Service (POS) for the entire Altair Specific Plan has been approved by EMWD on July 14, 2016. The Altair Specific Plan has been identified in the EMWD overall master -plan, including the July 2015 approved Pala Lift Station Condition & Capacity Assessment and Implementation Plan which has identified that capacity at build -out will be available to serve the Altair Specific Plan via the Pujol Lift Station. The project's sewer service will be a gravity system that will be connected to the existing system described above and can be broken down into three systems as follows: Backbone, Offsite and Onsite (private to be constructed by the subsequent merchant builders). Backbone The backbone public systems will be broken down into four Tracts as follows: Tract 36959-1 is located at the most northerly portion of the project and sewer will be provided by constructing a new 8 -inch gravity sewer main from the proposed intersection of Altair Vista public ROW and the Western Bypass public ROW, the proposed 8 -inch sewer main will proceed southerly within the proposed Altair Vista public ROW and then leave the proposed Altair Vista public ROW northeasterly along the southerly limits of Tract 36959-1, It will then head southeasterly within the existing EMWD easement along the easterly boundary of the Altair Specific Plan where it will intersect with existing First Street. At this point the sewer will be will be up-sized to 12 -inch and continue easterly within the First Street Public ROW to the Pujol Lift Station, the 12 -inch gravity sewer will be considered offsite improvements associated with the backbone system for Tract 36959-1. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide sewer service to Villages A and B. Tract 36959-2 is located in the north central portion of the project and sewer will be provided by constructing two 8 -inch gravity sewer mains. The first being located in Altair Vista private street and beginning just northerly of the roundabout in Altair Vista, the 8 -inch sewer will run northerly in Altair Vista and connect to the proposed Tract 36959-1 8 -inch gravity sewer main. The second being located in Altair Vista private street just southerly of the roundabout in Altair Vista and continuing southerly in Altair Vista to the intersection of A Street private street, the 8 -inch sewer will then continue through A Street to the intersection of Coromell Trail private street and then continue southerly within Coromell Trail and connect to the proposed 12-ich gravity sewer constructed in First Street as part of Tract 36959-1. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide sewer service to Villages C North and South as well as the School Site and Park Site. =NFL K. P1.M. November 2017 6-17 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 :6-18 WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR f+ ly 141 +l 's � — 1J ..__� Ak.iA1R15T - ALTpJngT� tj COROMLLL j7-1TRAIL — Pi 11:21u I ----- -- _� - Ll PUJOL STREET Lk, c! - — CROP 3" 1 I I 1 PUJOL STREET Ix. 2¢• FORC[ AWN Lx, J8' Foxt AtUY EX. 72" FORCE MAW EX. PUJOL LIFT' STANIOJt (UPGRADES EY £MW0) PROP_ 24" £x. 8 FORCE MAN - (B'1 EMWD) EX PPop 4f 20" FORCE M4#E Y8- FORCE WI EX- 20' 10 CE w.w CX Fr RRC( w.w .PROP. 24" / FORCE MAIN + ON DAD) NORTH PHASE TR 36959-1 2 Rr]•CX 20" F04Cf haw Ex. PS F0RCC AYMMJY PRO . 6 - EN. .8" - EN..8" PUJOL _ _ — _ — s 10 S GO Ft5D09' Jz PR2P. 8" A STREET 20" FORCE MANY Ek. J5' FORCE WON OLD TOWN FRONT STREET PROP. $ EN. PUJOL LIF1 StA11DN (UPGRADES BY EMWO) 4 SOUTH PHASE TR 36959-3 Figure 6-8 Enlarged Sewer Plans by Phase November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANrT civiC PHASE TR 36959 PROP. 8" rpOR a' 7 STREET S. — A▪ Y. l'OIRCE WO I r-ORCE AMY -\\ I I LEQEND: PROP. E. i .. ,,-----'fr--- COROMELL • . i _ ---' - - 6 INFFiASTRUCTURE I & UTILITIES WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR _ PUJOL STREET — - fr +TRU' 4444, -I • ‘j_ EY PUJOI. Lir/ sTAN TIO (UPCRALIES EMwD) r4s, visTA [MAIL — PUJOL STREET LJ FQRCE ,I446V a 8' 2e FQWSj re raver um Arro. we 1 M.' 3 CENTRAL PHASE TR 36959-2 - ITAIR VISTA • ar FORCE MAW FORCE MAWE ▪ PROF I 0" _ D.20 FORCE WON *.1" FORCE' MAO/ L n PUJOL STREET EMS11NC GRAVITY SW eik LINE EXISTING FORCE MAIN PROP. GRAVITY sEWSR ONE PROP. 24' SEWER ONE MNN Y EN1wO ffai SP ECI F IC PLAN PROP. a" Ex. rRavr Sr. LIFT STATiON - PROP. 8T OLD TOWN FRONT STREET D. PUJOL UFT STATION (UPGRADES En' BIRD) EXHIBIT C-2 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN November 2017 Zal .7.017 Tract 36959-3 is located in the south central portion of the project and sewer will be provided by constructing 8 -inch gravity sewer mains in Altair Vista private street beginning at the northerly boundary of Tract 36959-3 and running southerly within Altair Vista to the intersection of B Street private street and then running easterly to the existing EWWD easement ant then run within the easement northerly and connect to the proposed 12-ich gravity sewer constructed in First Street as part of Tract 36959-1. This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide sewer service to Villages E, F and D. Tract 36959 is located at the most southerly end of the Altair Specific Plan and sewer will be provided by constructing a new 10 -inch sewer main from the prosed civic site within 'B' street public ROW and running northerly to existing Pujol Street public ROW the 10 -inch main will then run northerly within Pujal Street to the proposed 12-ich gravity sewer constructed within First Street as part of Tract 36959-1, This portion of the proposed backbone system will provide domestic and fire service to Village G and the Civic Site. Offsite Offsite sewer main improvements would be limited to the following: For Tract 36959-1 an offsite 12 -inch gravity sewer main will be constructed within First Street public ROW and run easterly within First Street to the Pujol Lift Station. For Tract 36959-2 no offsite connections are required. For Tract 36959-3 no offsite connections are required. For Tract 36959 an offsite new 10 -inch sewer main from the prosed civic site within 'B' street public ROW and running northerly to existing Pujol Street public ROW the 10 -inch main will then run northerly within Pujol Street to the proposed 12-ich gravity sewer constructed within First Street as part of Tract 36959-1. Onsite All onsite sewer systems serving the various villages would be constructed by subsequent merchant builders and may become private systems. Final sizes, and systems will be determined at final engineering. 6.3.2 Sewer Development Standards 1, Sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the Riverside County Health Department. 2. Assurance for provision of adequate sewer service is required prior to approval of a subdivision map, and/or Development Plan for commercial uses in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act. 3. All sewer lines shall be designed per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. 4. The EIR mitigation measures, standard Conditions of Approval, and Project Design Guidelines shall be followed. November 2017 6INFRA5Tp1CTuRE I 1 UT+t.IT1E34 6.4 DRY UTILITIES 6.4.1 Dry Utility Description Specific Plan Development Guidelines shall dictate the location and screening of onsite electric power facilities such as transformers and underground vaults. The project is currently within the Frontier service area for telephone and fiber optic internet. AH onsite telephone service lines shall be within underground conduits. The Specific Plan Development Guidelines shall dictate the location and screening of onsite telephone facilities such as underground vaults and above ground connection pedestals. Spectrum currently provides cable television, internet and residential phone services to the project area. Ail onsite cable service lines shall be within underground conduits. The Specific Pian Development Guidelines shall dictate the location and screening of onsite cable facilities such as underground vaults and above ground connection pedestals. 6.4.2 Dry Utility Development Standards 1. All natural gas facilities shall be installed underground and by or in accordance with Southern California Edison regulations and specifications. 2. All electric power facilities shall be installed underground and by or in accordance with Southern California Edison regulations and specifications. 3. All telephone facilities shall be installed underground and by or in accordance with Frontier's regulations and specifications. 4. All cable television facilities shall be installed underground and by or in accordance with Spectrum's regulations and specifications. 5. The EIR mitigation measures, standard Conditions of Approval, and Project Design Guidelines shall be followed. SPEC1 tC P November 2017 November 2017 7 PUBLIC SERVICES 7.1 Schools PUBLIC SERVICES Schools located within the Temecula Valley Unified School District provide elementary, middle school and high school education to students generated by residential development in Altair. Vail Elementary School located at 29835 Mira Loma Road (1.12 miles away), Margarita Middle School located at 30600 Margarita Road (2.26 miles away) and Temecula Valley High School located at 31555 Rancho Vista Raad (2.03 miles away) currently include the Altair project area within their service boundaries. All three schools operated below capacity in the 2013-2014 school year. A new elementary school is proposed on site to service the area of Temecula immediately west of Interstate 15, including Old Town Temecula. Many of the students for the proposed elementary school will be residents of Altair. A prominent and easily accessed land parcel of approximately 7 acres will be dedicated to the Temecula Valley Unified School District for construction of a school, depending on the District's assessment of their needs. A school facilities fee provides funding for school construction and is authorized by State of California. Developers of residential projects will be responsible for the payment of fees associated with public school service based on the square foot area of residential construction and as established by the school district in accordance with State law. Additionally, a portion of the property taxes generated by the project will be allocated to the school district. 7.2 Libraries There are two libraries in Temecula that are part of the Riverside County Library System, which has 35 branch libraries and two bookmobiles. Temecula Public Library, located at 30600 Pauba Road (1.63 miles from Altair), has a Technical Homework Center, a Law Resource Center and two community rooms. The second facility, Grace Mellman Community Library, is located at 41000 County Center Drive. The County of Riverside has under contract Library Systems and Services, a private national contractor, to operate the library system. Sa C H pL141� November 2017 PUBLIC SERVICES 7 7-2 H HOSPITAL SCHOOL STOREFRONT POLICE STATION L LIBRARY ▪ FIRE STATION ■ PARK/RECREATION CENTER ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Temecula Valley High School Town Storefront Police Station Erle Stanley Gardner fiddle School Figure 7-1 Public Services November 2017 SPECI FtC PLAN FIS f 7.3 Fire Protection Fire protection is provided by the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), through a contract with the City of Temecula. Temecula is primarily served by Battalion 15 of RCFIYs Temecula Division, which consists of seven stations housing seven engines and one aerial ladder truck to serve multistory buidings. Battalion 15 targets four person staffing, including one paramedic. This policy helps promote faster response times and helps ensure safety of the firefighters and citizens of the Temecula community. Fire service to Altair will likely be provided by Fire Station 12, located at 28330 Mercedes Street, approximately 1/3 mile from the project site, This station provides both fire protection and paramedic services. Fire Station 73, located at 27415 Enterprise Circle West (1.5 miles away and equipped with the ladder truck) and Fire Station 84 at 30650 Pauba Road (1.8 miles away) serve as secondary responders. Altair is located near a wildfire hazard area. The Western Bypass Corridor forms a fire barrier protecting the majority of the proposed development. Fuel Modification setbacks for the remaining areas are defined in the Tentative Tract Map concurrent to this Specific Plan. 7.4 Police The Temecula Police Department provides about one police officer per 1,000 residents through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for staff and equipment. The RCSD Southwest Station is located at 30755-A Auld Road in Murrieta, CA and is the closest full station at approximately 6.4 miles from the Specific Plan area. In addition, Temecula has two storefront police locations, one in Old Town Temecula at 28690 Mercedes Street, near 3rd Street (1/3 mile from the project site) and one in the Promenade Mall at 40820 Winchester Road, suite 2020. A traffic team, investigations bureau and special teams to deal with drugs and gang -related issues are integrated into the police department. 7.5 Parks The City of Temecula has more than 39 City parks. City Parks located in the immediate vicinity of Altair inciude Rotary Park, a 1,09 acre park with BBQ and picnic tables located on the corner of Pujol Street and 1st Street, Town Square Park at the fountain at the east end of Main Street, the Duck Pond at 28250 Rancho California Rd and Sam Hicks Memorial Park, a 1.8 acre park, located within % mile of the project site, contains a children's play area, picnic tables and restrooms. Parks, open space and recreational facilities will be provided in the Altair development. These amenities are described in Section 8. =FL FIC PI�J41i November 2017 7-3 1 PUBLIC SERVICES 7 7-4 7.6 Hospitals There are four regional hospitals within an 8 -mile distance of Altair: Temecula Valley Hospital, Rancho Springs Medical Center and Loma Linda University Medical Center in Murrieta, and the Inland Valley Regional Medical Center in Wildomar. Temecula Valley Hospital is the closest and largest, located approximately 2.3 miles away at 31700 Temecula Parkway. This is a 140 -bed facility with five surgical suites, a full ER and expansion potential on it's 37 -acre campus. The hospital has 300 associated physicians. 7.7 Public Transit Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) was established in 1975 to operate bus service in Riverside County. RTA is the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency for western Riverside County and is responsible for coordinating transit services throughout the approximate 2,500 square mile service area, providing driver training, assistance with grant applications and development of Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs). RTA provides both local and regional services throughout the region with 36 fixed -routes, eight CommuterLink routes, and Dial -A -Ride services using 266 vehicles. In the cities of Corona, Beaumont and Banning, RTA coordinates regional services with municipal transit systems. In Riverside, RTA coordinates with the city's Riverside Special Services, which provides ADA complementary service to RTA's fixed -route services. Old Town Temecula is served by bus transit with three Local Routes 79, 23 and 24 with alternate routing and three Commuter Routes 202, 206 and 208. Route 202 runs from Murrieta to the north and reaches in Oceanside to the south. Route 206 runs between Promenade Mall and Corona Transit Station. Route 208 runs from Promenade Mall and reaches Downtown Riverside. In addition, the Temecula Trolley (route 55) is a loop route that circulates just east of Interstate November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANI�J1 TRANSFER STOP County Center Drive 2324 55 61 79 211 tOairyoRz 79 231! X217 /` TEMECULA Promenade Mall 411) el Promenade Mail ;a, P.F. Ch ang's 55 79 202 206 208 217 MAJOR STOP Temecula Uy Nall Temecula L`aIley Hospital MAJOR STOPS FOR BOTH ROUTES X52 ernerula Wolman Community Center Pl# 2U2 Continues toOceansi'., Pechanga Resort DHAWK a43' Great Oak N5 Rt 2.37 continues to Escondido Transit Center F PUBLfC SERVECES Figure 7-2 RTA Route Map 15 next to The Promenade at Temecula and Ilarveston School Road at the north end. Local Route 24 also connects to Margarita and Gardner Middle Schools and to Temecula Valley High School. RTA provides discounted monthly passes to students in grades 1-12 to facilitate public transit for commutes to school. Altair will participate with the RTA and the City of Temecula to further a "Smart Shuttle" or "bike share" program to Zink Altair with Old Town Temecula and the RTA Bus system. A proposed route with connections to RTA bus routes 24 and 79 is shown in Figure 7-3. The Master Developer will contribute financial support for a period of two years as defined in the Development Agreement. The shuttle will be operated by the RTA. fflISPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 7-5 1 PUBLIC SERVICES 7 Figure 7-3 Smart Shuttle Route Proposal November 2017 0 300' 600 1200 SCALE 1` = 1200'-0" - OLD TOWN LOOP — PROPOSED SHUTTLE ROUTE — Connection to RTA Bus Stop Connection to RTA Bus Stop PECIFIC PLAN ' 7.8 Waste Management The Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) operates six landfills that serve Riverside County residents. All new development projects are required to provide Refuse/Recycling Collection and Loading Areas, Development near or adjacent to a Department facility may be subject to additional requirements/restrictions. These projects are addressed an a case-by-case basis, Design Guidelines for Refuse and Recyclables Collection and Loading Areas The City of Temecula publishes Waste and Recycling Design Guidelines for multifamily and commercial projects through it's franchise waste hauler (currently CR&R Inc.). The guidelines are intended to assist project proponents in identifying space and other design considerations for Refuse/Recyclables collection and loading areas, consistent with state and local regulations, See also Section 9,5 for design of refuse and recyclable area enclosures. Trash and Recycling The City of Temecula contracts with a franchise waste hauler (currently CR&R Inc, ) for trash and recycling services, CR&R provides trash collection with a state of the art recycling and green waste program. Automated collection is an efficient and safe process for collecting residential waste and recyclables. Through the use of a mechanical arm operated by the driver, trash is collected quickly and neatly. Each home (except multifamily housing) is furnished with three special containers which residents roll out to the curb on collection day: for trash, recycling and green waste, respectively. Section 10.9 describes space requirements for storing these containers. Green Waste Disposal Green waste can be disposed of using the green 3 -yard bin and collected by CR&R or through the City of Temecula's City Wide Clean Up events held periodically, Commercial and multifamily residential properties are required to implement an organic material recycling program in compliance with AB 1826. Detached and attached single-family developments at Altair are also required to provide facilities for green waste. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Recycling Prior to receiving a permit, developers or their contractors must contract with the City of Temecula's franchise waste hauler for recycling of construction and demolition waste, =115PE November 2017 November 2017 OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN The City of Temecula General Plan targets 5 acres of useable park land per 1,000 population in its Open Space and Conservation Element in order to ensure sufficient park land and recreation facilities. While the General Plan excludes natural open space and trails from its park standard, they are a substantial and integral part of the open space and recreation network at Altair. The large amount of natural and interstitial open space and usable cycling and running trails complements the available active open space. This inter -connected system is consistent with and contributes to the Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, discussed previously in Section 4. To meet the General Plan target, Altair would need between 9.6 and 19.3 acres of useable park land, based on an expected person per household factor of 2.2 and planned development intensity in the range of 870-1,750 dwelling units. The target factor of 5 acres per 1,000 persons is high for the region. The City of San Diego, for instance, requires only 2.8 acres per 1,000 population in its General Plan, while the City of Riverside requires 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Escondido recognizes the value of passive parks and habitat land by targeting passive and active open space in equal measure, with a combined total of 11.8 acres per 1,000 people. The combined passive and active open space area in the Altair Specific Plan totals approximately 140 acres. This equates to 36 acres per 1,000 residents at the maximum density of 1,750 dwelling units. A successful community has many different kinds of open space that offer a range of activities and varying levels of privacy and control. Open space is divided into four main categories in the Altair Specific Plan: natural open space, interstitial open space, active open space and private open space. A summary of open spaces are shown in Tables 8-1 and 8-2 and general locations are indicated in Figure 8-1. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 Use Acres % of Total Conservation Open Space Open Space Clubhouse and Recreation Center 87.20 31.50 2.05 32.3% 11.7% 0.8% Parks, Trails & Bikeways Master Developer 10.18 Guest Builders 3.55 Elementary School 2.00 Total 15,73 15.73 S.8% Developed Area* (Residential, School + Civic Sites) Roadways 105.21 39,0% 28.22 10.5% Total 269.91 100.0% Approximately 20% of the Village tot Areas are 2:1 open space slopes to the east and/or west of each Village. The final buildable pad area is anticipated to be 50 - 65 acres (22%-24% of the total acreage). Table 8--7 Open Space Summary LOCatlon Use Responsibility TOTAL AREA (Acres) Portion of Park Area that is Open to the Public Master Developer School District Guest builder Active Open Space Master HOA Maintained Sub -HOA Maintained Village A Active Park Guest Builder 0.95 1 0.65 Village b Active Park Guest Builder _ 0,55 r 0.40 Village C Active Park Plaza Promenade Community Center Master Developer Master Developer Master Developer Master Developer 5.04 0.37 0.59 2.05 0.75 2 5.04 0.37 0,59 2.05 Village D Active Park Master Developer 0.80 0,15 2 0.80 Village E Active Park Guest Builder 0.35 1 015 Between E+ F Active Park Master Developer Guest Builder Guest Builder 0.25_ _ 0.50 1 0.10 2 0.25 Village F Active Park DAD Village G Active Park School Play Field School District 2.00 2.00 s Trail South of 1st Street Trail North of 1st Street Western Bypass Class i Bikeway logging Path Class I Bikeway Master Developer Master Developer 1.40_ _1.40_ 0.78 0.78 Master Developer 0.92 0.92 Active Subtotal; 14.19 3,55 15.89 Natural Open Space Lipper Hillside Civic Site MSHCP + Slopes MSHCP +Slopes Master Developer Master Developer 69.05 37.24 Interstitial Open Space Passive Ravines+Slopes Master Developer 21.49 21 49 Total: 101.97 3738 1. Includes Guest Builder constructed "String of Pearls" parks that are open to the public (1.7 acres). 2. Estimated Common Open Space parks (varies based on product type) which may be public or private. 3. Subject to joint use agreement with School District. Table 8-2 Park and Open Space Areas November 2017 PRESERVED 1 RESTORED OPEN wiI SPACE VILLAGE 'B' PARK OFF SITE OPEN SPACE CLUBHOUSE PPER STAIRCASE SEATING PLAZA PROMENADE SCHOOL RECREATION HOA RECREATION CENTER VILLAGE `C' CORE PARK MAIN ST. PLAZA \-1 OLD TOWN GRAND STAIR VILLAGE 'D' PARK a VILLAGE 'E' PARK t VILLAGE `F' PARKS WILDLIFE FENCE Figure 8-1 Parks, Open Space and Amenities Pian SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 OPEN SPACE 8 & RECREATION 8-3 8-4 8.1 Natural Open Space Natural open space is basically left in its current state. While access is not prohibited, natural open space is only intended to be active or programmed for recreation where intentionally delineated. Natural open space in the Altair Specific Plan is primarily located in the MSHCP corridor west of the Western Bypass and at the southern portions of the site. It includes natural habitat, chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and oak woodland. The majority of this area is part of Proposed Linkage 10 in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and will provide both live-in habitat and a passageway for critical species including bobcat and mountain lion. A smaller portion is located within the prposed Constrained Linkage 13 of the MSHCP. The natural open space within the Specific Plan area is connected to the much larger MSHCP plan that extends westward beyond the ridgeline, maximizing the value of each area as part of a greater conservation zone. The south 55 -acre parcel is mostly natural open space with a proposed nature center and trails serving the public. The south portion of this parcel is just across the river from the Temeku Village Site. Natural open space in this area provides an appropriate backdrop and helps to maintain the cultural significance of the neighboring historical site. The conservation area preserves a large stand of native oak. Effective separation of natural habitat from development is critical to preserve the habitat and protect both native species and residents, including their pets, from predators. The Western Bypass Corridor divides most of the natural open space from new development. A wildlife fence will also be provided as shown in Figure 8-1 to keep animals out of the Bypass and to separate the natural open space from Villages A and G. Wildlife Fencing Standard: 1. 8.0' high vinyl coated chain Zink "Wildlife Fence" with access gates included throughout. 2. Located at the toe of slope along the entire Western Bypass Road as well as areas adjacent to Villages A and G (see Figure 8-1). November 2017 .SPECIFIC PIANFJrA OPEN SPACE 13 & RECREATION Protection from fire hazards is also critical for development near natural open space. The Western Bypass Corridor will act as a fire break to most of the proposed development at Altair. A Fuel Modification Plan will be a condition of approval of the Tentative Tract Map, which includes fire setback areas where developed parcels are directly adjacent to potential wildfire areas. 8.2 Interstitial Open Space Interstitial open spaces are the landscaped areas between the village dusters and at the edge of the developed area. Interstitial spaces serve several functions. They define the perimeter of each village. They add variety to the circulation experience, especially for pedestrians and cyclists. Interstitial spaces are typically characterized by steep slope banks or ravines, as they transition between development at different elevations. They are also opportunities for bioswales. Therefore, they are integral to the grading and drainage plan patterns discussed in previous sections of this specific plan. They are also destinations in themselves, offering a quieter alternative to the more active parks. All disturbed areas in Altair are slated to be restored with Native vegetation to match the surrounding hillsides. Hiking Trails through the interstitial open space areas will allow residents and visitors to have a close encounter with the natural world. 8.2.1 Ravines The ravines generally run west to east and slope longitudinally down toward the east. They loosely align with existing draws in the undisturbed open space to the west of the Western Bypass. The naturalized drainage draws, shown in section 6 will utilize native riparian vegetation to serve as water quality treatment corridors. These draws will also feature boulders and rock repurposed from grading operations to create naturalized grade breaks and check dams in the draws. Roads and trails cross the ravines over bridges, culverts and footbridges. These spans are creative design opportunities that contribute to the personality of Altair. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 8-G 8.2.2 Bypass Trail The bypass trail area separates the Western Bypass from the residential development and is a linear open space running along the east edge of the road. The trail roughly parallels the bypass, is contiguous to the road at the north and south ends, but drops away from and below the road for most of its length. The trail can be accessed from several points in the community, as identified in Figure 4-2. It is a paved trail serving pedestrians and cyclists and is designed as a Class 1 Bikeway. There are slope banks to either side of the trail and some low retaining walls. Native landscaping will buffer noise and sight lines from the road to screen adjacent residences. Views from the trail are dramatic and certain vistas are highlighted with breaks in the trees, areas to step off the trail, etc. The bikeway portion of the bypass trail area is included as active open space in Table 8-1. The trail network is also an opportunity to display artwork in a public setting, such as the example on the right. Art installations alongside a trail add whimsy and delight and can support themes such as nature or movement. Altair's contribution to Art in Public Places is discussed in Section 9.9, 8.2.3 Eastern Slope A sculpture on the Lackawanna River Heritage Trail Altair is a linear site occupying the hillside west of Old Town Temecula. The eastern edge of the site slopes down to meet the existing grade at the property line. A stabilized decomposed granite trail runs along the slope, utilizing a bench required by adopted grading standards. As with the Bypass Trail, the elevation change of the eastern slope offers overlooks of the City and vistas of the surrounding terrain. A utility and emergency fire access easement parallels the property line at the base of the slope south of First Street. The easement is proposed to be widened from the existing 30 feet to 40 feet. This easement has long been used by the community as a dog walking trail - a use that is anticipated to continue. This area will also be improved as a paved bikeway per the Circulation section. The eastern slope is intersected by ravines at their bases. Grades are softened at these junctions to slow run-off from the ravine, which also relieves the visual continuity of the slope bank. A major intervention occurs at the perpendicular path connecting the central park to Main Street. This path and how it cuts through the slope bank is described more thoroughly below. November 2017 3PEC9FYC PLAN OPEN SPACE B & RECREATION 8.3 Active Open Space Active open space is developed for human recreation and gathering. These spaces are the focus of the individual neighborhoods of the Altair Specific Plan and give each village its unique character. Active spaces are closely tied to adjacent architecture, functioning as outdoor rooms. They often occupy important loci or scenic vantage points within the overall plan. Active open space falls into two general types at Altair: public open space and common open space. 8.3.1 Public Open Space Public Open Spaces are parks, playfields, and other spaces for public use that are typically established by the master developer and maintained by the Altair community as a whole. Public Open Spaces include the central park, the Community Center area, upper stair and plaza and the promenade, all at Village C; the village parks; and the Nature Center trails at the Civic Site. Guest builders can also install and maintain public open spaces as long as they are open to the general public, such as at the village parks. Active public open spaces include circulation elements such as Class I bikeways and established paths that can be used for walking or jogging. The pedestrian link from Village C to Main Street is a series of connected urban spaces at the Grand Stair and Main Street plaza that encourages interaction between residents of Altair and Old Town. A Recreation Center and Clubhouse are provided to serve all residents of Altair. Both of these facilities are located in the Community Center at Village C and they define and punctuate the Plaza at the top of the Main Street axis. See the Village C description in Section 3 for more information on this area of the Plan and its adjacencies. The Recreation Center features an outdoor pool and spa framed by the recreation building and a pergola. Inside the recreation building are locker rooms, restrooms, spaces for fitness equipment and yoga or other exercise classes, a children's game room and offices and other support spaces. The Recreation Center edges grand steps at the peak of the Main Street axis, a prime gathering space and scenic viewpoint. SPECIFIC PLAI`J November 2017 8-8 The Clubhouse anchors the southwest corner of the central park at Village C. The Clubhouse is a 2 -story structure featuring a large terrace that spills out into the park at it's high paint. Casual seating is provided on the terrace, offering excellent views of the park, Old Town and the surrounding hills of Temecula. Residents and guests may relax an these terraces while enjoying music or other performances in the park. Inside the Clubhouse are kitchen and dining facilities, meeting rooms and game rooms. A restaurant or wedding / banquet facility may also be considered to optimize this unique location. Under the Development Agreement, the building will provide office space for the Community Services Department, which will work with the Master HOA for the potential hosting of classes, activites and wedding or event rentals at the facility. 8.3.2 Common Open Space Common OpenSpaces are defined and installed as part of individual development projects within the Altair Specific Plan area, typically by a guest developer. Common open spaces may be shared facilities serving an entire village or can be communal pools, courtyards or roof terraces for residents of a particular project as a private amenity. Requirements for the minimum aggregate area and dimension of common open spaces per project are designated by building type in Section 10, Development Standards and Table 10-4. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian circulation system wherever practical. Some of the common open space amenities for residents may contribute toward the total active park area required to be provided by guest builders in each village. However, a minimum area of park space in each village must be open to the public, The minimum areas of total park and public park are indicated in Table 8-2. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANT OPEN SPACE & RECREATION The open space and recreational imagery, Figure 8-2, sets the theme of the Altair parks and open space and influences the community as a whole. Natural play areas, open play fields, and nature trails encourage children and adults alike to live active, healthy lifestyles. Urban parks mixed in pockets of open space allow all members of the community to have access to a park space no matter where they live in Altair. A wide array of recreational uses from urban parks to naturalized open space provokes the residents of Altair and Temecula to explore nature and their community. Active open spaces can also satisfy lifestyle needs beyond recreation. Functional program areas such as dog parks, playgrounds and communal vegetable gardens offer convenience and blend social interaction with daily tasks. Most of us can remember playing outside all day until it was dinner time, exploring a creek or corner of a vacant lot, and getting "lost" in nature as a kid. During the fast generation, there has been a major shift from outdoors to indoors. Kids seldom play outside anymore unless under the direct supervision of a parent and often times as a scheduled visit to a "tot lot". in. Last Child in the Woods, Richard Louv explores the missing connection to the natural world and describes how we can save our children (and ourselves) from "Nature Deficit Disorder". Feeling the warmth of a boulder, sensing the softness of pine needles underfoot, hearing the rustle of leaves, or experiencing the fragrance of a plant species can connect us to a green space. Research says "Natural Play" contributes to the overall physical, cognitive, and emotional development of children, helps them score higher on tests for concentration and self-discipline, helps them experience more diverse play, helps them exhibit less aggressive behavior, strive toward advanced motor fitness, and become healthier. The recreational value of Altair is enhanced by going "beyond the tot lot" by providing open lawn areas and traditional park elements as well as natural places to discover, explore, climb, dig and roll. Native plantings requiring little to no maintenance will be used to blend into the natural setting and reduce maintenance costs. 1, ii,„ 1-41•14%- r �. _ Figure 8-2 Open Spa Spacp and Recreational Images SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 8-9 8.4 Private Open Space Private Open Spaces are yards, patios, balconies, entry stoops, courts or roof terraces attached to individual dwelling units for the private use of the residential household. Requirements for the minimum area and dimension of private open space per dwelling unit are designated by building type in section 10, Development Standards. Private open space can be located on any side of a dwelling unit, as fits its purpose. 8.5 Park Programming The Master Developer and Merchant Builder Parks ofAltair are intended fora range offlexible and passive uses that will provide common social spaces for each Village and the Altair Community as a whole. These spaces are not intended to be "over -programmed" or "over-amenitized". Instead, they should allow a flexible range of recreational uses such as picnicking, kite flying, pick up soccer games, playing catch, frisbee, concerts, movie nights, children's play, and other uses that are not limited by single -user type facilities that are typically league dominated. Suggested programming can be found in the Conceptual Park Design Concepts in the description of each Village in Sections 3.5 through 3.10. Encouraged programming includes: open lawn areas, natural/native landscape/garden/exploration areas, children's play areas, shaded seating and picnic areas. Discouraged uses include, but are not limited to, ball diamonds, soccer fields, and tennis courts. These types of uses are intended for the school site and will provide the balance between flexible recreation areas and the formally programmed recreation areas. Public parks should generally have a minimum dimension of 85 feet in either direction to allow adequate activity space. Natural open space use is limited to hiking, walking, and bicycling as described in Section 4 Circulation and Section 8.1 Natural Open Space. Common open space programming will reflect the type of activities preferred by residents of each community, expressing the diversity of Altair. Neighborhoods with young families may have more playgrounds, while developments favored by singles might have a dog park or more areas to gather. Community gardens are strongly encouraged in all neighborhoods to support healthy eating and as an educational activity for children. All residences should be within easy walking distance of a tot lot or playground, whether in a park or in common open space. November 2017 OPtil WhSCE II 6 REGHE TION 8.6 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Crime prevention through environmental design (CPED) as developed by the National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPi) supports the concept that "the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life." Following are the nine primary strategies that support this concept. These strategies should be integrated into the design of Altair to the greatest extent feasible, 1, Provide clear border definition of controlled space. Examples of border definition may include fences, shrubbery or signs in exterior areas. Within a building, the arrangement of furniture and color definition can serve as a means of identifying controlled space. 2. Provide dearly marked transitional zones, Persons need to be able to identify when they are moving from public to semi-public to private space, 3. Gathering or congregating areas to be located or designated in locations where there is good surveillance and access control, 4, Place safe activities in unsafe locations. Safe activities attract normal users to a location and subsequently render the location fess attractive to abnormal users due to observation and possible intervention, 5. Place unsafe activities in safe locations. Placing unsafe activities in areas of natural surveillance or controlled access will help overcome risk and make the users of the areas feel safer. 6. Design the use of space to provide natural barriers. Separate activities that may conflict with each other (outdoor basketball court and children's play area, for example) by distance, natural terrain or other functions to avoid such conflict. Improve scheduling of space. The timing in the use of space can reduce the risk for normal users and cause abnormal users to be of greater risk of surveillance and intervention. 8. Design space to increase the perception of natural surveillance. Abnormal users need to be aware of the risk of detection and possible intervention, Windows and clear lines -of -sight serve to provide such a perception of surveillance. 9. Overcome distance and isolation. This strategy may be accomplished through improved communications (portable two-way radios, for example) and design efficiencies, such as the location of restrooms in a public building. =115PE November 2017 November 2017 DESIGN GUIDELINES DESIGN GUIDELINES A/ h/i r 9.1 Design Objectives Altair is intended to be an urban environment, with the kind of energy that is inherent in well - executed compact design. Streets and open spaces are well defined by a clear, consistent building edge. Streets are as narrow as is practical to slow traffic and reinforce the pedestrian environment. Building massing is appropriate to a human scale and pedestrian pace. These design guidelines are used in conjunction with the development standards in the following chapter to ensure a community of the highest aesthetic quality. The two sections strive to: • Provide guidance to developers and their design and engineering teams to create projects consistent with the standards of the Altair Specific Plan. • Establish a basis of design against which City staff can review future development projects in the planning area. • Ensure that the components necessary for a connected and pedestrian -friendly community are carried through all of the phases and districts comprising the specific plan. ■ Allow flexibility and ingenuity in design to create distinctive neighborhoods. These guidelines use positive and negative examples to ensure quality design. There can be circumstances where a preferred method is not achievable or a discouraged material is used skillfully. Therefore, exceptions to these guidelines may be granted through the Design Review process described in Section 11, Implementation, 9.2 Building Placement Placement of buildings sets the scene for development projects, especially on a sloping site, where the visual effect of buildings on a hillside is more apparent. Buildings facing the street should be designed to interface with the street in a special way, so that there is an interplay of building and street. Entries facing the road, along with porches and balconies, reinforce the connection of the road and the community, See Section 9.4 for further discussion of building frontage and Figure 9-2 showing streets that require building entries to face them. Also, refer to Section 10.4 for setbacks and explanation of build -to lines that regulate the location of facades relative to streets and otherlot lines, Buildings shall be arranged in a manner that creates meaningful and pleasant open spaces between them, such as courtyards, paseos and plazas. Buildings and groupings should relate to each other. In particular, perimeter buildings of development projects shall address adjacent developments so that there is no "dead space" between. Views, solar orientation and protection from prevailing winds are important considerations in building placement and orientation. Opportunities for views over buildings and view corridors should be carefully considered to maximize the connection to the surrounding environment and increase the quality of the neighborhood development. SPECIFIC LAN November 2017 �-1 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 i9_2 9.3 Building Form These guidelines do not dictate any particular style, but rather discuss building form and elements that are conducive to the design objectives. Variations in style are encouraged for visual interest, vibrancy and diversity. 9.3.1 Building facades should be broken down in scale with off -setting planes. This can be achieved with wall offsets, recesses or with projecting elements such as bay windows, chimneys, stoops and porches. All building facades are important and require the same level of detail. Architecture at Altair will be "four-sided", meaning a high level of design and attention to detail shall be maintained for all elevations. MEW --4;77-liall11111 93.2 Proportions of building elements should be carefully considered in relation to eachother and to the building as a whole. A graceful progression of scale and proportion from the building outline to the door frame down to the door handle should inform all designs. Proportion is an opportunity to emphasize verticality or horizontality. The proportion of traditional or structural elements, in particular, shall be correct to their perceived function. For example, columns that are too tall and narrow or oddly space will detract from a building composition. 9.3.3 Indoor / Outdoor spaces, such as covered open space, trellises, screen walls and decorative fencing are inviting to pedestrians and help to distinguish public from private space. Indoor / outdoor spaces should progress from open to more enclosed and private. Landscaping should integrate built forms with complementary planting and hardscape. A courtyard functions as an outdoor room and entry foyer. November 2017 A progression of indoor/ outdoor spaces. SPECIFIC PLANFJU 9.3.4 _ Roofs should be varied with multiple planes, stepped roof lines and a variety of forms, including sloping and flat roofs. Roof terraces are highly encouraged. 9.3.5 _ Stepped buildings are encouraged to reduce the scale of large masses. Elegant transition between levels, either through roof forms or patio terraces, is critical. 9.3.6 Roof Terraces are an excellent way to vary roof forms and provide private outdoor space that looks onto public space. in Temecula's mild climate, a roof terrace can be a second living room. Roof terraces are encouraged at Altair, particularly common open space roof terraces for gathering and neighborhood events. Terraces shall be designed to support landscaping and container gardening, including drainage and irrigation, and/or self -watering pots. Example of a successful stepped building DC. November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-3 L Cr`--LI 9.3.7 Building entries are fundamental to the iconography of residential architecture. The placement, materials and design of entry doors should make a statement about the quality and character of a home. Doors of attached dwelling units such as triplexes should enter at different locations to express the individuality of each unit and support the 3-dimensional building composition. Entry doors at the side facade of end units are preferred at long row home groupings. Recessed or covered entries are recommended, as they provide both protection from weather and a transition zone from public to private . Doorways should be considered as one element of an entry procession, in combination with gates, walkways, stoops or porches. The arrangement of these elements creates of series of spaces that address the public realm (i.e. the street) and gradually introduce the visitor to the private realm. These layers of ascending privacy add security both to the home and the neighborhood as a whole. See further discussion on Building Frontage in this Section. Also see Section 9.3.3 regarding indoor / outdoor spaces. 9.3.8 Windows shall project from or be recessed into exterior walls. Sills, lintels and casing trim around windows are encouraged. Flush mounting of windows is prohibited, unless the window openings are appropriately trimmed on the exterior. Windows facing adjacent buildings should be placed to ensure privacy between neighbors. Energy efficiency should be promoted through the installation of sunscreens above windows where appropriate. The placement and proportion of windows on all sides of a building should be carefully considered. Fabric awnings at residential windows are not permitted due to maintenance issues. Recessed or framed windows like these are preferred. Flush windows without trim are prohibited. November 2017 :til=�L:iFI':' RI' 9.3.9 _ Street level facades of public, institutional and commercial buildings should have a high level of transparency and visual activity for the interest of pedestrians. Vacant or lightly used spaces such as utility or storage rooms or private offices should be avoided at street frontages of public and commercial structures. Display windows should be large and extend down to or near to the adjacent walking surface. The street level of residences may be more private, with higher or smaller windows, but should offer interesting elements such as window boxes, planters, operable shutters, decorative gates and artwork. 9.3.10 Balconies should vary in form from projecting to semi -recessed to fully recessed, particularly on large multifamily buildings. Railing materials and transparency should also vary and complement building designs. Railings are opportunities for ornament at a human scale. On multifamily buildings, the effect of repeating and grouping balconies should be considered. To be deemed useable, a balcony should have a 6 foot by 6 foot minimum area for furnishing. A projecting balcony with decorative railing. =ffliSPECMIC PLAT: H --=t= 1171 Partially recessed balconies grouped to create a design element. Thedetailingofthe rails provide a distinct character and match the building style. Balcony railings can be extended and joined to form a semi -transparent facade plane. November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 WINDOWS & BALCONIES FACE COURT Above: preferred examples of modern and traditional ga rage doors that supportthe building style. 9.3.11_ Garage doors should face away from streets wherever possible. Shared motor courts, shared driveways and alleys are preferred. Garage doors should vary in size, style and materials such as wood, steel or glass. Doors shall be of high quality and appropriate to the style of architecture exemplified in the building. Individual, single car garage doors are encouraged at double -car garages to reduce scale. LANDSCAPING AT VARIOUS HEIGHTS MATERIALS OF SIMILAR QUALITY AS STREET FRONT HIGHLY DETAILED 3 - DIMENSIONAL FACADES ENHANCED PAVING ART LOW WALL DEFINES PRIVATE SPACE ELIMINATE PAINTED LINES WALKWAY Figure 9-1 Motor Court Elements November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 9.3.12 Motor courts and alleys are shared by pedestrians and vehicles, as signified by enhanced paving and landscaping. landscape planting should vary in height to soften the space and screen private areas. Motor courts should feel enclosed by surrounding buildings and have a strong separation from the street. Motor courts, in particular, shall have elevations developed to the same quality as street facades. Facades facing alleys and motor courts shall have off -setting planes, balconies, trellises and other elements to create visual interest and reduce scale. See 9.3.11 for description of garage doors. Garages must meet the minimum size requirements defined in Section 10 in order to keep refuse containers stored in garages and out of motor courts. These garage doors are well-proportioned with the balconies above. Above: Parking between the building and street as shown here is prohibited. Open parking structures shall not be visible to or accessed from the street. Below: recessed garage doors and projecting bay windows enliven this alley in Baltimore. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-7 DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 Street 1 Ir Alignment 1 to be Detemiined Street Alignment to be Determined 4b .o, ° ti `ci e� L i 77F ySchool 4 f .___---______7 ^-~ 7 i1 t N ion 1l1 1 Fr - E1 u Figure 9-2 funding Frontage November 2017 LEGEND: Street Requiring ▪ Entry Frontage Trail or Open Space • - - • Requiring Entry or Garden Frontage 14. 0 300' 600' 1200 LLLJ I SCALE: 1" = 1200'-0" ',PEG!FIC PLANr11 9.4 Building Frontage Well designed building frontages are essential to creating a community with active streets and visual character that makes walking enjoyable and interesting. The placement of symbolic elements such as stoops, porches and overhangs identify "home". Other elements, such as arcades, are more appropriate to commercial or civic structures. These elements also establish the transition from public to private space so that pedestrians comfortably know where they are supposed to be. A properly executed facade will anchor the structure into it's site and architectural context. Flow a building meets the ground is important aesthetically and helps to define its use. A successful facade shall offer transparency and human scale to enhance the pedestrian environment. All structures facing streets, bikeways or open space shah incorporate one or more of the following frontage strategies. FIGURE 9-2 shows key streets and open space where frontage is required. Frontage shall be provided facing trails and pedestrian paths as indicated in FrGURE 9-2, such as the Class 1 Bikeways along the west and east perimeter of development. In some cases frontage may be required on multiple facades, as for a corner lot. While an entry door is not necessary on both facades, other frontage features should be provided to create a 3-dimensional design. A wrap-around porch or side porch separate from the entry element are appropriate solutions at corner Tots. Where a building fronts both a street and key open space, such as a park or ravine, both an entry front and a "garden" front, shall be provided on the appropriate opposing sides. For example, the homes along the east edge of Village F will have a street entry front facing the internal circulation road and a second front facing B Street North. Even though there is a significant grade difference, it is important that the view from public routes such as the bikeway and B Street North are not perceived to be to the "back" side of buildings. The frontage types below are described in more detail in the following sections. Building designs are not limited to these types, as long as the aesthetic goals described in the previous paragraph are met. Combining frontage elements is strongly encouraged. 9.4.1 Stoop 9.4.2 Porch 9.4.3 Recessed Entry 9.4.4 Walled Yard 9.4.5 Raised Yard 9.4.6 Entry Court 9.4.7 Shopfront 9.4.8 Arcade SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 9-9 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9-10 9.4.1 Stoop Stoops are exterior stairs and landings that provided access to elevated front doors of buildings. Stoops signify entry by providing an obvious path of access, but the vertical displacement also implies separation between the public and private realm. A person on a stoop has passed onto private property, but is still visible to and engaged with the public. The design of a stoop can thus convey a message about the structure being accessed: a straight stair with just a few steps is very accessible, whereas a high stoop with many steps or a circuitous route makes the entry more removed from the public way. Stoop Design Standards: A. At least half, and preferably all, of the stoop composition should be in the setback zone. B. Entry doors should be further enhanced with a frame, cover or some architectural treatment that is compatible with the stoop design. C. Stoops may be covered or uncovered. D. Railings or low walls should be of the same design and material for both the steps and the landing, E. Railings or low walls should be of compatible materials and design with the building and any garden fences or walls. F. Railings or low walls should be integrated with the building and any garden fences or walls. For instance, stoop walls and building walls that are parallel and of the same material should be flush. G. Large landings that can function as terraces or as places for potted plants and other site furnishings are encouraged. H. Multiple landings are encouraged where many steps are needed. I. Facades facing side streets or common space shall have windows, projections or other architectural features to add visual interest. J. Steps can either be parallel or perpendicular to the street frontage. K. Provide disabled access to buildings and residences in compliance with all applicable codes, including the ADA, CBC nd FHA Guidelines. November 2017 Figure 9-3 Straight Stoop Figure 9-4 Sideways StoOMIN ;PECIFIC PLAN MA Examples of Straight Stoop frontages. Examples of Sideways Stoop frontages. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-11 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.4.2 Porch A porch is a semi -private outdoor room that has a floor and "ceiling'; but no full walls. It offers the resident a protected place to be outdoors and watch passersby while not feeling too exposed. The cover plane of a porch may be a roof, trellis, balcony or building overhang. The floor of a porch is typically elevated above a yard or public way, at the same level or one step below the entry door sill. A front porch is typically located between the entrance and the public way and serves to transition between the public and the private realm. A porch is an element along an entry procession. The design of a porch is significant to the character and style of a building. Porches may project from the building front (Fig. 9-5) or be fully or partially embraced in the building mass (See Fig.9-6). Porch Design Standards: A. Projecting porches can be partially or entirely in the setback zone. B. Porches that are fully integrated into the building mass are typically located behind the build -to line. C. A porch may be partially projecting and partially integrated, to create multiple planes. D. Porch depth shall allow sufficient space for furnishings for sitting or dining. E. Porch covers need not be solid - a trellis is acceptable. But covers shall be static and permanent. A retractable awning or canopy is not sufficient for a porch. F. Porch lids shall be supported on columns, arches or partial walls. An overhang or cantilever alone does not define a porch. G. Entry doors may be more simply detailed when fronted or framed by a porch. H. Porch floors shall be elevated by at least 4 inches above the adjacent grade and shall be of a distinct material from adjacent paving. Figure 9-6 Integral PorcjililliV Figure 9-5 Projecting Porch November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANT']/ Example of Projecting Porch. Example of Integral Porch. Example of a Porch integrated with a balcony above in multifamily housing. L Porches should be accessed by steps that can be partially or fully recessed into the porch or may project from the porch face. A ramp may be substituted where required for accessibility and where no other compliant routes are available. J. Railings or low walls at the edges of a porch should continue down the steps with the same design and material. K. The elements of a porch shall be of compatible materials and design with the building and any garden fences or walls. L Front porches may not be fully enclosed with screening or other material. M. Facades facing side streets or common space shall have windows, projections or other architectural features to add visual interest. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-13 9-14 9.4.3 Recessed Entry A recessed entry is similar to an integral porch in that the entry door is pulled back into the mass of the building and a semi -private outdoor space is created in the entry sequence. However, the recessed entry is generally more enclosed by the building or site walls. Recessed entries are not necessarily elevated, although they can be. The design purpose is to extend the arrival sequence and create more space between public and private without a large, formal lawn. There is a playful ambiguity to recessed entries. On the one hand, the entry door is more hidden and private. On the other hand, the curiosity created by the hidden or shadowed entry invites the observer to look more closely. Recessed entries are often combined with other frontage elements, such as stoops and porches. Recessed Entry Design Standards: A. Recessed entries are placed behind the build - to line. B. Recessed entries shall be enclosed by at least two building walls. C. Recessed entries shall be covered by a building overhang or a trellis, or a combination of these. D. The overhang or trellis may be cantilevered in a recessed entry. E. Recessed entries that are not raised should be integrated withtheyard landscaping. Walkway paving materials should be continuous. F. Facades facing side streets or common space shall have windows, projections or other architectural features to add visual interest. Figure 9-7 Recessed Entry ., Preferred example of a Recessed Entry, November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANT 9.4.4 Walled Yard Walled yards are private outdoor spaces between the building and property line that are enclosed by a wall or fence at the property line. The wall or fence presents the same level of detail and visual interest to the public realm as the facade of a building does. Wailed yards do not necessarily cover the entire frontage of a lot. They are often most successful when the walls are an extension of building walls at or near the property line. While denoting privacy, walled yards should still offer glimpses of the gardens beyond. Walled yards are often combined with other frontage elements, such as raised yards and entry courts. Walled Yard Design Standards: A. Fences shall be placed at the property line. B. Solid walls shall be placed within 2 feet of the property line. The space between the wall and property line shall be densely landscaped with plants that climb over the wall or are otherwise integrated with the design of the wall. C. See guidelines for Fences, Walls and Gates for acceptable materials and other design requirements. Materials and style shall be complementary to the building form. D. Fences and walls enclosing yards shall offer some transparency into the garden, particularly at front yards. This can be accomplished by semi-opaque fencing patterns, framed openings in solid walls, see-through gates, or simply by lowering the height of the barrier. E. Gates, when open 90 degrees, shall encroach no more than 18" across the property line. In - swinging gates are preferred. F. Security measures shall be discrete and non- threatening. G. Fences or walls enclosing yards shall be decorative and shall incorporate street furniture elements such as built-in benches, lighting, artwork or potted plants. November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES Figure 9-8 Walled Yard Preferred examples of a Wailed Yards. 9-15 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9.4.4 Raised Yard Raised yards are front gardens or lawns that are elevated above the sidewalk. They are particularly useful at Altair to mitigate sloping grades in a creative way, with purpose. Raised yards can be seen as extended stoops that are used as functional space. The steps are placed at the property line, before the yard and at the beginning of the entry sequence. The building and property are elevated, as on a plinth. This arrangement can cause the building to seem more removed from the public realm than other schemes. However, it is not more private. The raised yard can sometimes seem like a stage. Careful design is needed to create a distinct zone without appearing aloof. Raised Yard Design Standards: A. Raised yards are located between the property line and the build -to line, and extend back to recessed entries or to portions of the building that are set back from the build -to line. B. Raised yards shall be contained by short retaining walls that allow some views into the yard. See retaining walls guidelines to follow. Walls retaining raised yards shall be placed at the property line. C. Raised yards more than 6 inches above the sidewalk shall not transition to the adjacent grade with a slope bank. A gradual slope (5% or less) from the build -to line to the property line does not constitute a raised yard. D. Steps shall start at the property line. E. Multiple landings are encouraged where many steps are needed. F. Steps shall be integrated with the design of the retaining wails and yard landscaping. G. Railings or low walls shall be of compatible materials and design with building and retaining walls. H. Large landings that can function as terraces or as places for potted plants and other site furnishings are encouraged. 1. Entry doors should be further enhanced with a frame, cover or some architectural treatment that is compatible with the stoop design. J. Facades facing side streets or common space shall have windows, projections or other architectural features to add visual interest. Figure 9-9 Raised Yard MO November 2017 iPECIFIC PLAN Preferred example of a Raised Yard. Example of a raised yard that does not meet Design Standards. Walls are too high and do not leave enough space between for seating or substantial landscaping. The front wall is set back from the sidewalk, leaving a narrow strip of grass. There are no steps. The overall impression is defensive rather than inviting. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 1 9 GUIDELINES 9-17 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9-18 9.4.6 Entry Court Entry courts are outdoor spaces created either by setting back a portion of a single building or by arranging multiple buildings to form a court, or a combination of both. Entry courts may be open or walled. When open, they should be combined with other frontage elements, such as stoops, framed entries and porches. Entry courts may be elevated, but must be accessible, such as a slightly raised terrace. Entry Court Design Standards: See Figure 9-13 for examples of some of these entry court elements: A. Entry courts include both the setback area and space behind the build -to line. B. If used, walls or fences enclosing entry courts shall follow the walled yard design standards as well as the guidelines for Fences, Walls and Gates. C. Entry courts used for vehicular access to parking shall be screened or enclosed. D. Entry courts shall feature enhanced paving, seating, artwork and landscaping that supports these activities. E. Entry courts shall provide dear paths to building entries. F. When an entry court is used at a building or group of buildings with multiple entries, it is not necessary that all entries face the court. G. Buildings adjacent to the street frontage or common space should have entrances facing the public way or some architectural frontage treatment to address the street or common space. Examples of Entry Courts at multifamily housing. The top example is preferred because the security gate is set back from the building face and is, therefore, more inviting. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANM Figure 9-10 Entry Court Preferred example of an Entry Court that also serves as a Bungalow Court with detached housing. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-19 DESIGN' GUIDELINES 3 9-20 9.4.7 Shopfront Shopfronts are featured at commercial, mixed- use and live/work buildings and at community institutions. Whereas the previous frontage types define a transition from public to private space, shopfronts are intended to be very public. Shopfronts are predominantly transparent, with walls or columns for structure only. Openings in walls should frame the activity or product within as a display. Shopfronts should stimulate a high level of street activity and visual interest to promote strolling. Shopfront Design Standards: A. Shopfronts are located at the property line, unless set back by an arcade. B. The floor line of the level above the shopfront shall be at least 15 feet above the sidewalk at any point adjacent to the shopfront. C. Shopfronts shall be 75% transparent at the street level, with clear, untinted glass. D. The bottom of the glass shall be no more than 18 inches above the sidewalk, and shall not slope. E. The bottom edge of shopfront glazing shall rest on a sill of tile, wood or stone. Any wall surfaces below glazing shall be decorative, such as mosaic tile. F. The top edge of shopfront glazing shall be at least 11 feet above the adjacent sidewalk elevation, but shall not slope. G. At outside building corners, shopfront glazing shall extend back a minimum of 20 feet perpendicular to the street frontage. H. Unless fronted by an arcade, shopfronts shall have awnings, canopies or a trellis to shade shoppers. I. Clerestory windows are encouraged. J. Entry doors to shopfronts shall be at least 8'-6" high. K. Entries shall be accessible to the disabled, with no step at the door sill. L. The Master Developer will develop a sign program for City approval. Figure 9-11 Shopfront November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANFI% 9.4.8 Arcade Arcades are combined with shopfronts at commercial, mixed-use and live/work buildings and at community institutions. Arcades provide shade and protection in front of shopfronts and present a uniform facade for varied buildings or entries. They also provide a outdoor space that can be lit in the evenings while avoiding light spillage to the night sky. Arcades are similar in appearance and function to galleries, except that they do not encroach over the sidewalk. Arcade Design Standards: A. The front edge of an arcade is located at the property line. See Figure 10-5. B. The arcade lid shall be solid and can support either a balcony/terrace above or a building overhang. The levels above the arcade shall comply with all setback regulations. C. Arcades in this sense may be supported on columns or arches. D. The spacing and dimension of columns or arches shall align with and be fully integrated with the design and rhythm of the facade or balcony rail above. E. The paving surface shall be of the same material and flush with the adjacent sidewalk. F. The depth of arcades shall be 8 feet minimum and 12 feet maximum from the shopfront face to the front face of the arcade at the property line. SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN I 9 GUIDELINES OCEANSIDE CITY HALL BY IRVING GILL, OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA �1 ir�l L._ 1 - 7iiiodukod. 1111 r- 11111iTS • lin Liu ARCADE AT SANTANA ROW, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA Figure 9-12 Arcade November 2017 9-21 S'to 5' REMAINING 51 DEWALK WIDTH RO.W. OR PUBLIC I DESIGN GUIDELJNES 9 9.5 Utility Placement and Screening Utility infrastructure such as water, sewer and gas mains and dry utilities will run under streets and sidewalks in public rights of way or in Public Utility and Access Easements (P.U.A.E.'s) in the case of private streets. The street section diagrams in Specific Plan Section 4.2.3 show PUAE and ROW locations for Altair streets. Placement of Rancho California Water District (RCWD) utilities for water and recycled water systems is required to comply with RCWD standards and requirements, including related advanced metering infrastructure antenna. GAS METERS & DEVICES SERVING INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS SHALL BE LOCATED IN SETBACK UTILITY DEVICES IN 5' TYPICAL PARKWAY WIDTH PADS FOR LARGER DEVICES MAY ENCROACH 1' INTO SIDEWALK UTILITY MAINS UNDER STREET UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT Figure 9-13 Utility Locations ALSO SEE FIGURES 4-13 THROUGH 4-34 Utility devices that serve common areas or multiple properties shall be located in parkways between the sidewalk and street curb. If necessary due to size, these equipment pads may encroach into the sidewalk by a maximum of 1 foot, as shown in FIGURE 9-13. If an above ground utility (such as irrigation controls, water valves, etc.) cannot be located within the parkway, the developer may create a "pop -out" easement within the building setback area to accommodate the utility. This would occur in final engineering and site planning. The purpose of such an easement must be to maximize the sidewalk width, ideally up to 7 feet. At utilities in underground vaults, the vault tray extend under the sidewalk, as long as the sidewalk remains flat. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN 9.5.1 Preferred Examples: Well placed and screened utility meters. Utility devices such as backflow preventers should be located away from public view and screened with landscaping and/or low walls, or with decorative enclosures approved by the Master Developer. Underground vaults are recommended for transformers, irrigation valves, regulators and meters whenever possible, even when serving detached housing and small lots. If vaults are not possible, then such utilities shall be screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Section 9.6. Such screening must not interfere with the use or maintenance of the device. Residential mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units shall be located on private property and screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Section 9,6. Air conditioner compressors should not be near dwelling entries. At civic, commercial and institutional buildings and large multifamily buildings, cooling towers and compressors must be located on rooftops and screened from view, including view from higher elevations. Roof top screening may be accomplished by parapets, trellises or other methods that are integrated into the building's architecture and of materials consistent with the overall composition. Satellite dishes shall be located away from public view. Trash, recycling and yard waste containers in multifamily housing, commercial and instiutional uses shall be located in enclosuresto screen them from view from any direction. Refuse enclosures shall have solid covers to prevent rainwater intrusion and windblown trash, in compliance with City of Temecula requirements. Enclosures shall be opaque for at least the height of the refuse container. See Section 9.6 for fence, wall and gate guidelines. Enclosures shall be sized per the City of Temecula Waste and Recycling Guidelines, subject to the City's franchise agreement for refuse and recycling collection and disposal. See Section 7.8 Waste Management for further information. Garage space must be provided for trash, recycling and green waste bins beyond the minimum parking dimensions prescribed in Section 10.9, SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 L. t z- 9-23 _ 9-23 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9.5.2 Examples of Discouraged Utility Placement: These utilities are not screened, block views of the building and obstruct movement. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Q( 9.6 Fences, Walls and Gates Fences and walls are limited to 6 feet high in residential areas and 3 feet high in required front setbacks, except where serving as a guardrail. Fences and walls may only be used for screening of private open spaces, motor courts, utility and refuse areas, and for safety at swimming pools, etc. There are no gated communities at Altair. Fences should not be installed to imply exclusivity or separation from the rest of the community, nor should they impede pedestrian circulation. Fences and screen walls shall be of durable, quality materials: wood, stone, plaster, steel, glass. Chain link fencing is discouraged and is not appropriate in areas visible from public view. Any chain link fencing should be black vinyl -coated. See Section 10.8 for further information. Fencesthat surround yards are encouraged to have sonie transparency. This may be accomplished with openings or gates that a passerby may peak through, or the structure of the fence itself may be semi -transparent, such as a picket fence. Fences and walls should be integrated with landscaping. Long fences and walls shall be divided into segments with some rhythm or pattern. Decorative elements such as tile, fountains and niches are encouraged. Glass fences are encouraged around community pools and along ravines and slope banks, where privacy is of less concern. !t is preferred that the glass be located above a curb or low wall at sloping grades. EXAMPLES OF ARTWORK INTEGRATED WITH FENCE. SPECIFIC PLAN Novo DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-25 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9-26 9.6.1 Preferred Fence Examples: These fences are of quality materials, are consistent with their adjacent buildings and enhance the public realm. Gates are opportunities for artistic expression. Unique ornamental gates are strongly encouraged, to signify entry as well as provide identity and character to a home. Walls for screening sound may be necessary in selected locations as identified in the environmental report. While sound walls are typically opaque, the materials used should provide texture and visual interest. Glass is also acceptable at sound walls. Sculptural forms are encouraged. Sound walls should also be integrated with landscaping. 9.6.2 Examples of Discouraged Fence Installations: In the right photo, the gate and security interface are positioned in front of the steps, creating a very defensive impression. The canopy is not suited to the fence. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANR 9.7 Slopes and Retaining Wells Altair is a sloping site and consequently has areas of extreme grade change. While major areas of elevation change, such as the Eastern Slope, are designed in this Specific Plan, there are smaller examples between homes and around patios and terraces throughout the development. These are designed either as slope banks, retaining walls, or a combination of both. Required standards for erosion control and storm water management at slopes are explained in the Grading section of this specific plan. Slopes and stepped walls are landscaped to prevent erosion and soften their appearance, as described in the Landscape Guidelines. Well-designed retaining walls are encouraged to break up large areas of slope bank. Walls are limited in height per the development standards, although walls may be used in stepped combination to accommodate greater level change. Single, large retaining walls should be avoided. Wherever retaining walls are visible to the public from a road, pedestrian walkway, bike path or from off-site, they are limited to 6 feet in height. Walls may be stepped as shown in FIGURE 9-14 where necessary to retain a taller slope. 1. Laid back segmental walls may exceed 6 feet in height and be used throughout the project as long as: a) they adhere to the wall design standards within the Specific Plan (including landscape screening in areas that are highly visible by the public), and b) they are set back from street curbs (if applicable). 2. Vertical retaining walls may not exceed 8' anywhere in the project. In areas where greater than 8' of vertical walls are desired, the wall system shall be stepped. Small-scale modular materials are preferred at retaining walls: stone, cast stone, brick. Plaster veneer, exposed textured or formed concrete and Gabion meshes are only acceptable in small areas. Segmental concrete block is acceptable only where substantially screened by plant material. The finish of segmental concrete block shall be split -face, ground face or textured. Channel block, wood, timbers, earthbags, shotcrete, galvanized sheet exposed piles, stamped or pebble -finish concrete, kribbing (i.e.Kriblock), and modular plastic are strongly discouraged as exposed materials. All walls shall have caps or tie courses at the top. Wall materials shall be graffiti -resistant or have an anti -graffiti coating. EQUAL a MSN. Figure 9-14 Retaining Wall Section where Visible to the Public SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-27 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 Figure 9-15 Stepped Buildings Slopes should be resolved through building forms to the greatest extent possible to avoid the appearance of large terraced building pads. Larger multifamily buildings on sloping sites should have entry level access for pedestrians on an upper level and vehicular access at a lower level, away from the street. Smaller buildings can also be stepped to either side of a green, alley or motor court by partially submerging lower floor garages, as shown in FIGURE 9-15. 9.7.1 Examples for Retaining Wail Design The following examples display both preferred and discouraged attributes for retaining walls at Altair. All retaining wall designs must be reviewed and approved by the Master Developer. Stone Wall PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Integrated with mixed plant palette. • Multiple planes. • Varied textures and sizes DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES • Single monotonous wall plane and top elevation November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Segmental Concrete Wall SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Wall cap • Sinuous lines • Ends of walls blend into landscape • Varied coursing DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES • No cap • Clumsy wall terminations • No landscape integration PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Wall cap • Sinuous lines • Natural color • Planting is in balance with wall height. DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES • Unattractive finish • No cap • Drain holes will stain wall • Poor construction 9-29 Formed Concrete Vegetated Wall November 2017 PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Low height • Deep plane offsets create an appealing shadow pattern DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES Artificial stone pattern is not appropriate to exposed pile structure PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Variety of color and pattern in plant palette PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Wall structure is completely hidden by plants SPECIFIC PLAN Textured Concrete Gabion Mesh SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES Interesting + unique texture • Abstract pattern DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES Pattern attempts to look like natural stone, unsuccessfully PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES • Interesting mix of colors and materials • Wall plane divided into smaller areas by built-in seating • wall cap DISCOURAGED ATTRIBUTES • Scale is too large • No termination at top or base 9-31 3UiDE:LJ ."75 9-32 9.8 Materials, Textures and Colors Materials should be durable, refined and appropriate to the building style and form, but are otherwise not limited. Limited maintenance of building finishes should be required. Architectural materials should be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Buildings should generally have two to four distinct materials, depending on building size, with two material or clor changes on a single facade. Too many materials can be as unattractive as too few. The distinction between materials shall be of texture and pattern, for a rich facade. 9.8.1 Relationship Between Materials: Materials should be used to compliment and support architectural form. Material changes should occur at volumetric breaks or offsetting planes. Material changes within the same wall plane or at outside corners is discouraged, except where necessary to a compelling design. There should be a consistency of design around all sides of a building, with materials and colors wrapping corners. Monotonous or overly consistent lines between colors or materials are discouraged. Appropriate edging and transitions shall be provided between materials, such as trim boards, reveals, edge beams and wall caps. All transitions shall be properly flashed to prevent water intrusion or material failure. 9.8.2 Materials at the Base of a building shall have a hard surface. The exclusive use of stucco is not appropriate at the ground floor of commercial, mixed use, live/work, civic or institutional buildings. Base materials should not be of a lighter quality than materials above. 9.8.3 Veneer Materials such as brick, tile and stone shall wrap outside corners and jambs and only terminate into perpendicular planes. The installation and detailing of brick and stone should be consistent with the historical use of these materials as bearing walls: solid corners, true bonding patterns, struck mortar joints, lintels and wall caps. November 2017 ur_hiC:N 9.8.4 Color Palettes should not be limited to earthtones. Facades should be developed with layers of color, accent colors and contrasting trim. Contrasting cool and warm tones are encouraged, such as warm natural wood against concrete or stucco. 9.8.5 Reflective Materia Is such as reflective glass or sheet metal should only be used in very small areas where necessary for a compelling design. Darkly tinted glass is discouraged, especially in residential buildings. Shop fronts and community buildings should have highly transparent glazing. 9.8.6 Sloped Roof Materials shall be tile, metal (standing seam or shingle}, or slate. Asphalt shingles are discouraged. Wood shakes or shingles are prohibited due to combustibility, Non-combustible (cementitious) alternative shakes may be allowed upon review of a mock-up installation. Integrated solar roof tiles are strongly encouraged. 9.8.7 Roof Dra ins should be internal wherever possible. Where gutters and downspouts are utilized, they shall be harmoniously integrated with the building design and of highly durable materials. Damaged gutters and downspouts shall be replaced immediately. 9.8.8 Decorative Paving such as brick or concrete pavers, stone or integrally colored concrete is encouraged as an accent to call attention to building entries, celebrate viewpoints or special places, and to clearly demark pedestrian paths such as cross -walks. For large paving areas pervious, light-colored paving should be used to reduce both storm water run- off and heat island affect due to solar absorption. Accent bands can be of darker materials . 9.8.9 Accessory Elements such as screen walls, secondary structures or carports should complement or match adjacent primary buildings in material selection, color and texture, as well as form. 9-33 November 2017 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 ■■N MBE • ■■■■ ■, _ ■■f # is Mt Miil�lI Shill 1 W15V13i' f_ . 8111 ,■r i— ■P 9.9 Public Art Public art is important to the success of any pedestrian environment and is, therefore, strongly encouraged throughout the community. Art enlivens spaces, aids wayfinding and serves to identify significant places. Public art can vary in scale from grand monuments to small discoveries on a quiet path. Playful art is especially appropriate in areas like playgrounds, parks, and swimming pools that are frequented by children. Everyday functional items such as bike racks, water fountains, benches, picnic shelters or trash receptacles can exhibit whimsy, craft and creativity. Common spaces should incorporate art features where possible. Art installations should be durable and protected from damage. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN E Sculptures on the Lackawanna River Heritage Trail in Pennsylvania The City of Temecula requires new development to contribute to Art in Public Places in accordance with Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code through impact fees. Recognizing that public art is a great community amenity, the Master Developer intends to install artwork throughout Altair and to then seek reimbursement of fees paid towards Art in Public Places, equal to the cost of the art and its installation costs. These installations will be in prominent locations used by the public, as seen in the examples shown in this Specific Plan. Guest developers may also choose to install permanent public artwork within their projects and may also seek reimbursement of their impact fees. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-35 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9-36 KEY PLAN LEGEND: 1. PLANTING 2. SCULPTURE 1 SPECIMEN TREE 3. COBBLE 4. PAVERS IN ROUND -A -BOUT 5. DECORATIVE CONCRETE 6. CROSSWALK 6 Figure 9-16 Roundabout 1 - Plan CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Q% 9.9,1 Roundabouts Altair features three roundabouts to calm traffic while improving traffic Flow. They also serve as artistic landmarks for the community. Each roundabout has a variety of shrubs, grasses and ground cover, boulders and cobbles as well as sculpture. Decorative pavement such as brick, granite cobbles or concrete unit pavers within the street surface further enhance the roundabout and provide a physical texture change to help slow drivers. Figure 9-17 Roundabout 1 - Elevation CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Roundabout"1", FIGURE 9-16 (Plan) and FIGURE 9-17 (Elevation), located in front of the school site includes a specimen Coast Live Oak and sculptural elements surrounded by shrubs, grasses, boulders and cobbles potentially quarried onsite during grading operations. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-37 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9-38 LEGEND: 2 16 1. PLANTING 2. SCULPTURE 3. COBBLE 4. PAVERS IN ROUND -A -BOUT 5. SPECIAL PAVING 6. TREE PITS WITH PLANTING 7. CROSSWALK Figure 9-18 Roundabout 2 - Playa Cow. EPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANA( Figure 9-19 Roundabout 2 - Elevation CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Roundabout "2", FIGURE 9-18 (Plan) and FIGURE 9-19 (Elevation), located at the Village "C" core adjacent to the Private Recreation Center and Village "C" Core Park includes a pedestrian zone with tree planters and benches connecting the various residential, commercial and recreational spaces. Roundabout "3", FIGURE 9-20 (Elevation) and FIGURE 9-21 (Plan), located at the extension of First Street includes a large sculpture and a variety of planting species in a banding pattern including shrubs, grasses, boulders and cobbles potentially quarried onsite during grading operations. Figure 9-20 Roundabout 3 - Elevation CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. =fflISPECIFIC PLAL November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 39 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 KEY PLAN LEGEND: 1. PLANTING 2. SCULPTURE 3. COBBLE 4. PAVERS IN ROUND -A -BOUT 5. BIKE PATH 6. HIKING TRAIL 7, DECORATIVE CONCRE I 8. CROSSWALK 16 FIRST STREET Figure 9-21 Roundabout 3 Plan CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Q% 9.10 Monuments and Gateways 9.10.1 Entry Statement Monument Plan Major and Minor Entry Statement Monument locations are illustrated in Figure 9-23. Major vehicular entries are located on the south and north ends of the Western Bypass and on the east at First Street. The intent of the major monuments is to denote arrival into Altair and to begin to convey the design theme of the community. Three alternatives are included to illustrate the look and feel of the major monuments at a conceptual level. 15' NO OBJECTS OVER 36" HIGH IN VISIBILITY TRIANGLE PER SECTION 10.9 7 Figure 9-22 Major Entry Monument A - Plan CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Major Entry Monument -Alternative A Alternative A, FIGURE 9-22 and FIGURE 9-23, shows a low, linear sign wall in the modern rustic motif. The materials consist of corten steel and natural colored concrete. The lettering is a large san serif font easily read from a distance. Native planting and boulders surround and frame the sign but do no block the letters, and a large Coast live Oak tree is used as an accent. A plan view illustrating the typical location of the major monument is illustrated in FIGURE 9-24. Figure 9-23 Major Entry Monument A - Elevation CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN I 9 GUIDELINES 9'-41 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9 9-42 X North Entry i I j 64" 0'0/ , I „........., ci . ...:-..., % <)". •,,' et. - -----/ e L ' . 1 .")(5, .'" 8.• / ..__ . 0- _.„4 •-•.',,, • 4- • --/ I.,_ , I/ 7 RoundabOUt -1 - Roundabout 2 6,• South Entry •+ Roundabout p Civic LL rr - T "el- 7 -in, C ente 771 1 t' . ' 1H111111 F— , L .... ., , r mfl LJu • / (1` 06; . • stS'„? • „ 0 Entry Monuments Gateway Bridge Figure 9-24 Entry Monuments + Gateways November 2017 0 300 600' 1200 SPECIFIC PLAN lig= Major Entry Monument -Alternative B Keeping with the modern rustic motif, the Alternative B, FIcuPE 9-25, features a corten steel sign panel mounted on a gabion wall. The gabion wall stone may be potentially quarried onsite during the mass grading operations. The lettering is a large san serif font easily read from a distance. Native planting and boulders surround and frame the sign but do no block the fetters, and a large Coast Live Oak tree is used as an accent. Figure 9-25 Major Entry Monument B - Elevation CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY, Major Entry Monument -Alternative C Alternative C, FIGURE 9-26, is an angled chevron shaped wedge acting as a retaining wall. This corten steel sign wall maintains the modern rustic motif and provides visual interest with planting spilling over the top. The lettering is a large san serif font easily read from a distance. Native planting and boulders surround and frame the sign but do no block the letters, and a large Coast Live Oak tree is used as an accent. Figure 9-26 Major Entry Monument C - Elevation CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. =ffliSPECTIC PLAN November 2017 DESIGN 9 GUIDELINES 9-43 DESIGN GUIDE}JNES 9 kin 9.10.2 Major Vehicular Entries The north entry to Altair is at the intersection of Altair Vista and the Western Bypass. This is a major 4 -way intersection with entries on both sides of the Bypass. The south entry is just east of the Bypass before it crosses Murrieta Creek. This entry features open space on two levels separated by stepped retaining wails and landscaping. The lower open space also functions as a drainage basin and will be planted accordingly. The upper open space is a small park at the elevation of Village F offering vistas to the southeast. Monument signage will be integrated with the retaining walls. The east entry is at the current terminus of First Street. It features a roundabout 9.10.3 Gateways In addition to the entry monuments discussed above, the bridge linking the north and south portions of Village C functions as a gateway into Altair, as seen in FIGURE 9-27. The bridge is a significant symbol of the Altair community as seen from Old Town. This bridge spans over the linear walkway leading from the central park to Main Street and frames the axial view from City Hall up the hillside to the comrnunity center and beyond. The bridge connects the two sides of "A" Street in Village C and will carry both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Therefore, this bridge will be of substantial construction and size. An arched span would also be appropriate here. 9.10.4 Village and Neighborhood Entries Village identifiers are commonly located in the focal parks or greens of each village. Monument signs that imply a separate product type or community segregation are to be avoided. Signage should be unique to each village and have a neighborhood quality. CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 .SPECIFIC PLANT 9.11 Wind Screening Due to location and topography, prevailing winds at Altair blowfrom west to east and are stronger in the afternoon. Cool air from the ocean warms as it moves eastward and is then forced up over the ridgeline just west of Altair. The air then picks up velocity as it drops down the east face of the ridge and across the Altair site. The design of al! outdoor spaces, especially roof decks, should consider orientation, landscaping and walls to screen against wind and to maintain the comfort of occupants. Courtyards are very appropriate to shelter open space from wind. Water features in particular must be designed and located to avoid overspray in windy conditions. LESS THAN 0.5% LIGHT INTENSITY ABOVE 90° HORIZONTAL PLANE 90" MAXIMUM 10% LIGHT INTENSITY IN FIRST 10° BELOW HORIZONTAL 9.12 Outdoor Lighting Altair is located approximately 20 miles from the Palomar Observatory. Therefore, exterior lighting must comply with the Zone B restrictions of the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance (Riverside County Ordinance No. 655). All fixtures shall have International Dark -Sky Association (IDA) seal of approval. LED lighting shall have a color temperature of 27001<or below to minimize blue light. Exterior lighting should provide for the security of pedestrians. However, too much lighting can be uncomfortable and distracting to neighbors. Development at Altair has been carefully sited to be unobtrusive when seen from other parts of the City. Outdoor lighting should be consistent with that goal. Large areas of lighting or high lumen levels that cause the community to "glow" shall be avoided. Parking lot lighting shall be carefully designed to minimize bright areas that can be seen from Old Town and environs. Light poles should be shorter, so that trees screen upward glare. Light fixtures shall incorporate cut-offs and appropriate lenses to eliminate glare and Tight spillover to adjacent properties. An even level of light along circulation routes is safer than contrasting areas of brightness and shadow. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 9-45 Light fixture types can help identify different levels of circulation: pedestrian -scale pole lights at public plazas, sidewalks and major walkways, low-level lighting at more private paths and trails, taller poles at vehicle -only roads, Accent lighting shall also celebrate important community design features and monuments. Only structures that are important to community identity, such as the tower or gateway bridge, shall be lit. Lighting of residential or commercial buildings is strongly discouraged. Street lights along Altair Vista should be of a consistent style, material and color, However, some variation in the pole base, or in accessories such as banners, is allowed to distinguish a village or special location. Integration of other systems - such as microcelss, wi-fi, speakers or emergency beacons - into street light poles is encouraged to mimimize redundant support structures. 9.13 Streets The streets of Altair are one of its' most important characteristics. In order for Altair to be a successful development, its' streets must have definition. They should have boundaries, usually building walls of some sort, that communicate where the edges of the street are, that set the street apart, that keep the eyes on and in the street, that make it a place. Width of the street and height of buildings, that create the boundaries of the street, set the stage. The horizontal to vertical proportion of a street determines the scale and character. The elements that are placed in the street, such as trees, landscaping, lighting and street furniture, help to humanize the street. Color and material of horizontal and vertical planes of buildings contribute to the beauty of streets as well but on their own merits will not make a street successful. Spacing of buildings along the street also contribute to the definition of streets. The closer buildings are placed gives the street clearer definition. All of these elements, to a greater or lesser degree, contribute to the beauty of the neighborhood. Chapter4 deals with the design of the principle streets included in the Grading Plan and Tentative Map. The street sections and axonometrics illustrate the quality and design intent of the streets in Altair. The secondary streets that will make up the network of streets within each village should have the same level of quality. Streets should be kept as narrow as practicable, with street parking, trees, landscaping and urban furniture to help beautify and provide a pedestrian - scaled environment. Linking the project's private drives with the surrounding streets is vital for the neighborhood and the rest of the community to avoid the characteristics of a "gated community" that isolates a project and erects barriers. Multiple entry points to the site increases connectivity to the community while providing more convenient circulation for residents and neighbors. Street Standards A street grid scaled for people is fundamental. Streets suitable for pedestrians should avoid excessive block lengths. The objective is to avoid a condition where pedestrians are forced to walk lengthy routes to get to their destination. Long blocks limit travel direction and increase travel time, distance and inconvenience for pedestrians. Pass-through points at mid -block and/ or at the corners of the development should be utilized to enhance walkability and encourage foot traffic to surrounding villages, local businesses, schools and community amenities. In order to accomplish this objective, there shall be a maximum 300 -foot distance between cross -streets or pedestrian paths to adjacent streets. November 2017 SPECS=dr. PREFERRED: URBAN GRID STREET PATTERN DISCOURAGED: SUBURBAN STREET NETWORK WITH CUL—DE—SACS 1 Figure 9-28 Street Organization Pedestrian only streets (paseos or mews) are highly encouraged to improve walkabilty. Paseos can be as narrow as 6 feet wide with adjoining yard setbacks of up to 10 feet. Where residential yard setbacks are not provided, the width of the mews shall be a minimum of 15 feet. To ensure the durability and longevity of road surfaces, upgraded concrete pads shall be utilized in turn -around areas used by heavy utility vehicles such as trash collection trucks within the project. All streets must be capable of bearing an 80,000 pound gross vehicle weight for fire trucks and equipment, per the Temecula Municipal Code and California Fire Code. 9.14 Signage Community -wide Signage Guidelines will be submitted and reviewed as more precise design evolves at Altair. Signage shall follow the general standards established in Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 17.28 Article 1, except that commercial signs are not prohibited next to residential areas and signage is allowed on awnings and canopies that project into the public right of way per Figure 10-4. The Guidelines should allow for stylistic variation between villages. There should not be a single signage theme or material used uniformly throughout Altair. Design, materials and color should support and celebrate the character and identity of the particular village, and not individual developments. While sub -development name signs are allowed for way -finding, they should be discrete and must not compete with other village signage for visibility. Signage for multifamily housing, commercial and institutional buildings should be mounted on the buildings, except at the Civic Site and school, which may have each have one major and one minor free-standing monument sign. Sign standards are discussed further in Section 10.5. Where these standards are more restrictive than those in the Municipal Code, the standards in this Specific Plan shall apply. Project Pre -application Submittal requirements for signage are outlined in Section 11.1.3.(2). Street identification signs should be consistent throughout Altair. They should be simple and legible from a safe driving distance and at night. Street signs or sign supports are not allowed to span over streets. SPECIFIC PLAID November 2017 DESIGN I 9 GLIkOELI-NES 9-47 9.15 Accessibility Altair strives to provide a supportive neighborhood for an inclusive population, especially those with physical disabilities. Development at Altair will fully comply with all applicable accessibility guidelines and regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Fair Housing Act (FHA) and California Building Code (CBC). Builders are strongly encouraged to go beyond these baseline requirements to meet the specific housing needs of the disabled. An example would be dwelling units and common spaces equipped with visual aids and open floor plans to assist the Deaf and increase resident safety. Builders are also encouraged to offer customized dwelling amenities to meet the particular special needs of buyers. November 2017 ;pTrs=BC. fi�w;+kl�i DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10.1 Application These Development Standards should be used integrally with the regulations set forth in Section 3 Land Use, the village descriptions in Section 3 and with Section 9 Design Guidelines. 10.2 Zoning Unless otherwise indicated, the standards described below and in other sections of this Specific Plan replace Chapter 17.06 "Residential Districts" of the City of Temecula Development Code in its entirety. Development regulations for the Altair Specific Plan are prescribed in the following Tables 10-1 and 10-2. Uses listed in Table 10-1 are as defined in the City of Temecula Development Code with the following additions: Live/Work means a dwelling unit with both residential and commercial uses, wherein the commercial space is at the ground floor and the commercial or business activity is conducted by the resident of the contiguous dwelling unit. Commercial activities are limited to the nonresidential and commercial uses allowed in Table 10-1. Community Gardens are shared land areas that are collectively farmed or gardened. They may be sub -divided into individual plots, each maintained by a single gardener or family, although that is not mandated. At Altair, community gardens are intended for the cultivation of non- commercial produce and ornamental plants to be consumed by local residents. The raising or use of animals is not permitted. 10.2.1 Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in all zones: Adult Entertainment Business Drive -Through Businesses Marijuana Dispensary Tattoo Studio Pawn Shop Donation Center ( temporary donation collection events are allowed ) Gas Station 10.3 Height Limits and Vertical Projections Building height limits listed 111 TABLE 10-2 are to highest roof deck. Roof parapets, railings, spires, flues, chimneys, elevators, mechanical equipment and screens, antennas, or similar architectural, utility or mechanical features may extend an additional 15 feet beyond the listed height limit. Building height shall be measured from the lowest of either pre-existing grade or proposed finished grade, as defined in City of Temecula Development Code Chapter 17.34 "Definition ofTerms". Buildings greater than 55 feet in height from the lowest floor of fire department access shall provide certain high-rise provisions in compliance with Section 15.16.020-1.1.7.1 of the Temecula Municipal Code. i="1tsF�l GiPIC PLAT. November 2017 10-1 EVELOPME1fT TAN +Pari t' , 10 Legend P C Use is permitted in subject zone Use is conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Use is prohibited in subject zone Notes 1 Parking for park visitor use only. 2 Conform with Housing Type regulations per Sections 10.10-10-22_ 3 A CUP is required if use is added after initial development. 4 Conform with "accessory dwelling" regulations per Sections 10,11-1022. 5 Permitted only as an ancillary use to the Nature Center. 6 Only a park ranger's residence is permitted, subject to City design review. 7 See Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.10, Supplemental Development Stds. Table 10-1 Permitted Uses November 2017 Description of Use ZONE: SP -AO SP -NO SP -R SP -M 5P -MR SP -E SP -C Residential 2 Single-family detached Duplex (two-family dwellings) Single-family attached (greater than two units) Multiple -family _ - P P P P F' P P P P P P P - - P 6 - - - Manufactured Homes Mobilehome Park Efficiency / Micro- Units 7 Secondary Dwelling Unit 4 - - - - - P P - - P P - - P P - - - - - - - - Group Homes Congregate care facilities (elderly or disabled) Residential care facilities ' ( For elderly, disabled, mentally disordered dependent or neglected children) Recovery or treatment facility Guest House 4 Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities 7 Bed and breakfast establishment ' 7 - - - - - - - - - C c C C C c C P P P C c c - P P P P P P C C c P P P P P F-' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Family day care homes Live/ Work Home Occupation Nonresidential Day care centers Educational, K -8th grade Educational, trade or vocational school Higher Education Nature Center / Visitor Center Conference facility Libraries Museums and galleries (nonprofit) Nonprofit dubs and lodge halls Religious institutions Institutions Hospital and Ancillary Medical Office P 3 - - - P 3 P 3 P a P - - P P P C - r: F' P F' 0 - P P - - - P P - C - - - - - P P s P s P 5 - - Commercial Retail Restaurant Offices P P P P P P P P P - - - P 5 P 5 P 5 Open Space Community Gardens Athletic Field Bicycle Paths / Trails Communications and microwave installations Game courts, badminton,tennis, racgetbell Nature centers / exhibits Parking Areas Picnic group facilities Private parks and recreation facilities Public parks and recreation facilities Recreational vehicle park Riding stable, public or private Shooting galleries, ranges, archery courses P P P C P P P 1 P P P - - C P P C P P P P - - - P C P - P P - - - 1' L. P I P P P 0 P P P P P P C - P 0 - P P I P P P - C - Legend P C Use is permitted in subject zone Use is conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Use is prohibited in subject zone Notes 1 Parking for park visitor use only. 2 Conform with Housing Type regulations per Sections 10.10-10-22_ 3 A CUP is required if use is added after initial development. 4 Conform with "accessory dwelling" regulations per Sections 10,11-1022. 5 Permitted only as an ancillary use to the Nature Center. 6 Only a park ranger's residence is permitted, subject to City design review. 7 See Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.10, Supplemental Development Stds. Table 10-1 Permitted Uses November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS Standards Village 8 Village C Village 0 Village 1 Village F Village G School g Civic Site min. rnax.3 min. maxi min. max0 min. max3r min. max.3 min. maxi min. max? min. max.a min, risax,0 i jt Minimum Lot Area N/A Minimum Lot Frontage Determined by Building Type_ See Sections 10.1.0-10.18 and Table 10-4 Setbacks (feet) 1,2 From Altair Vista Property Line 3 4 10 4 3 10 3 5 5 0 S s 0 5 5 3 - 3 - 5 From Western Bypass ROW 20 130 20 100 10 - 10 From Ridge Park Drive ROW 20 160 From CoromelITrail ROW 3 From "A" Street Property Line 0 5 From Camino Estriba ROW 10 - All other Lot Lines 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 10 9 10 0 10 0 10 9 - 0 !. aight Maximum Height (feet) 6.7 65 70 75 65 55 55 55 50 50 Maximum Stories 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 2 2 Other Requirements Park Space Minimum total area 0.95 acre 0.60 acre 5.00 acres 0.80 acres 0.50 acres 1.00 acres 0.35 acre 2.00 Minimum contiguous area 0.65 acre 0.40 acre 5.00 acres 0.80 acres 0.25 acres 0.40 acres -- 1.50 Common Open Space (sq. ft. per unit) Determined by Building Type. See Section 10.10-10.18 and Table 10-4 Private Open Space (sq. ft. per unit) Determined by Building Type_ See Sectons 10.10-10.18 and Table 10-4 Allowable Building Types Detached Housing (Section 10.11) • • a a • N '" U g Multiplex (Section 10.12) ■ 1 • # • ■. g Rowhouse (Section 10.13) ■ i 1! ■ "- il 8 Live j Work (Section 10,14) 1 we 1 ' 1 g Multifamily Walk -Up (Section 10.15) ■ II W 9 a B Multifamily Podium (Section 10.16) 11 • a • 8 Micro Unit (Section 10.17) Mixed Use (Section 10.18) = 1 • U 1 8 s Iconic Tower (Section 10.19) R` Civic Buildings (Section 10.20) .1 o School Buildings (Section 10.21) " Community Buildings (Section 10.22) ■ '� Notes: 1. Setbacks do not apply to interior lot lines. 2. See Section 10.4 for allowable encroachments into setback area. 3. At least 30% of the building frontage area must comply with the maximum setback. See Fig. 10-1 4. Measured from Boundary Road easement at Village A. 5. May be increased to 8 feet maximum where an arcade is provided per Section 9.4. 6. Structure height is measured as the vertical distance from the grade established by the Grading Plan exhibit referenced in this Specific Plan to the highest point of the parapet of a flat or mansard roof, or to the mid -point of a gable, hip or gambrel roof, Screened mechanical and electrical equipment, chimneys, towers, railings and other integral parts of a building or structure occupying no more than five percent of the roof area shall be excluded from this measurement. Photovoltaic panels and their support framework may be excluded from this measurement. 7. Buildings greater than 55 feet in height from the lowest floor of fire department access shall provide certain high-rise provisions in compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code and California Fire Code. 8. If the School District elects not to receive the land, the land may be developed with the indicated residential uses. Setback and height regulations will match Village B. The park space requirements remain. Zoning Regurations 10-3 SP1`{ -Ir -1t i'LAIJ November 2017 IDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10-4 10.4 Setbacks and Build -To Line Required setbacks are determined by the fronting street or boundary within each village per TABLE 10-2, not by zone. Setbacks are required only at the designated street and boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. 10.4.1 Build -To Line: These standards enforce a build -to line to define the streetscape and enhance the pedestrian character of Altair. Build -to lines are required at all street frontages listed in Table 10-2, so there may be multiple build -to lines on a lot. The build -to line is established by the placement of the building relative to required setbacks. The build -to line is essentially the front vertical plane of the building enclosure, To encourage multiplane facades, between 50% and 100% of the building front at street level shall be at the build -to line. Between 40% and SO% of the building front at upper levels shall be at the build -to line. The frontage -facing plane(s) of the remainder of the building must be within 30 feet maximum of the build -to line. 10.4.2 Encroachment into Setbacks: Architectural features including wall projections, eaves, overhangs, extensions, decorative materials and artwork may extend into the required setback zone. Porches, balconies, steps and landings, awnings and canopies (with or without vertical support) may encroach into setbacks, provided that the aggregate of these elements does not exceed 75% of the frontage length. Bay windows and chimneys may encroach no more than 2 feet 6 inches into setbacks. SCTBM,k FIR INIf 1Q-2 i El Figure IO -1 Allowable Setback Encroachments AlionAll FWD PORCHES MO PORCHES BI PPORHHC 1 RR cES mat WY BE LOCATED 11 THE SETBACK, IICLOOPOS COLUMNS. mats, WA Was, wit me MPS osmium *ITN THE POOCH November 2017 3PEIrS21C. 4"#�/ liBUILDING HEIGHT PER TABLE 14-2 EAVES, CORNICES AND ROOF INDIRA/CS swr BE LOCATED TRE SETBAC1 ENTRY (NDIPIANCS h GRN4IENI tor PROJECT INFO THE SETBACK PALMS CR LOP WO SHALL MOT EMcw[)ACJ+ BMW THE PROPERTY LINE STOOPS HAY BE LOCATED ThE SEIBAC14 a. PER 741.1 10-2 a. Figure 10-2 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Stoop SPECIFIC PLAN gm* SERVO PER TRW I0-2 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS MELEES MO Sys NAT RE LOCATED IN THE SETBACK GARDEN OALLS NAT BE LOCATED I lid SETBACK, WALLS ALL BE INTEGRATED wITR LANDSGAPVG. SEE DESIGN GUIDELINES. 2 Figure 10-3 Allowable Setback Encroachrnents - WalIs+Trellises November 2017 10-5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-i, BUILDING HEIGHT PER TABLE 10-2 BALCONIES, EYEBROWS AND ROOF OVERHANGS MORE THAN 8'-0' VERTICALLY ABOVE TF€ SIDEWALK MAY OVERHANG THE PROPERTY LINE BY UP TO 2'-0' SIGNAGE PERMITTED IN ETHER LOCATION WAL MOUNTED AWNINGS OR CANOPIES MORE THAN 8'-O" VERTICALLY ABOVE 114E SIDEWAtX MAY OVERHANG THE PROPERTY LINE BY UP TO BLADE SIGNS MAY OVERHANG PROPERTY LINE BY S BUILT-IN PLANTERS WY BE LOCATED iN THE SETBACK SETBACK PER TABLE 10-2 Figure 10-4 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Awnings, Balconies, Roofs November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDING HEIGHT PER TABLE 10-2 SEIIRtADI PER TABU 10-2 :L11NL'k ANY Lil PLACID IU B' -If M Mitt* Ak wtCA It P; MATO AND - rAL€ llr M :U. is AI 1'IiiN'h If1Y' IIMh BALCONIES MORE THAN B'-0" VERTICALLY ABM THE SIDEWALK MAY OVERHANG THE PROPERT, UNE EY UP 10 2'-0" SOME MAY PROJECT INTO SETPACK ARCADES OR CANOPIES SUPPORTED ON COLUMNS WY NOI LXI}JVL1 BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE. Figure 10-5 Allowable Setback Encroachments - Arcades SPEcIt-lc PLAii November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS 1 4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS t4 '10-8 10.5 Signage Signage shall follow the general standards established in Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 17.28 Article 1, except that commercial signs are not prohibited next to residential areas and signage is allowed on awnings and canopies that project into the public right of way. 10.5.1 General Sign Standards: 1. A community -wide Sign Program for the Altair Specific Plan area may be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. 2. Individual development projects shall include signage exhibits with each Pre -Application Submittal to the City of Temecula per Section 11.1.3 (2). 3. All signs erected or modified in style, color or construction shall obtain a sign permit and shall be consistent with the Altair Sign Program and with approved Pre -Application exhibits. 4. Pylon signs and internally illuminated cabinet signs are prohibited. 5. Internally illuminated channel letters are discouraged. External illumination is preferred at all signs. 6. Illumination for signs must comply with the Zone B restrictions of the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance (Riverside County Ordinance No. 655) and with the MSHCP Urban/ W ildla nds Interface Guidelines. 10.5,2 Building -Mounted Sign Standards; 1. Building signs include wall -mounted, window, blade and awning signs. 2. Commercial and office uses may have two signs for each business. The signs may be of two different types listed above. 3. Signs shall not be located above the finished Floor elevation of the level above street level. The only exception shall be for only retail or restaurant uses above street level, where a sign for that establishment may be mounted at the main floor level far that retail or restaurant space. Sign Band Integrated with Architecture Window Sign No Signs Allowed Signs Permitted Floor Line Figure 10-6 Building -Mounted Signs November 2017 SPECIFIC PLA 1 7 4. Signs shall be integrated into the building's architecture in style, location, proportion and materials. Building designs should provide logical locations for signage, while avoiding monotony across a long facade. 5. Sign colors shall provide sufficient contrast to be dearly legible, while complimenting the color scheme of the building. 6. Signs are allowed on awnings. Awnings may project into the public right of way or street easements per Figure 10-4. 7. Awnings shall be of canvas or other durable fabric. Hard plastic or vinyl awnings and internally illuminated awnings are prohibited. 8. Window signs are allowed in commercial, institutional, live/work and mixed-use buildings, but should not block or obscure transparency. Window signs are only permitted at street level. WINDOW SIGN THAT BLOCK TRANSPARENCY LIKE THESE SHADE SIGNS ARE PROHIBITED 9. Blade signs are allowed and may encroach into setbacks as shown in Figure 10-5. Blade signs may also project into the public right of way or street easements by up to three feet. 10. The vertical clearance below blade signs and hanging signs shall be 8'-0" minimum. 11. Blade signs shall not be internally illuminated. 12. See Building Types in Section 10.10 through 10.22 for other restrictions on signage. 10.5.3 Monument Sign Standards: 1. Each residential development is limited to one (1) monument sign. 2. External illumination is required for monument signs. 3. Monument signs shall be integrated into the landscape design. 4. Monument signs are limited to one place name or business name, except directional signs may include multiple place names. 5. Monument signs for residential developments are limited in size to 32" high and 60" wide. Figure 10-7 Monument Signs 10.5,4 Sign Size and Scale; Signs shall be of an appropriate size and scale for a pedestrian, smart growth neighborhood. Auto - oriented signage is discouraged. Signs shall not be oriented toward the freeway or Western Bypass. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 32" max. 10-9 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1') 10.6 Conceptual Landscape Pian The landscape at Altair will be a key contributor to creating the community's sense of place. The plan will feature natural (native) landscaped open spaces and natural materials such as boulders and cobble contrasted with contemporary elements and materials of design such as torten steel or gabion walls. The preserved and restored natural open space, the Western Bypass streetscape and the Coromell Trail streetscape will lean towards a natural feel similar to the surrounding hillsides, while the urban villages, village streetscapes and parks will have a more refined contemporary flavor. Primarily native as well as non-native low water use plants will be introduced into the urban village areas and parks using dean, geometric patterns. Figure 10-8 categorizes the primary landscape tree types, quantity and arrangement for Altair along with areas of preserved open space and restored open space. Tree types are categorized in Appendix A. (This list is intended as a general guideline and is not all inclusive.) Restored natural open spaces and slopes will utilize the "Tyson Method" supplemented with additional native container stock and/ or seed. The Tyson Method removes (scrapes) the existing vegetation and top layer of seed -bearing topsoil from native areas slated for mass grading, grinds the plant/topsoil mixture and stores it in windrows, then redistributes the material back onto the surface of the completed manufactured slopes. This provides a natural seed bank and mulch material which helps to prevent erosion and encourages natural regrowth of the former vegetation. Container stock and seed for open space restoration (excluding trees) shall be propagated and collected from existing open space areas to ensure genetic compatibility and planted in addition to the Tyson Method mixture. Open space drainage draws, bioretention areas and bioswales shall be landscaped with native riparian vegetation. The fist of shrubs, groundcovers and vines in Appendix A provides an opportunity to create a predominantly low water use landscape within the landscape theme of the community. (This list is intended as a general guideline and is not all inclusive.) Figure 10-9 through Figure 10-12 conceptually illustrate the landscape of each Village Planning Area. Building massing is shown on these exhibits only in order to convey potential landscape areas and urban fabric as related to the landscape, trails, bikeways, key walkways, streets, parks, and open space. Figure 10-13 shows the location of street trees referenced by street in Appendix A, Plant Lists. Trees shall be selected from the range of species designated far each street. Please refer to the Circulation Plan -Vehicular, Circulation Plan -Pedestrian/ Bicycle, Open Space and Recreation Plan, and Entry Statement Monumentation Plan for additional design requirements and landscape illustrations for each of those planning categories. November 2017 PRESERVED / RESTORED OPEN SPACE VILLAGE 'A' PARK VILLAGE 'B' PARK vrise40 SCHOOL RECREATION HOA RECREATION CENTER I CLUBHOUSE UPPER STAIRCASE SEATING PLAZA PROMENADE VILLAGE `C' CORE PARK MAIN ST. PLAZA 1•.r S;reet OLD TOWN .4 GRAND STAR VILLAGE 'D' PARK 'VILLAGE 'E' PARK I VILLAGE 'F' PARKS { WILDLIFE FENCE CIVIC SITE cure 10-8 Conceptuak Landscape Pan CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY, SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS 10-11 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-12 NAT URAL SLOPES USING TYSON MF THOD. HYDROSE ED AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TYP. (TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED) PRESERVED OPEN SPACE ■ TEMPORARY SLOPESNYDROSE EA PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TYP (TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED? TREES CONCENTRATED AT TOE OF SLOPE FOR A NATURAL CHARACTER WESTERN BYPASS TREES CLUSTERED WITH VARIABLE SPACING FROM 15' TO 100' WITH AN AVERAGE COUNT OF Sp' ON CENTER ( NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON HE PLOD. HYDROSEED AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES ?PERMANENTLY IRRIGATED] TREES CONCENTRATED AT TOE OF SLOPE FOR A NATURAL CHARACTER AND TO PRESERVE SCENIC VIEWS. TYP STREET TREES WITHIN URBAN VILLAGES SPACED 2d' 0 C TO REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND T❑ PROVIDE SHADED SIDEWALKS. PYP Figure 1©-9 Landscape Exhibit 1 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY: ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN n • DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD, HYDROSEED AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TYP {TEMPORARILY tRRIGATEDI NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD, HYDROSEED AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES, TYP (PERMANENTLY IRRIGATEDi El TEMPORARY SLOPES HYDROSEED PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. rep {TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED) SHADE TREES Al BIKEWAY AND TRAIL TO REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND TO PROVIDE A COMFORTABLE CIRCULATION CORRIDOR. WESTERN BYPASS TREES CLUSTERED WITH VARIABLE SPACING FROM 15' TO is WITH AN AVERAGE COUNT OF 40' DN CENTER. r PRESERVED OPEN SPACE ■ DRAINAGE DRAW WITH NATIVE RIPARLAN VEGETATIDN TREES CONCENTRATED Al TOE OF SLOPE FOR A NATURAL CHARACTER AND TO PRESERVE SCENIC VIEWS, TYP STREET TREES WITHIN URBAN VILLAGES SPACED 24' O.C. TO REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND TO PROVIDE SHADED SLDEWALKS. TYP Figure 10-10 Landscape Exhibit 2 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY: ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-13 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-14 C ■ • NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD. HYDROSEE❑ AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TEP. ITEM PORARILY IRRIGATED) NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD, HYDROSEED AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TYP. {PERMANENTLY IRRIGATED) TEMPORARY SLOPES HYDROSEED PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. TYP [TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED) TREES CONCENTRATED AT TOE OF SLOPE FOR A NATURAL. CHARACTER AND TO PRESERVE SCENIC VIEWS. TYP SHADE TREES AT TRAIL TO WESTERN BYPASS TREESI REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND CLUSTERED WITH VARIABLE p EFFECT AND TO PROVIDE A SPACING FROM 15' TO 100` f M COMFORTABLE CIRCULATION WITH AN AVERAGE COUNT 1 CORRIDOR. OF 40' ON CENTER SHADE TREES AT BIKEWAY TO REDUCE URBAN HEA1 ISLAND EFFECT AND TO PROVIDE A COMFORTABLE CiRCULATIO CORRIDOR 1 STREET TREES WITHIN URBAN VILLAGES SPACED 24' O.0 TO REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND TO PROVIDE SHADED SIDEWALKS. TYP Figure 10-11 Landscape Exhibit 3 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANRL NATIVE SLOPE RESTORATION USING TYSON METHOD. HY DROSEE D. AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GLIIDLINES. TYP (TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED) DEVELOPMENT) 10 STANDARDS PRESERVE OPEN SPACE NATIVE TREE SCONCETRATED AT TOE OF SLOPE FOR NATURAL CHARACTER.TYP PRESERVE OPEN SPACE i Figure 1a-12 Landscape Exhibit 4 -1111111111r 11111111111 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. 10-15 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1[1 WESTERN BYPASS ALTAIR VISTA COROMELL TRAIL A STREET B STREET C STREET % ROUNDABOUT Refer to the Vehicular Circulation Plan for spacing and quantities per street. Refer to the plant list Appendix for tree species and species percentages per street. Figure 10-13 Street Tree Plan November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN Q( 10.6.1 Landscape Development Standards 1. All detailed landscape plans shall be prepared by a California licensed Landscape Architect for review and approval by the City of Temecula. 2. "Master Developer" and perimeter "Unit Tract" walls and fences will be prohibited at Altair to accommodate and encourage pedestrian and vehicular circulation throughout the community. Walls and fences are allowed for areas such as private residential courtyards, pool enclosures, or other areas where fences are required for safety. Fence materials shall be compatible with the architectural schemes and may include tubular steel view fence, stucco, stone veneer, or material that matches building architecture. Materials such as barbed wire and chain link are prohibited, except as noted in Section 10.8. Also se Section 9.6 for fence wall and gate design guidelines. 3. Retaining walls shall be softened or screened with trees, shrubs and vines. See Section 9.7. 4. At the time of recordation of any final subdivision map which contains greenbelts or open space areas, the subdivision shall have those common areas conveyed to the property owners association or appropriate public maintenance entity either in fee title or as an easement, 5. Ail planting, irrigation and built elements of open space, parks, streetscapes, monuments, walls, fences, street furnishings, pedestrian bridges, and slopes shall be maintained by an IiOA, private maintenance association, or public maintenance entity. 6. Ali landscaping shall meet the City of Temecula Water Efficient Ordinance, Chapter 17.32 of the City of Temecula Development Code or to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 7. AN loading, service, parking areas, and trash enclosures shall be screened with appropriate green -screens, vines, trees or shrubs at the direction of the City of Temecula. 8. The minimum sizes for trees, shrubs and groundcover shall meet City Code requirements. 9. All parking lot landscaping shall be consistent with the City of Temecula Development Code requirements. 10. Slopes shall be revegetated with trees, shrubs, groundcover, and seed (or mulch) to prevent erosion control, 11, Typical residential front yard landscape requirements shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Development Code, Special lots or configurations shah have modified landscape standards approved by the Planning Director. 12, Graded or disturbed areas not to be developed shall be treated per the approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, 13. Developers/ applicants of each property shall ensure that plantings at maturity will not interfere with utility lines and traffic sight lines. EIPEdaFit November 2017 10-17 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 14. Horticultural soil tests and recommendations shall be required for each developed area based on the proposed plant list for that area. (CA native plants require different horticultural amendments compared with ornamental plants and this shall be reflected in the test recommendations.) 15. All landscape areas shall be designed with a permanent below grade irrigation system based on current code requirements and the latest efficiency technologies. Restored native slopes may utilize a temporary system until established, but shall also be below grade and shall be shut off after full establishment. 16. Each landscape area shall be maintained by the landscape installer for a minimum of 90 days prior to the perpetual maintenance entity taking control of that area. 17. Weather -based or Soil moisture -based irrigation controllers shall be set to "automatically adjust" on or before day 60 of the 90 -day maintenance period. The installing contractor shall make fine-tuned adjustments to each station as necessary during days 60 to 90 of the 90 -day maintenance period in order to maximize water efficiency and plant health. 18. The landscape palette shall conform to the State of California Model Landscape Ordinance. 19. All landscape design and plant selection shall be compatible with recycled water use. 20. Plant species identified in Table 6-2 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) shall not be used in areas adjacent to the MSHCP corridor and/or native open space. 21. Recommend a guideline for care and long term maintenance of Oak trees be established. 22. Espaliers, or columnar small tree/clipped hedge, and vines should be used to soften building massing where limited planter areas and/or building density does not allow adequate room for typical tree placement or shrub massing. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLArJU1( 1O 6.2 Natural (Permanent) Slopes: All permanent natural slopes (See Conceptual Landscape Plan for Locations) shall be revegetated with native landscaping utilizing native container stock and seed in addition to the "Tyson Method". The Tyson Method removes (scrapes) the existing native vegetation and top layer of seed -bearing topsoil from native areas prior to mass grading, grinds the plant/topsoil mixture and stores it in windrows, then redistributes the material back onto the surface of the completed manufactured graded slopes. This provides a natural seed bank and mulch material which helps to prevent erosion and encourages natural regrowth of the former vegetation. Except for boxed and larger container trees, supplemental container stock and seed for slopes should be collected and propagated from existing open space areas prior to grading to ensure genetic compatibility. Restored plant communities shall be designed to be consistent with the plant communities of the adjoining open space (i.e. Diegan coastal sage scrub next to Diegan coastal sage scrub, Southern mixed chaparral next to Southern mixed chaparral, etc.) especially along the Western Bypass Corridor and preserved natural open space areas. Slope banks five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes between 5;1 and 2:1 shall, at a minimum, be irrigated and landscaped with a combination of appropriate shrubs, vegetative ground cover, and mulch that will absorb rainwater and reduce runoff for erosion control. All trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary the slope plane. If drip irrigation is used on slopes, a fertilizer injector system shalt also be used. A. Slope banks five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or equal to 3:1 shall, at a minimum, be irrigated and landscaped with a combination of appropriate shrubs, vegetative ground cover, and mulch that will absorb rainwater and reduce runoff for erosion control, and to soften their appearance as follows: 1. One 15 -gallon or larger tree per each six hundred square feet of slope area. Large growing native trees, such as Coast Live Oaks, shall be clustered and concentrated at toes of slopes to emulate patterns found in nature (bigger trees in wetter areas at bottoms of slopes) and to accommodate views from residential pads. (Small native trees including Toyon, Laurel Sumac, Lemonadeberry, and Sugar Bush may be used an the remaining slope areas to meet the intent of this requirement); 2. One 1 -gallon or larger shrub for each one hundred square feet of slope area; and 3. Appropriate vegetative ground cover that will absorb rainwater and reduce runoff. =115PE ; November 2017 t0 -t9 aEVELOPIAE11T SIAt+MOAK:5 t' 10-20 B. In addition to the requirements above, slope banks in excess of ten feet in vertical height with slopes greater or equal to 2:1 shall also provide a 5 -gallon or larger tree per each one thousand square feet of slope area. Large growing native trees, such as Coast Live Oaks, shall be clustered and concentrated at toes of slopes to emulate patterns found in nature (bigger trees in wetter areas at bottoms of slopes) and to accommodate views from residential pads. (Small native trees including Toyon, Laurel Sumac, Lemonadeberry, and Sugar Bush may be used on the remaining slope areas to meet the intent of this requirement). Western Bypass Corridor stapes, as illustrated on the Conceptual Landscape Plan, shall comply to the requirements above and shall be irrigated on a temporary basis until establishment (estimated 3 to 5 years) or non -irrigated (only if planted during the appropriate season with the approval of the City.) -Refer to Section 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.3 Temporary Slopes: Temporary Slopes occur within Villages and are likely to be re -graded during the construction of that village. Temporary slopes are illustrated on the Conceptual Landscape Plan and shall be hydroseeded and temporarily irrigated. -Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.4._1-1iking Trails, Bikewys: Restored natural open spaces and slopes adjacent to the hiking trails and bikeways will utilize the same landscape guidelines as Natural (Permanent) Slopes. Larger native trees shat) be clustered around trails and bikeways to provide a natural appearance and shade for pedestrians. -Refer to Sections 4 and 8 for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. Key Pedestrian Walkways: When not within natural slope areas, key pedestrian walkway areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total ptanting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. trrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Recreational turf shall be provided for recreational use areas only per City standards. -Refer to Section 4 Circulation and Section 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. November 2017 10.6.5 Drainage Draws. Bioswales, Retention/Detention/Water Quality _Basins Drainage Draws, Bioswales, and Retention/ Detention/ Water Quality basins shall be designed using low water use native plants at the tops of slopes and medium to higher water use native plants towards the bottom of slopes and the bottom of swales and basins, The intent is to re-create a native riparian ecosystem of concentrated canopy trees such as California Sycamore, Cottonwood, and Cost Live Oak with an understory of native grasses and shrubs. (Trees may be reduced or eliminated for narrow bioswale areas if necessary based an site constraints), - Refer to Section 6 Infrastructure and Utilities for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.6 Roundabouts: These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCaI native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water us- age. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) - Refer to Section 9 Design Guidelines for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.7 Entry Statements: These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) - Refer to Section 9 Design Guidelines for additional information. - Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.8 Park and Recreation Areas: These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%, Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation far trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Recreational turf is encouraged for park and recreation areas. Turf areas shall be wide and long enough to allow passive or active recreation uses per City standards. - Refer to Sections 3 and 8 for additional information. -Refer to the Appendix for plant list. SPE daFit PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 — 10.6.9 School: These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants rnay be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water,) Recreational turf is encouraged for school recreation areas. Turf areas shall be wide and tong enough to allow passive or active recreation uses per City standards. -Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.10 Villages A, B, C, 0, E, F, G: It is intended that the Village areas use a combination of SoCat native and non-native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Although the plant species will be the same or similar to the natural areas, it shall be designed in more defined patterns (such as blocks of snatching plant material, interesting angles, or geometric patterns) rather than natural organic patterns. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maxim urn of 25%. Irrigation For trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Recreational turf shall be provided for recreational use areas only per City standards. -Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.11 Civic/ Community: These areas shall use a combination of SoCal native and non- native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 50% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 50%. Areas adjacent to native open space shall use 100% natives. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 75% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 25%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants rnay be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Recreational turf shall be provided for recreational use areas only per City standards. -Refer to the Appendix for plant list. 10.6.12 Parking Lots. All parking lot landscape shall be consistent with the city's adopted water efficient landscape ordinance as listed in Chapter 17.32 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Parking areas shall have a minimum of a five foot perimeter planting area. A minimum of one tree per Four parking spaces shall be provided. Trees shall be broad canopy species and at least fifteen - gallon in size at installation. Planting islands are required at the end of each parking bank and every ten spaces. Islands shall be a minimum of five feet wide and as long as the adjacent parking space. Each island shall have one tree and a combination of shrubs and groundcover. -For additional requirements, see Temecula Municipal Code, Chapter 17.24.050.H November 2017 10.6.13 Shade: The utilization of shade trees and shade structures is encouraged considering the climate in Temecula. Street trees in the urban village areas are spaced at 24' o.c. to optimize the shade canopy over the sidewalks and to reduce the urban heat island effect. The conceptual village park plans found in the Section 3 illustrate how shade trees, shade structures, and shade sails may be incorporated to provide shaded outdoor spaces. Clusters of native trees are also encouraged along bikeways and hiking trails in the natural open space areas to shade pedestrians. Figure 10-14 Urban Parkway with Tree Grate Figure 10-15 Urban Parkwraywith Planter Pocket 1.0.6.14 Tree Grates: This specific plan intends to provide a variety of street types, with both landscape parkways and urban parkways. Urban parkways may use either planting pockets or tree grates. Tree grates shall be used in higher pedestrian traffic areas. Tree grates shall complement the grates in ©id Town. When planter pockets are used, plants shall be greater than 24" in height and robust/ hardy to prevent pedestrians from walking over them. -Refer to Section 4 Circulation for additional information. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS 10-23 DEVEk OPMElr TANDANDs fD 107 Parking Parking Lot Dimensions: The standard minimum parking space shall be nine feet wide by eighteen feet long. In exchange for electric vehicle charging stations or extensive bike rack systems above the minimum requirements, the Planning Director has the option to allow up to 10% of the required parking stalls to be cornpact stalls with minimum dimensions of eight feet wide by sixteen feet long. Parking spaces are required to have clear delineation with paint or other easily distinguishable material. Drive aisles shall be a minimum of fourteen feet wide for one-way aisles, and directional signs and arrows shall be provided. When tire apparatus access is required, the minimum driveway width shall be twenty feet for one-way traffic and twenty-four feet for two-way traffic. 10.7.1 Off-street parking and loading shall comply with City of Temecula Development Code Chapter 17.24, except as modified below and in Table 10-3. These modifications recognize that Altair is a pedestrian -oriented community where residents will walk to recreation facilities, restaurants, etc. A key principle of walkable and sustainable communities is the reduction of parking requirements, in order to change the mindset from driving to walking or cycling on short trips and to reduce the amount of space taken up by parking, which in turn allows the community to be more compact and walkable. Ride Share programs are encouraged to reduce traffic and parking demand. A higher proportion of enclosed and covered parking is mandated for residential uses to reduce the size of open parking areas and maintain the aesthetic quality of the community. Large parking areas are to be avoided, and are limited to locations of high parking demand, such as near the community center, school and park or at the civic use on the south parcel. Parking for the Recreation Center, Clubhouse and Park in Village C will be available to the public on a first come, first served basis. However, school parking will be prohibited in those Tots. Parking on the school site will be for the exclusive use of the school on days when school is in session. On days when the school is closed, the school parking lot will be open to the public. A designated, permanent loading/unloading space shall be provided at each Village, and may provide shared use by multiple Tots within that village. The size shall be Targe enough to accommodate moving and delivery trucks and ride share services. The loading space may be either off-street or on -street, including on Altair Vista. November 2017 Description of Use Required Number of Spaces Additional Requirements Residential uses i Single-family residence Detached residence 2 enclosed spaces per residence - Guest or service parking shall be provided for all residential uses at a rate of one space for every 10 dwelling units, unless rioted otherwise* See Note 1. Duplex (two-family dwellings) 2 enclosed spaces for each unit within the duplex Single-family attached (greater than two units) 1.5 enclosed spaces per unit plus 0.5 covered space per unit Multiple -family residential 1 bedroom or less 1 covered space per unit - Guest or service parking shall be provided for all residential uses at a rate of one space for every 10 dwelling units, unless noted otherwise. See Note 1. Providesecured bicycle parking for multifamily residential uses at a rate of 0.5 spaces per unit, Units with individual enclosed garages are exempt from this requirement. See Note 3 2 bedrooms 15 covered spaces per unit plus 0.5 uncovered spaces per unit 3 bedrooms or more 2 covered spaces per unit plus 0.25 uncovered spaces per unit Efficiency Units (micro -units) 0.5 covered spaces per unit Transitional Housing 0.5 covered spaces per unit Congregate care facilities (elderly or disabled) 0,5 covered spaces per unit plus 1 guest space for every 8 units Residential care facilities + group homes 1 covered space for every 3 residents Guest House Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities Bed and breakfast establishment 1 space per guest room or suite Family day care homes As required by Section 17.06.050(1) of the Temecula Municipal Code Live/ Work Same as for applicable Multiple -family residential unit plus 0.5 uncovered space per unit for customers Home Occupation Same as for applicable residence Nonresidential Uses Nature. Center 120 spaces per Section 3.13 Bicycle Spaces: Ncrce3 1 space for every 10 vehicle spaces Note 2 Educational (trade or vocational school; higher ed) As required by Temecula Municipal Code, Table 17.24.040 Conference facility Religious Institutions 1 space for every 3 seats or 1 space per 35 gross square feet (gsf) 1 space for every 20 vehicle spaces Libraries, museums, galleries 1 space per 300 gross square feet (gsf) 1 space for every 10 vehicle spaces Recreational facilities (including pools) 1 space per 1,000 sf gross of recreation area Office 1 space per 300 gross square feet (gsf) Retail 1 space per 400 gross square feet (gsf) 1 space for every 20 vehicle spaces Restaurant, lodge hall, club 1 space per 200 gross square feet (gsf) Notes. 1. Guest parking requirement may be satisfied by on -street parking on internal Village streets and on A Street, Street parking on Altair Vista may not he used to satisfy the residential guest parking requirement. 2. Parking requirements at elementary school will be determined by Temecula Valley Unified School District, as approved by the City of Temecula. 3. No bicycle or motorcycle credits will be given for vehicle parking spaces, Table 14-3 Parking Requirements 4=KiiiisiAXPECYC Ptifs November 2017 OEVELOPMENT STANDARDS t' 10-26 10.7.2 On -street parking Safe and enjoyable pedestrian circulation is critical in the Altair Specific Plan. Street parking has been found to increase pedestrian safety and comfort by slowing traffic speeds and by separating traffic lanes from sidewalks. Therefore, street parking is strongly encouraged in this specific plan, including at internal streets and alleys. Street parking is provided on one side of Altair Vista, This will aleviate overflow parking from the parks in villages C and D. Guest parking requirements listed in Table 10-3 may be satisfied by on -street parking on internal streets, but not on Altair Vista. Striping is not required for parking on private streets, 10.7.3 Parking Standards "Enclosed" parking shall be located in a private garage with a door. "Covered" parking may be located in a garage or under a trellis, roof, building overhang or solar panels. No parking may be located between a building and the street, except in the case of motor courts where some buildings may be to the rear of the court. See the Design Guidelines for motor courts. Parking is prohibited in setback areas. Garage doors shall not face the street. Garage doors and parking may front alleys and motor courts. 10 7.3 Bicycle. parking shall be provided per Table 10.4. Bicycle parking for multifamily residential uses shall be in a secure room or secure garage. Bicycle parking for office uses shall be located in lockers or a secure room. All other bicycle parking may be on exterior racks designed to be used with personal locks. Bicycle parking shall comply with the Design Standards in Section 17.24.040(F)(3) of the City of Temecula Development Code. 103.4 Motorcycle parking shall be provided to meet the requirements of Section 17.24.040(G) of the City of Temecula Development Code, No bicycle or motorcycle parking credits will be given for vehicle parking spaces. 10.73 Landscaping of parking areas shall comply with Section 10.6 Landscape Standards and Appendix A Plant List. 10.8 Fences, Hedges and Walls Fences, hedges and walls are limited to 6 feet high in residential areas and 3 feet high in required front setbacks, except where serving as a guardrail or enclosing a pool or other hazard. The design and materials of fences and walls shall comply with the Design Guidelines in this plan, Sections 9.6 and 9.7. Exceptions at sports fields and dog parks may be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. 1O8,1 Site Visibility A triangular site visibility area shall be provided at all street intersections, with each leg of the triangle measured at 15 feet from the curb return. Nothing may be Located or allowed to grow in the visibility area which obstructs visibility and is taller than 36 inches from the top of the curb, Site visibility areas are not required at alley or driveway intersections with streets. November 207 SPE SIT. 10.9 Refuse and Service Areas There are a variety of housing types at Altair that will receive services such as trash pickup in different ways depending on the extent to which facilities are shared within the sub -development. A multifamily apartment building over a common garage both generates and disposes of refuse differently than a household in detached housing or a commercial building. Guidelines for each building type are included in the following sections, with general information below. The City of Temecula contracts with a private waste disposal service, currently CR&R inc., for collection of trash, recycling and organic waste, The franchise agreement for these services will guide the type and quantity of waste bins, storage areas and collection routes for waste disposal and recycling. Single-family detached homes typically have three bins one for each type of waste collected) that are stored in private garages or other enclosures and shoved to the curb on collection day. Multiplex housing and rowhouse developments may store all refuse bins, including trash and recycling, in a common location by demonstrating that adequate space is provided for the number of dwelling units and other uses, as approved by the Planning Director and the franchise hauler. Live/Work and multifamily housing projects that do not have private garages, mixed use, commercial and institutional buildings will have common enclosures for waste bins with space for trash, recycling and organics. Compactors are encouraged to reduce the quantity of bins and resultant space needed. For Live/Work units, the commercial and residential bin requirements should be calculated separately for the areas of each use. Larger mixed use projects should have separate trash rooms or enclosures for commercial and residential uses. Residential podium buildings greater than three stories and over 30 dwelling units, with a common garage, are strongly encouraged to provide trash and recycling chutes to a common trash room, typically in the garage. When stored in private garages, sufficient space must be provided for the three bins outside of the required parking space (205x20' for 2 -car garage, 10'x20' for single -car and 10'x36' for tandem garages). There also must be adequate clearance to manuever the bins past parked cars and out to the street. Refuse enclosures shall he opaque for at least the height of the tallest waste container and must have a solid cover to prevent rainwater intrusion and windblown trash, in compliance with the City of Temecula Water Quality Management Plan, Common waste bin enclosures shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code and the City of Temecula Waste and Recycling Guidelines for Commercial and Multifamily Housing, which detail clearances around bins, aisles, gates and a paved surface with curb. Clearances for truck access must. be provided as defined in the guidelines. Paving in front of refuse enclosures shall be reinforced with stress pads to protect the paving from the weight and operation of the collection truck. Site plans and trash enclosure plans for all new projects shall be submitted to the City and the franchise waste hauler for review and approval.. =115PE 1t November 2017 10-2- 1DEVEWPMEhr TAN0AR3S t:t 10.10 Building Types A wide variety of building types are encouraged at Altair, to promote the social diversity of the community as well as serving the housing needs of the City of Temecula. A mix of building types also enhances visual interest and creates a vibrant urban fabric. The building types should support the goals of a compact and walkable com- munity with fairly high densities. Traditional, single-family houses on single Tots are not included, as they are al- ready prevalent in the City, Large footprint multi -family housing encircling common garages, commonly referred to as "wraps", are also discouraged because they create uncomfortably large block lengths for pedestrians. Building types are listed below and are described in greater detail in the following pages. Table 10-4 as well as the Planning Area descriptions in Section 3 identify allowable building types for each village. section Building Type Lot Width (ft) Lot Depth (it.) Private Open Space Common Open Space Building Height min. max. min. max, 1 ratio 3,5 min. size area per d.u. (stories} 10.11 Detached Housing 25 45 60 -- 100% 4 100 s.f. 80 s.f. 2 -4 10.12 Multiplex 24 -- 35 -- 100% 4 100 s.f. 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10-13 Rowhouse 24 -- 35 -- 100% 4 100 s.f. 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.14 Live / Work 24 - 35 - 100% 4 100 s.f. 60 s.f. 2 -4 10.15 Multifamily Walk -Up -- -- -- -- 100% 80 s.f. 60 s.f. 2-4 10.16 Multifamily Podium 100% 60 s.f_ 50 s.f. 4 - 5 10.17 Micro Unit -- 2 -- - 2 -- 75% 50 s.f. 45 s.f. - 2 10.18 Mixed Use -- -- -- -- 100% 60 s.f. 50 s.f. 4 - 5 10.19 Iconic Tower 50-75 feet 10.20 Civic Buildings -- - -- -- -- - - 2 10.21 School Buildings - -- - -- -- - -- 2 10.22 Community Buildings -- -- - - -- - - 1- 3 Notes: 1. Percentage of dwelling units that must provide a private exterior open space of the minimum size indicated. 2. As defined by the building type in which the micro -unit is located. 3. If project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit, but to no less than 6' x 6'. 4. If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in the noted housing types, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. for that dwelling unit, but to no less than 6' x 6'. 5. Reductions granted by notes 3 and 4 may not be used in combination. Table 10.4 Buliding Types November 2017 313El+s=Br. 144/1i - 10.11 Detached Housing Single -Family cluster development consists of individually owned, multistory dwellings arranged around or along a common outdoor space. In contrast to traditional single-family / single -lot housing, a higher density is achieved in the cluster type by placing buildings in close proximity to each other and by greatly reducing or eliminating private yards. The design and execution of the common outdoor space is critical to replace the privacy and buffering provided by private yards. Buildings may be arranged around courts, commons, greens or linearly along pedestrian mews, paseos, or "rosewalks". Each dwelling has a private garage accessed from a motor court or alley. Figure 10-16 Detached Housing with small entry yard A. Lot Size Width: 25 feet minimum; 45 feet maximum, except at corner Tots Depth: 60 feet minimum; no maximum B. Access: 1. All units shall have doors at street level facing the lot frontage or common open space. Stoops are encouraged, except at required accessible units for the disabled. 2. Private garages should be accessed through the dwelling or a private, enclosed court. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS 10-29 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-30 Setback Per Table 1fl-2 w BUNGALOW COURT w cf a. aI 6' Minimum Between Houses ALLEY ALLEY Garages Face Alley Garages Face Alley ALLEY A Pedestrian Front Entry TVehicular Garage Entry 6' Minimum Between Houses ALLEY OR MOTOR COURT Figure 10-17 Detached Housing clustered around common green space November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN C. Parking; 1. See Table 10-3 for the required minimum number of resident and guest parking spaces. 2. See Section 10.7 for general parking requirements. 3. Required enclosed parking shall be in private garages accessed from a motor court or alley. See Section 9.3.12 and Figure 10-17 through Figure 10-19 for motor court and alley standards. 4. Garages must be of sufficient size to allow a 20`x20' parking area (for 2 -car garages) clear of any equipment and clear of the space needed for refuse and recycling bin storage. The clear parking area shall be 10'x20' for single -car garages or 10' x 36' for tandem garages. 5. An enclosed storage area for three bins (refuse, recycling and organic waste) must be provided at each dwelling unit, preferably in private garages. Location for bin storage in garages must allow for manuevering of the bins to the street or alley when cars are parked. 6. Garages may be attached, detached or located beneath the dwelling and shall be fully enclosed. Detached garages must be linked to dwellings bywalls, trellises and / or decorative paving to create an outdoor room between the garage and dwelling, and shall be of similar materials as the dwelling. 7. Unenclosed off-street guest parking shall be located in motor courts or behind buildings and shall not be visible from streets. See Figure 9-1 and Figure 10-19. 8. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be covered with a trellis or solar panels. 9. Dwelling units may have direct or indirect access to parking stalls. I N G CL H v a Y V �6 m STREET Tat 1 r A 1 30' min. 45' max. Property Line Garages Face Alley Alley paving meanders around landscape, utility, and/or parking area �6'Min. Between Buildings Figure 10-18 Detached Housing Facing Street SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-31 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 T ry ea ea Entry Figure 10-19 Detached Housing around Motor Court pert Line Garage entries & additional parking at motor court. Dwelling entries at common green space(pedestrian only). Common may be easement or separate parcel. D. Services: 1. Utilities and meters shall be screened from view from the street or common areas. 2. Residential mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units shall be located on private property and screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Sections 9.5 and 9.6. 3. Air conditioner compressors should not be near dwelling entries. 4. A common area to store the individual bins for organic waste for each dwelling unit may be considered, if consistent with the franchise waste disposal agreement and as approved by the Planning Director and franchise hauler. The storage area shall be enclosed by walls or an opaque fence and roof. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANril Figure 10-20 Detached Housing Clustered around Green E. Open Space_ (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) Private Open Space: 100% of detached dwelling units shall have at least 100 square feet of private open space in a balcony, porch, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 6'-O" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2. If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in a detached dwelling unit, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. for that dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for common open space on the second level or higher (note 5 below). 3. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 80 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space may be shared among buildings in a single, central park, but the minimum ratio shall be based on the total number of dwelling units and may not be reduced. 5. If a project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f per dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for private open space on the third level or higher (note 2 above). 6. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 7. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. 8. Roof decks and terraces are encouraged. 10-33 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 Figure 10-21 Typical Landscaping at Bungalow Court.jit Rose Q = DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1J EVERGREEN=OUNDA SHRUB, TYPICAL. ACCENT SHRUB, TYPICAL. ACCENT TREE, TYPICAL STREET FLOWERING ACCENT PERENNIAL SHRUBS, TYPICAL. EVERGREEN GROUN❑COVER, TYPICAL. ACCENT SHRUB EVERGREEN CANOPY TREE, TYP. CONCRETE WALK STREET TREE PROPERTY LINE T WIDE SIDEWALK 5 WIDE PARKWAY ACCENT TREE. TYPICAL. EVERGREEN FOUNDATION SHRUB, TYPICAL. FLOWERING ACCENT PERENNIAL SHRUBS, TYPICAL. November 2017 ;a res=or. 64411 >< M '?TORCOU RT I EVERGREEN FOUNDATION SHRUB, TYPIC L+ FLOWERING A 4ENT PERENNIAL S R, BS, TYPICAL. EVERGREEN GROUNDCOV=RI T"PICAL. ACCENT SHR B, TYPICAL ACCENT TREE TYPICAL. STREET ALLEY EVERGREEN F SHRUB, TYPIC FLOWERING A PERENNIAL 5 EVERGREEN GROUNDCOV TYPICAL. D L_ C�NT U 5 ION PICAL STREET TREE PROPERTY LINE 7' WIDE SIDEWALK 5' WIDE PARKWAY CCIEN TREE, YPICA . CCN SHRUB, Y PIA STREET STREET TREE PROPERTY LINE T WIDE SIDEWALK 5' WIDE PARKWAY Figure 10-2 p ctn. Front Yard Landscaping at Detached Housing f�EG7FMC PJJ i November 2017 10-35 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 SIMILAR MATERIALS WITHIN GROUP- OF BUILDINGS F. Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shalt be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity, 3. Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide, G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Porches, stoops and balconies may project into required street setbacks. H. BuildingSize and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two to four stories. 2, The fourth story may not exceed 65% of the building footprint area. See Figure 10-23. 3. A minimum of 6 feet shall be provided between buildings. 4. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. ARCA OF 4th FLOOR MAY NOT EXCEED 6.5% OF FOOTPRINT AREA LCVCL 4 LCVCL 3 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA Figure 10-23 4th Floor Lar lits in Detached Housing tirr-36 LOW WALLS AT GRADE Figure 10-24 Typical Massing at Detached Housing LANDSCAPED SPACE BETWEEN BUILDINGS VARIED MATERIALS AT EACH DWELLING November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANrN I._ AccessoryPwellings: 1. Accessory dwellings are allowed with detached housing, and should be linked to dwellings by walls, trellises and / or decorative paving to create an outdoor room between the main and accessory dwelling. See Figure 10-25. Both dwellings shall be of similar materials. 2. The accessory dwelling shall be smaller than and clearly subsidiary to the main dwelling. Only one accessory dwelling is permitted per detached home. 3. Accessory dwellings may be located over detached garages. 4. A secondary dwelling unit permit is required for accessory dwelling units that include cooking facilities with a vent. 5. One off-street covered parking space shall be provided for each accessory dwelling unit in addition to the parking required for the main dwelling unit. 6. Accessory dwelling units may not be sold separately or sub -divided from the main residence. IIey or Motor Court Accessary Dwelling Detached Garage Property Line Street or Common MIN Figure 10-25 Detached garages and/or accessory dwelling /g[IiSPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS -3i DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10--38 10.12 Multi-Plex Mufti-plexes combine two- to six -dwelling units into one structure. They differ from both the single-family cluster type and the rowhouse type in that the individual dwelling unit is not distinctly expressed in the multi-plex type. Duplexes and triplexes in particular should appear as a single Targe house. Duplexes and triplexes can then be combined with courtyards to form quad- and six-plexes. Multi-plexes generally include multi -story dwelling units of two to three stories each. Flats may be allowed in combination with multi -story dwellings, but no multi-plex structure should consist exclusively of flats. A. Lot Size Width: 24 feet, minimum Depth: 35 feet, minimum B. Access: 1. Dwelling unit entries shall primarily be located at the ground floor. 2. No dwelling unit entry shall be above the second floor above grade. 3. Dwelling unit entries should be located on different facades in an asymetrical arrangement or may face interior courts, 4. At least one dwelling unit entry of a mufti-plex shall face the street at or near street level. 5. Each dwelling unit entry should have a unique character and/ or orientation. C. Parking: 1. Required enclosed parking shall be in private garages below and / or adjacent to dwelling units. 2. Garage entries should be on different sides of the multi-plex structure. 3. Garage doors should be of similar materials, but should vary in size or detailing. 4. Free-standing private garages are discouraged. 5. Dwelling units shall have direct access to parking garages. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN SIMILAR AND COMPLEMENTARY MATERIALS REDUCE MASS WITH DECKS, OVERHANGS, ETC. GARAGES ON DIFFERENT SIDES ri DISTINCT DWELLING ENTRIES Figure 10-26 Typical Massing at Multiplex 6. Garages must be of sufficient size to allow a 20`x20' parking area (for 2 -car garages) clear of any equipment and clear of the space needed for refuse and recycling bin storage. The clear parking area shall be 10`x20' for single -car garages or 10' x 36` for tandem garages. 7. An enclosed storage area for three bins (refuse, recycling and organic yard waste) must be provided at each dwelling unit, preferably in private garages. Location for bin storage in garages must allow for manuevering of the bins to the street or alley when cars are parked. Alternatively, a common space may be provided as described in the next paragraph. D. Services: 1. In lieu of waste bin storage in individual garages, a common area may be provided to store the individual bins for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins for each dwelling unit, or common dumpster bins for each type of waste. The storage area shall be enclosed by wails or an opaque fence and roof. 2. Access must be provided to common waste storage enclosures from each dwelling unit, as well as access by collection trucks per Section 10,9. Driveway or alley access is accept- able for both resident and collection access, if consistent with the franchise waste disposal agreement and as approved by the Planning Director and franchise hauler. 3. Utilities and meters shall be screened from view from the street or common areas. 4. Residential mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units shall be located on private property and screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Sections 9.5 and 9.6. 5. Air conditioner compressors should not be near dwelling entries. 6. A fire riser room is required to house the fire sprinkler riser and fire alarm control panel. 10-39 S ECIf1C PLAIN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 VARIED ROOF FORMS STEPPED BUILDING FORMS WITH ROOF DECK OVER GARAGE DISTINCT DWELLING ENTRIES 10-40 E. Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 100% of multiplex dwelling units shall have at least 100 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 6'-0" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2. If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in a multiplex dwelling unit, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f for that dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for common open space on the second level or higher (note 5 below). 3. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 60 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space may be shared among buildings in a single, central park, but the minimum ratio shall be based on the total number of dwelling units and may not be reduced. 5. If project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for private open space on the third level or higher (note 2 above). Figure 10-27 Multiplex Housing with shared_ Driveway & Motor Court November 2017 ENHANCED PAVING DEFINES DRIVE COURT LOW WALLS & GATE AT SHARED DRIVEWAY DEFINE STREET WALL �u csrH: pLosN irI/ 6. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 7. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. 8. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 9. Roof decks and terraces are encouraged. F._ Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3. Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Porches, stoops and balconies may project into required street setbacks. H. Building Size and Massing; 1. Buildings may be two to four stories. 2. The fourth story may not exceed 65% of the building footprint area. See Figure 10-23, 3. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. L._ Accessory Dwellings: Accessory dwellings are not appropriate to the multi-plex building type. Sa C7H pL141� November 2017 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.13 Rowhouse Rowhouses are attached dwelling units arranged side-by-side, typically in a linear manner. The massing and character of the rowhouse type differs from multi-plexes in the clear and distinct expression of each dwelling unit. The basic farms and volumes should be repetitve, creating a rhythm of projecting elements both in plan and elevation. Materials should be consistent and complementary. Variation is achieved through modulation of the facade and roof line, rather than through color and materials. Dwelling units can be given individuality by smaller changes in entry detailing, etc. The end units of a row should have openings on the side and a counterpoint to the forms of the middle units. A. Lot Size Width: 24 feet, minimum Depth: 35 feet, minimum B. Access: 1. All units, except end units, shall have doors at street level facing the lot frontage or common open space. Stoops are encouraged, except at required accessible units for the disabled. 2. End units should have doors at the end (side) walls. REPETITIVE ENTRY DETAILS AND MATERIALS STOOPS VARY IN ORIENTATION, BUT NOT MATERIALS REPETITIVE — VOLUMES AND ROOF FORMS Figure 10-28 Rowhomes provide an interesting rhythm along a street facade November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN C. Parking: 1. Required enclosed parking shall be in private garages accessed from a motor court or alley. See Section 9.3.12 for motor court standards. 2. Garage entrances should be an the opposite side of the building from the predominant entry side, to avoid interruption of the pedestrian frontage by driveways. 3. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be located in motor courts or behind buildings and shall not be visible from streets. 4. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be covered with a trellis or solar panels. 5. Free-standing private garages are discouraged. 6. Dwelling units shall have direct access to parking garages. 7. Garages must be of sufficient size to allow a 201x20' parking area (for 2 -car garages) clear of any equipment and dear of the space needed for refuse and recycling bin storage. The clear parking area shall be 10`x20' for single -car garages or 10' x 36' for tandem garages. 8. An enclosed storage area for three bins (refuse, recycling and organic waste) must be provided at each dwelling unit, preferably in private garages. Location for bin storage in garages must allow for manuevering of the bins to the street or alley when cars are parked. D. Services: 1. In lieu of waste bin storage in individual garages, a common area may be provided to store the individual bins for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins for each dwelling unit, or common dumpster bins for each type of waste. The storage area shall be enclosed by walls or an opaque fence and roof. 2. Access must be provided to common waste storage enclosures from each dwelling unit, as well as access by collection trucks per Section 10.9. Driveway or alley access is acceptable for both resident and collection access, if consistent with the franchise waste disposal agreement and as approved by the Planning Director and franchise hauler. 3. Utilities and meters shall be screened from view from the street or common areas. 4. Residential mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units shall be located on private property and screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Sections 9,5 and 9.6. 5. Air conditioner compressors should not be near dwelling entries. 6. A fire riser room is required to house the fire sprinkler riser and fire alarm control panel. EIPEdaFit ; November 2017 aEVELQPa4E1l7 STANDARDS 10 10-44 E. Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) Private Open Space: 100% of rowhouse dwelling units shall have at least 100 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 6'-0" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2, If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in a rowhouse unit, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. for that dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for common open space on the second level or higher (note 5 below). 3, Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 60 square feet per dwelting unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space may be shared among buildings in a single, central park, but the mini- mum ratio shall be based on the total number of dwelling units and may not be reduced, 5. If a project developer provides common open space on the second 4evel or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f per dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for private open space on the third level or higher (note 2 above). 6. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 7, Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. 8. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the com- mon open space requirement. 9. Roof decks and terraces are encouraged. Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3, Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide, G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements, 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Porches, stoops and balconies may project into required street setbacks. See Section 10.4. November 2017 REPEATED VERTICAL VOLUMES r_ L ria a 1Irl 01111 ti f Iri 11111+ i — r rrslin i �, �1 Figure 1-9 vlrhr�use mass' and articulation SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS Rhythm and repetition of forms are fundemental to rowhouse massing Entry porches and stoop add visual interest at street level, continue rhythm, and reduce scale. Repetitive roof forms and differentiation of end units. 10-45 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 H. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two to four stories. 2. No dwelling unit entries may be above the third story. 3. The fourth story may not exceed 65% of the building footprint area. See Figure 10-23. 4. Rhythm and repetition of forms are fundamental to row house massing 5. Entry porches and stoops add visual interest at street level, continue rhythms and reduce scale. 6. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. I. Accessory Dwellings: Accessory dwellings are not allowed in the rowhouse building type. November 2017 'SPECIFIC PLAN EMPHASIZE CORNERS — CONSISTENT SIGNAGE PROGRAM 10.14 Live/Work The Live / Work building type combines residential and commercial uses into a single dwelling unit. Those dwelling units are then repeated side-by-side to create a commercial strip that serves as the focus of a neighborhood. The residential portion of the unit can either be behind or above the commercial portion. Subject to building codes and other applicable regulations, the living space may be either open to or separated from the commercial space. Additional residential -only units may also be included in Live / Work buildings, typically on upper floors. A. Lot Size Width: 24 feet, minimum Depth: 35 feet, minimum DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS RECESSED COMMERCIAL ENTRIES OR ARCADE DISTINCT RESIDENTIAL SCALE AT UPPER LEVELS AWNINGS OR ARCADE FOR SHADE SHOPFRONT PER GUIDELINES IN SECTION 9.4.7 Figure 10-30 Typical Live/Work Building 10-47 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT NT STANDARDS 10 B. Access: 1. All commercial spaces shall be accessed at street level, generally on the same side of the building. 2. Commercial frontage shall follow the "shopfront" guidelines in Section 9.4.7. Arcades (Section 9.4.8) are also appropriate at Live/Work buildings 3, Separate doors shall be provided to the residential portions of live/work units. These doors may be located at the commercial "store front" facade of the building or at the rear or sides. 4. Residential entries adjacent to commercial "store fronts" shall be limited to doorways and shall not include any living space, in order to maintain a cohesive and uninterrupted commercial "street". 5. If residential entries are adjacent to commercial entries, they should be designed to clearly differentiate between residential and commercial access. For example, the dwelling entry might have an opaque door and stoop, while the commercial front would be very transparent with at -grade entry. Figure 10-31 Example Live/Work Building Section C. Parking: 1. Residential parking shall be in enclosed private garages accessed from the rear of the building, opposite the commercial front 2. Commercial parking will be provided an the street. 3. Garages must be of sufficient size to allow a 20'x20' parking area (for 2 -car garages) clear of any equipment and clear of the space needed for refuse and recycling bin storage, if not provided in a common area. The clear parking area shall be 10'x20' for single -car garages or 10' x 36' for tandem garages. November 2017 3PEGi=Jr. D. Services: 1. A common enclosure for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided in motor courts or alleys and shall be covered by an opaque fence and roof, 2. For Live/Work units, the commercial and residential bin requirements should be calculated separately for the areas of each use. See Section 10.9. 3. See Section 10.9 for trash bin enclosure requirements. 4. Access must be provided to common waste storage enclosures from each dwelling unit, as well as access by collection trucks per Section 10.9. Driveway or alley access is acceptable for both resident and collection access, if consistent with the franchise waste disposal agreement and as approved by the Planning Director and franchise hauler. 5. Utilities and meters shall be grouped as much as possible and shall be screened from view from the street or common areas. 6. Residential mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units shall be located on private property and screened with landscaping and/or walls or fencing as described in Sections 9.5 and 9.6. Air conditioner compressors shall be located on the roof and screened from view from the street, public areas or other buildings with a parapet or mechanical equipment screen. E. Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 100% of live/work dwelling units shall have at least 100 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 5'-5" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2. If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in a live/work unit, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. for that dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for common open space on the second level or higher (note 5 below). 3. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 60 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space may be shared among buildings in a single, central park, but the minimum ratio shall be based on the total number of dwelling units and may not be reduced. 5. If a project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.t. per dwelling unit. his reduction may not be used in combination with a reduction for private open space on the third level or higher (note 2 above). 6. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 7. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. 8. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 9. Roof decks and terraces are encouraged. EIPEdaFit November 2017 rDEVEi.OPMEIIT STANDARDS 15 F. _ Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3, Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas Tess than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Porches, stoops and balconies may project into required street setbacks. See Section 10.4. H. Building_Size and Massing_ 1. Buildings may be two to four stories. 2. No dwelling unit entries may be above the third story. 3. The fourth story may not exceed 65% of the building footprint area. See Figure 10-23. 4. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. Accessary dwellings; Accessory dwellings are not allowed in the live/work building type. November 2017 VARIED ROOF LINES HIGHLY DETAILED 3 - DIMENSIONAL FACADES 10.15 Multifamily Walk -Up Multifamily Walkups are buildings of two to four stories combining stacked dwelling units. The dwelling units are typically flats, but can be multistory. Vertical circulation is via stairs rather than elevators, typically exterior stairs and walkways that are internal to the site. A. Lot Size _ _ Not applicable to this buildingtype B. Access: 1, Ground floor units shall have doors at street level facing the lot frontage or common open space. Stoops are encouraged, except at required accessible units for the disabled. 2. Upper level units are accessed via open stairs and walkways. No more than four dwelling units shall be served by a single walkway. C. Parking: Required enclosed parking shall be in private, interior tuck -under garages accessed from a motor court. See Section 9.3.12 and Figure 10-33 for motor court standards, 2. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be located in motor courts or behind buildings and shall not be visible from streets. 3. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be covered with a trellis or solar panels. DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS LOW WALLS AT GRADE Figure l0-32 Typical Massing at Multifamily Walk -Up SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 VARIED MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 4. Garages must be of sufficient size to allow a 20'x20' parking area (for 2 -car garages) clear of any equipment and clear of the space needed for refuse and recycling bin storage, if not provided in a common area. The clear parking area shall be 10"x20' for single -car garages or 10' x 35' for tandem garages. Free-standing private garages are permitted. 5. Dwelling units may have direct or indirect access to parking stalls. VARY GARAGE DOOR SIZE&TYPE DECORATIVE GARAGE DOORS OF HIGH-QUALITY MATERIALS COVERED REFUSE ENCLOSURE 10-52 WINDOWS+BALCONIES GATEWAY HIGHLY DETAILED FACE COURT ENTRY 3-DIMENSIONAL FACADES TRELLIS OR SOLAR PANEL TO SHADE PARKING ENHANCED PERVIOUS PAVING Figure W-33 Motor Court at Multifamily Housing D. Services: 1. Common enclosures for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided in motor courts and shall be covered by an opaque fence and roof. 2. See Section 10.9 for trash bin enclosure requirements. 3. Access must be provided to common waste storage enclosures from each dwelling unit, as well as access by collection trucks per Section 10.9. Driveway or alley access is acceptable for both resident and collection access, if consistent with the franchise waste disposal agreement and as approved by the Planning Director and franchise hauler.. 4. Utilities and meters shall be grouped as much as possible and shall be screened from view from the street or common areas. 5. Air conditioner compressors shall be located on the roof and screened from view from the street, public areas or other buildings with a parapet or mechanical equipment screen. November 2017 LANDSCAPING AT VARIOUS HEIGHTS MAXIMIZE GREEN SPACE ;PECIF+c PLANT= DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS E. Open_Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 100% of multifamily walk-up dwelling units shall have at least 80 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 6'-O" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 60 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. 3. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space may be shared among buildings in a single, central park, but the minimum ratio shall be based on the total number of dwelling units and may not be reduced. 5. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 6. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 7. Roof decks and terraces are encouraged for either private or common open space. 8. If the project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with other reductions for private open space. 9. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. . vehicular entries Figure 10-34 Multifamily Waik-Up Housing Arrangement arranged to form a court with multiple vehicular and pedestrian openings SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-53 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10-54 F. Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3, Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Porches, stoops and balconies may project into required street setbacks. See Section 10.4, H. Building Size and Massing: 1, Buildings may be two to four stories. 2. No dwelling unit entries may be above the third story. 3. The fourth story may not exceed 65% of the building footprint area. See Figure 10-23. 4. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply, 1. Accessory Dwellings: Accessory dwellings are not allowed in the multifamily building type, November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANA/ 10.16 Multifamily Podium Multifamily Podium buildings combine four or five stories of stacked dwelling units over a subterranean or partially subterranean enclosed parking garage. The dwelling units are typically flats, but can be multistory. Vertical circulation is via interior stairs and elevators, accessing internal common corridors. Multifamily podium buildings are often also mixed-use buildings (see 10.18). Ground floor retail is encouraged in multifamily podium buildings to activate the street and the pedestrian experience. A, Lot Size Not applicable to this building type. B. Access: 1. Dwelling units are typically accessed via internal common corridors. 2. Entries to the building are through a common lobby and directly from the garage. 3. Ground floor units may have doors at street level facing the lot frontage or common open space, but this is not a requirement. 4. The common garage is accessed by no more than two secured openings from a driveway or alley, not directly from the street. C. Parking: 1. Required enclosed parking shall be located below the residential portion of the building, typically in a common garage structure. 2. Private garages may be allowed to satisfy a portion of the enclosed parking requirement, provided they are located along the edge of the common garage, under the footprint of the residential floors, and are accessed from an alley or motor court. 3. Unenclosed off-street parking shall be covered with a trellis or solar panels. 4. Free-standing private garages are not permitted to serve multifamily podium buildings. 5. Dwelling units shall have direct access through the building to the common parking garage. Figure 10-35 Multifamily Podium example with street -level entries. MI SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT I STANDMIDS 0010-56 D. Services: 1. Common refuse and recycling bins shall be provided in an enclosed room within the common garage.. 2. Residential podium buildings greater than three stories and over 30 dwelling units, with a common garage, are strongly encouraged to provide trash and recycling chutes to a common trash room. 3. An area for organic waste bins shall be provided outside the building and shall be covered by an opaque fence and roof. 4. See Section 10.9 for trash room and waste bin enclosure requirements. 5. Compactors are encouraged to reduce the quantity of bins and resultant space needed. 6. Air conditioner compressors shall be located on the roof and screened from view from the street, public areas or other buildings with a parapet or mechanical equipment screen. Figure 10-36 Multifamily Podium Building 7. Utilities shall be screened from view from the street and shall be located in building recesses or closets with decorative gates and fencing for security. E. Open Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 100% of multifamily podium dwelling units shall have at least 60 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. Private open space shall have a minimum dimension in either direction of 6'-0" to accomodate a table and chairs. 2. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 50 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. 3. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space is typically accomodated as a courtyard over the parking structure and/or located on roof decks. 5. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 6. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 7. Both private and common roof decks and terraces are encouraged. 8. If the project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f per dwelling unit, but not to less than 6' x 5'. This reduction may not be used in combination with other reductions for private open space. 9. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. November 2017-1PEESFdc PLAN Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity. 3. Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Stoops, balconies, canopies and entry marquees may project into required street setbacks. F._ Building Size and _Massing: 1. Buildings may be four to five stories. 2. Massing shall be broken into multiple components resulting in an overall pedestrian scale. 3. Provide multiple off -setting planes at each facade. 4. Vary roof lines. 5. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. I. Accessory Dwellings: Accessory dwellings are not allowed in the multifamily podium building type. Figure 10-37 Resident Courtyard at Multifamily Podium Housing SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS 10-57 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 10.17 Micro -Units Micro -units are efficiency dwelling units that provide affordable housing for smaller households. The units are typically between 250 and 400 square feet, Micro -units may be located in any building type except detached housing, although they may be an accessory dwelling to detached housing as described in paragraph 10.11.E rir A. Development Standards: Micro -units shall comply with Sections 17.10.025. C and D of the Temecula Municipal Code. B. Lot Size: As defined by the building type in which the unit is located. C. Access: As defined by the building type in which the unit is located. D. Parking: 1. Parking for micro -units shall be provided at a ratio of one space per dwelling unit. 2. If the micro -unit development employs management or support staff on site, then one parking space shall be provided for each employee that does not live on on site. 3, Micro -unit parking may be enclosed or open. Figure 10-38 Micro -Units Typical Layout D. Services: As defined by the building type in which the unit is located. Figure 10-39 Building with Micro -Units November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANRI E. Qpen Space: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1. Private Open Space: 75°%0 of micro dwelling units shall have at least 50 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. 2. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 45 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no less than 300 square feet. Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 3. Common open space is typically accomodated as a courtyard over the parking structure and/or located on roof decks. 4. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc.), picnic tables. 5. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 6. Both private and common roof decks and terraces are encouraged. 7. If the project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. per dwelling unit, but not to less than 6' x 6'. This reduction may not be used in combination with other reductions for private open space. 8. Common Areas over structures (including roof decks and terraces) shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. F. Landscape Standards: As defined by the building type_in which the unit is located. G. Frontage Guidelines: As defined by the building type in which the unit is located. H. Building5izeand Massing: As defined by the building type in which the unit is located. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS 10-59 DEVELOPMENT (STANDARDS 10 10-60 10.18 Mixed -Use Mixed -Use buildings combine two or more distinct uses into a single structure or group, typically residential in combination with neighborhood -serving commercial, service or office uses. Mixed-use buildings benefit a community by activating the public realm and providing goods and services within walking distance of dwellings. Mixed -uses are generally stacked vertically, with dwellings over ground floor commercial. A podium building type with a subterranean garage, retail space at street level and several stories of residential flats above is a common example of a mixed-use building. Different uses may also occur side-by-side, such as rowhouses with a commercial or office use at the end of a row or at a street corner. A._ Development Standards: 1. Commercial, assembly or office uses shall occur at the ground floor and shall have direct access from the street frontage or a public plaza or park. 2. Multi-level uses are allowed if the levels share an entry at the street. 3. Individual tenants in non-residential uses should have distinct entries at street level. B. Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN C. Access: 1.. Dwelling units above street level uses are typically accessed via internal common corridors. 2. Entries to upper level residential units are through a common lobby and directly from the garage. 3. Rowhomes in mixed-use blocks shall have entries at street levet facing the lot frontage or common open space. Stoops are encouraged, except at required accessible units for the disabled. 4. The common garage is accessed by no more than two secured openings from a driveway or alley, not directly from the street. D. Parking: 1. Required parking quantity shall be calculated based on the cumulative requirements of each use. 2. A reduction for shared parking between uses may be allowed if justified through an approved shared parking analysis, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. 3. Parking provided for multiple uses, including residential, may be located in the same common garage structure or area. 4. Reserved residential parking shall be secured separately from parking provided for other uses. 5. Private residential garages may be allowed to satisfy a portion of the enclosed parking requirement, provided they are located along the edge of the common garage, under the footprint of the residential floors, and are accessed from an alley or motor court. 6. Unenclosed off-street residential and office parking shall be covered with a trellis or solar panels. 7. Free-standing private garages are not permitted to serve mixed-use buildings. 8. Dwelling units shall have direct access through the building to a common parking garage. D. Services: 1. Common refuse and recycling bins shall be provided in an enclosed room within the common garage. 2. Residential buildings greater than three stories should have trash and recycling chutes to a trash room. 3. An area for organic waste bins shall be provided outside the building and shall be covered by an opaque fence and roof. 4. See Section 10.9 and the City of Temecula Waste and Recycling Guidelines for trash room and waste bin enclosure requirements, 5. The commercial and residential bin requirements should be calculated separately for the areas of each use, per the requirements of the City of Temecula Waste and Recycling Guidelines and as approved by the Planning Director and the franchise hauler. 6. Compactors are encouraged to reduce the quantity of bins and resultant space needed. 7. Air conditioner corepressors shall be located on the roof and screened from view from the street, public areas or other buildings with a parapet or mechanical equipment screen. 8. Utilities shall be screened from view from the street and shall be located in building recesses or closets with decorative gates and fencing for security, EIPEE D IC November 2017 10-ci DEVELOPMEFli TAN0ARDS 10 E. Om Space.: (see Section 8 for an explanation of private and common open space) 1, Private Open Space: 100% of dwelling units in mixed-use buildings shall have at least 60 square feet of private open space in a balcony, patio or yard. 2. Common Open Space: Common open space shall be provided at a ratio of 50 square feet per dwelling unit, but shall be no fess than 300 square feet. 3, Common open space shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 25 feet. 4. Common open space is typically accomodated as a courtyard over the parking structure and/or located on roof decks. 5. Common open space shall include furniture such as benches, play structures, bike racks, games (chess tables, bocce ball, etc,), picnic tables. 6. Community swimming pools (not the Recreation Center) may be counted toward the common open space requirement. 7, Both private and common roof decks and terraces are encouraged. 3, if the project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f, per dwelling unit. This reduction may not be used in combination with other reductions for private open space. 9. Common Areas over structures {including roof decks and terraces} shall provide structural integrity and appropriate design for container gardening and irrigation. F. Landscape Standards: 1. Trees shall be included in common areas, green spaces, alleys and motor courts for shade and to soften building massing. 2. Shrub massings shall be used to provide visual interest and plant diversity, 3. Turf shall be used only as a recreational element in common areas and is not allowed in areas less than 8' wide. G. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Sections 9.4 and 10.4 for applicable street frontage requirements. 2. Architectural and landscape elements should be used to delineate public, semi -private and private space. 3. Stoops, balconies, canopies and entry marquees may project into required street setbacks. H. Building Size and Massinig: 1. Buildings may be four to five stories. 2. Massing shall be broken into multiple components resulting in an overall pedestrian scale. 3. Each use shall be distinctly expressed on the building exterior through scale, materials, detailing and ornament appropriate to each use. 4. Provide multiple off -setting planes at each facade. 5. Vary roof lines. 6. Other design guidelines in this chapter shall apply. 1. Accessory Dwellings: Accessory dwellings are not allowed in the mixed-use building type. November 2017 10.19 Iconic Tower An Iconic Tower is featured in Village C, where it can be see from most of the Altair community and from Main Street in Old Town. A. Development Standards: 1. See Figure 10-40. 2. A commercial use may be located at the base of the tower. 3. There shall only be one iconic tower. B. Building Size and Massing: 1. Tower height will be between 50 feet and 75 feet. 2. Proportions shall emphasize verticality. 3. Tower may be attached to a building or may be free-standing. DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS C. Parking, services, open space, landscape standards, frontage guidelines and accessory dwelling regulations do not apply to this building type. — SLOPED ROOF OF METAL OR TILE CLOCK OR SIGNATURE ARTWORK STONE OR BRICK VENEER ON ALL OR PORTION OF WALLS ON ALL SIDES — REVEALS AND NARROW OPENINGS DEEP OPENINGS WITH WRAPPED VENEER FINISH TO MAKE WALLS APPEAR THICK TOWER SHALL BE DESIGNED AS A 3-DIMENSIONAL ELEMENT TO BE VIEWED FROM ALL EXPOSED SIDES. Figure 10-40 Iconic Tower CONCEPTUAL IMAGE ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. =fflISPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10-63 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 — 10-64 10.20 Civic Buildings / Nature Center Civic buildings are located at the Civic Site, where a Nature Center is proposed (see Section 3.13). This category does not include community buildings, such as recreation centers and clubhouses that are described in Section 10.22. A. Development Standards: 1. The nature center at the Civic Site must be sensitive to the adjacent natural open space and the Pechanga Origin Area/ Traditional Cultural Place (TCP) site to the south. 2. The scale, materials and style of civic buildings should be appropriate for a public facility and should be an asset to the community. 3. Materials at the nature center shall be sturdy, fire-resistant and complementary to the natural setting, with massing and details appropriate to those materials, as seen in the "PARKitecture style" of many buildings in National Parks of the West. 4. Integrated indoor and outdoor spaces are encouraged. 5. Attached or detached shade structures that are appropriate to the building style are encouraged. 6. The building and key outdoor spaces should be arranged to maximize and/ or frame views that have historic or regional significance. Educational installations, such as plaques or artwork, are appropriate to explain these vistas. NATURE CENTER AT SAN ELIJD LAGOON, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. C. Access: 1. Building entries will typically be at the ground floor and should be apparent to visitors. 2. Pedestrian access must be provided from a public way, from public transportation, and from off-street parking. November 2017 ;PECIFIC PLANA!f D. Pa Eking; 1. Surface parking must be landscaped per Section 10.6.12 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.050.H. Solar panels on canopy structures may be substituted for required trees in the same ratio. 2. See Section 3.13 for additional parking standards. E. Services: 1. Loading zones shall be provided per Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.060. Delivery and loading areas shall be screened from view from the street. 2. A single area for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided and shall be screened by an opaque fence or wall and covered, 3. Additional refuse and recycling receptacles shall be distributed along trails and in parking areas. Receptacles shall have an integral lid or be otherwise designed to prevent wind-blown trash and to keep animals out. A combined refuse / recycling receptacle is preferred. 4. See Section 10.9 for enclosure and access requirements for trash collection. 5. Utilities shall be grouped and screened from view from the street, trails or common areas. F. Ojien Space; Common open space will be provided as described in Section 3.13. Spaces should facilitate gatherings and the interaction of visitors with staff and with the surrounding environment. G. i,andsope Standards; See Section 10,6.11(Civic / Community) as well as the corresponding plant lists in Appendix A. H. __Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Section 9.4 for applicable street and garden frontage types. 2. The nature center should provide a public front on all sides, not just a single facade. 2. Frontages for civic buildings should be of a larger scale than residential frontages to convey a greater sense of importance. 3. Architectural elements should characterize social institutions, rather than residences. Spaces that comprise civic frontages are public and should celebrate building entry. 4. Arcades, colonnades, entry courts and shopfronts are appropriate to civic buildings such as a nature center. They also provide shade and help to integrate the building into the landscape. I. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two stories maximum. 2. Floor plates of an individual building should not exceed 15,000 sf. 3. Individual buildings should be well-proportioned. Massing that sprawls horizontally, as in a large 1 -story building, does not present the proper stature of a civic building. Avoid tower forms that compete with the Iconic Tower at Altair's core. J. Accessory Dwellings: A park ranger's residence is permitted, subject to City design review. =NFL FIC PLAN November 2017 r.r 10-65 DEv€LOOM rr -sTAWDAIAS 10.21 School Buildings The educational buildings at the School Site will ultimately be designed and developed by the Temecula Valley Unified School District with public input. However, the guidelines and standards included in this Specific Plan should be followed to ensure that the school architecture complements the community of Altair and supports the underlying principles of smart growth, compact design, walkability and strong neighborhood identity. See Section 3,12 for further information regarding the site. A. Development Standards: 1. The School Site should be planned as a campus. There should be a clear integration of functional elements within each campus. Multiple buildings are preferred to reduce the overall scale and to create active space between buildings. 2. The relationship between buildings on a campus is as important as the buildings themselves. Buildings should refer to eachother to maintain a cohesive aesthetic. Buildings should be arranged to form outdoor rooms for shared use by occupants. 3. The scale, materials and style of school buildings should be appropriate for a public facility and should be an asset to the community. 5. Integrated indoor and outdoor spaces are encouraged. 6, Materials shall be durable, timeless, and shall give edifices a sense of importance, with massing and details appropriate to those materials. Brick and stone veneers are encouraged, as are metal roofs B. Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. C. Access: 1. Building entries will typically be at the ground floor and should be apparent to students and visitors. 2. There should be a sense of formality to entering the buildings and /or the campus. 3. Clearly defined pedestrian access must be provided from a public way, from public transportation, and from off-street parking. D. Parking: 1. Surface parking must be landscaped per Section 10.6.12 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.050.1-1. Solar panels on canopy structures may be substituted for required trees in the same ratio. 2. See Sections 3.12 for additional parking standards. E. Services: 1. Loading zones shall be provided per Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.060. Delivery and loading areas shall be screened from view from the street. 2. A single area for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided for each campus and shall be screened by an opaque fence or wall and covered. 3. See Section 10.9 for enclosure and access requirements for trash collection. 4. Utilities shall be grouped and screened from view from the street or common areas. November 2017 pins=1r, „AN ALEX G SPANOS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS F. Open Space. Common open space will be provided as described in Section 3.12. Spaces should facilitate education and recreation programs and the interaction of students. G. Landscape Standards: See Sections 10.6.9 (School) as well as the corresponding plant lists in Appendix A. H. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Section 9.4 for applicable street frontage types. 2. Frontages for educational buildings should be of a larger scale than residential frontages to convey a greater sense of importance. 3. Architectural elements should characterize educational institutions, rather than residences. Spaces that comprise school frontages are public and should celebrate building entry. 4. Arcades, colonnades and entry courts are appropriate to educational buildings. They also provide shaded exterior common spaces to facilitate civic engagement. 5. Frontages should be designed to tie buildings together and create a single theme for the campus. For instance, buildings can be grouped around an entry court with an arcade linking them together. I. Building Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two stories maximum. 2. Individual buildings should be well-proportioned. Massing that sprawls horizontally, as in a Targe 1 -story building, does not present the proper stature of a school building. 3. Avoid tower forms that compete with the Iconic Tower at Altair's core. J. Accessory_Dwellings: Not applicable. 10-67 SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 10.22 Community Buildings The main community buildings at Altair are located in Village C around its central Plaza that anchors the western end of the Main Street axis to the Temecula Civic Center, These include a Recreation Center with pool to the west of Altair Vista and a Community Center / Clubhouse east of Altair Vista at the high point of the Village C Park. Smaller community buildings may also occur in the other villages, such as at neighborhood pools and parks. A. Development Standards: 1, The combined community buildings at Village C should frame and define the central Plaza and promontory steps that anchor the Main Street axis. The two buildings should relate to each other to form a cohesive whole. 2. Community buildings should be four-sided, due to their prominent and central location. The Community Center, especially, must have facades addressing the Plaza and Altair Vista as well as the Park. The Park facade may be slightly different in character to engage terraces into the Park and to take advantage of the expanding views. 3. Community buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes, nestling into hillsides, with entries on multiple levels where possible. The Recreation Center, in particular, shall be a two-story structure forming the north edge of the promontory steps, with building entries at the top and bottom landings of these steps and a publicly accessible elevator. 4. Community Buildings should combine interior and exterior space through such design ele- ments as courtyards, terraces, colonnades, roof overhangs and permeable walls with large openings. B. Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. C. Access: 1. Building entries should occur on all at -grade levels and should be apparent to visitors. 2. Pedestrian access must be provided from the common circulation network and from off- street fFstreet parking. D. Parking: 1. Per Table 10-3. This ratio assumes that most users of Community facilities will be residents who will walk or bike to the facility. 2, Surface parking must be landscaped per Section 10.6.12 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.050.1-I. Solar panels on canopy structures may be substituted for required trees in the same ratio. November 207 PEC1F1C PLAtJ�ii E. 1. Services: Loading zones shall be provided per Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.060. Delivery and loading areas shall be screened from view from the street. 2. An area for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided and shall be screened by an opaque fence or wall and covered. 3, See Section 10.9 for enclosure and access requirements for trash collection. 4. Utilities shall be grouped and screened from view from the street or common areas. 5. Mechanical equipment such as cooling towers and water heaters should be located on the budding roof and screened from view from the street or from above by parapets, equipment screens or trellises. F. Open Space: Open space requirements do not apply to this building type. However, community buildings are typically adjacent to or within shared open spaces and should be integrated into these landscapes through stepped massing, courtyards, arcades or low walls. Landscape Standards_ See Sections 10.6.11(Civic / Community) as well as the corresponding plant lists in Appendix A. H. Frontage Guidelines: 1. See Section 9.4 for applicable street frontage types. 2. Frontages for community buildings should be of a larger scale than residential frontages to convey a greater sense of importance. 3. Architectural elements should characterize social institutions. Residential elements such as porches and pitched roofs may also be appropriate, but should be at a larger scale. 4. Arcades, colonnades and entry courts are appropriate to community buildings and provide shaded indoor/outdoor space for passive recreation. 5. A community building sets the aesthetic tone for the village where it is located. The main Recreation Center and Club House, in particular, should be stylistically similar or of similar materials to establish Altair's architectural image. BuildingSize and Massing: 1. Buildings may be one to three stories tall. 2. Floor plates of individual buildings should not exceed 40,000 sf. 3. Individual buildings should be well-proportioned. Massing that sprawls horizontally, as in a Targe 1 -story building, does not present the proper stature of a civic building. Avoid tower forms that compete with the Iconic Tower at Altair's core. J. Accessory Dwellings: Not applicable. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 DEVELOPMENT I 10 STANDARDS 10-69 November 2017 IMPLEMENTATION r. IMPLEMENTATION The methodology for the implemenation of the Altair Specific Plan is provided in accordance with Government Code 65451 of the California Planning Law, which requires "a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out" the specific plan. The following elements compose the Implementation Program: 1. Adoption of the Specific Nan and General Plan Amendment 2. Administration of the Specific Plan 3. Development Agreement. 4. Environmental Impact Report (ElR) and Mitigation + Monitoring Program 5. Master Tentative Tract Map 6. Master Conceptual Grading Plan 7. Discretionary Approvals 8. Individual Tentative and Final Maps 9. Finish Grading Plans and Improvement Plans 10. Financing Strategies 11, Maintenance Program The Altair Specific Plan will be adopted by Ordinance of the City of Temecula City Council. Adoption of the Specific Plan defines land use and development standards for the project area which shall supersede current zoning regulations. 11,1 Regulations that Administer the Specific Pan 11.1.1 Development in the Altair Specific Nan area shall be regulated by this document in combination with the City of Temecula General Plan and Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code (referred to as the City of Temecula Development Code). Unless otherwise regulated in this Specific Plan, the following Articles of the City of Temecula Development Code shall apply: Chapter 17,01 General Provisions Chapter 17.03 Administration of Zoning Chapter 17.04 Permits, except 17.04030 Home occupation permits does not apply. A home occupation permit is not required for accessory commercial uses in residential zones qi,e. live/work). Chapter 17.06.050(I.)Family Day Care Home Facilities Chapter 17.06.060 Landscape Standards Chapter 17.16 Specific Pian Zoning District Chapter 17.26 Covenants for Easements Chapter 17.34 Definition of Terms Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance Chapter 17.32 Water Efficient Landscape Design SaeG7Fit November 2017 IMPLEMENTAT1014 I 1114, The City shall enforce the provisions of the Altair Specific Plan and City Development and Subdivision Codes for all projects located wholly or partially within the Altair Specific Pian area limits, in accordance with the State of California Government Code, Subdivision Map Act and Local Subdivision Ordinance. In case of conflict with directives or restrictions in other documents, the requirements of this specific plan shall apply. Where regulation is not provided in this Specific Plan, the provisions of the Development Code shall prevail. 11.1.2 Minor modifications to the approved Specific Plan which will not detract from the general intent of the plan may be approved by the Planning Director. Such modifications may include, among other allowances: 1. Changes in the size of planning districts (i.e. Villages) not exceeding 20 percent of their gross area and not increasing the overall density of the project. 2. Transfer of density between planning districts, with limitations as described in Section 11.5. 3. Changes to the alignment of pedestrian and/or bicycle paths, or utility networks from that shown in the Specific Plan figures, as long as intended linkages are maintained. 4. Modifications to the orientation of buildings and site elements such as yards, walls, walkways, landscaping or parking from that shown in typical examples. 5. Plant material substitutions, as long as they are consistent with the Landscape Development Standards. 6. Variations of materials, color, architectural styles or design details from those shown in the examples. 7. Reductions from required setbacks not to exceed 15 percent. 8. Future adoption of a Signage Program. 9. Phasing that differs from the Conceptual Phasing Plan and the Phasing Summary in this Specific Plan, as long as the infrastructure and community facilities needs of Altair are met. Any changes to the approved Phasing Plan shall require review and approval from the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments. 10. The Planning Director has the option to allow up to 10% of the required parking stalls to be compact stalls with minimum dimensions of eight feet wide by sixteen feet long, when utilized with electric vehicle charging stations or extensive bike rack systems above the minimum requirements, 11. Exceptions to fence height and material standards at sports fields and dog parks. 11.1.3 Development plans for individual projects (i.e. by Merchant Builders) within the Altair Specific Plan area shall be submitted to the City of Temecula and reviewed by several departments under the following sequential process: 1. Master Developer Consultation With Guest Buildej Guest Builders submit architectural, civil and landscape plans, elevations, sections, renderings and material/color sample boards to the Master Developer. Necessary design revisions are made following consultation. Guest Builders must have approval from the Master Developer prior to making a Pre -Application Submittal to the City of Temecula. November 2017 11 IMP1 EMFUTAi1O1 2. Standard Pre—Application Submittal: Following Master Developer approval, a pre -application submittal is made to the City. This free review is intended to provide a more efficient Development Plan review and public hearing process. Applications are reviewed by the Planning, Public Works, Fire, Building and Safety, and Police Departments to assist in providing critical design feedback. The review period is two weeks, Any revisions made during the pre -application process shall be reviewed with the Master Developer prior to Development Plan Submittal to the City. The pre - application submittal should include the following: A. Site plan to include common open space calculation, size and location B. Conceptual architecture plans and elevations C. Private open space calculation, locations and dimensions D. Pedestrian circulation exhibit. E. Trash exhibit. Show garage dimensions and bin locations in single-family residential projects, refuse / recycling enclosure locations, dimensions, materials and cover design in multifamily and commercial development. Show collection route with clearances. See Section 10.10. F. Dimensioned parking exhibit and calculation. See Table 10-3. G. Utilities screening and location exhibit (AC units, electric meters, FDC/PIV, etc...) H. Sign location and size parameters; show dimensioned envelope where signage will occur, Include proposed sign materials and illumination method, See Section 10.5. I, Frontage exhibit. See Figure 9.2 for street and garden frontage orientation. Provide 3-dimensional diagram showing frontage type per Section 9.4 and compliance with build -to line regulations in Section 10.4 and Table 10.2. 3. Development Plan Approval: Development plans and related documents, such as tract maps, grading plans, architectural and engineering drawings are reviewed by the appropriate departments for compliance with requirements and guidelines of this specific plan, The Temecula Municipal Code, conditions of approval and other applicable codes and regulations. Fees are charged for Development Plan review. For Development Plan Approval, City staff must make the following findings: 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Development Agreement, LIR and MMRP 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. 4. Conditions Of Approval govern utilization of the Development Permit and list infrastructure improvements and other requirements necessary for the project or benefitting the community. 5. Planning Commission Approval of each Development Plan is required in order to obtain a Development Permit. SPE I November 2017 1IMPLEMENTATION 11 11-4 LEGEND 1 Figure 11-1 Public and Private Roads at Altair November 2017 PRIVRFE STREETS PURUC STREETS OFF -SI IE STREETS SPECIFIC PLANMN 11 I M PI EU E r/TATTIN Once the Development Permit has been granted, builders may proceed with Plan Check, in which construction documents are reviewed for compliance with requirements and guidelines of this specific plan, conditions of approval and all applicable City, state and federal codes, regulations and standards. Building permits are then issued after approval of construction documents and collection of securities and Development Impact Fees )DIF), as outlined in the Development Agreement. 1 t2 Capital Improvements Several capital projects are needed for the successful implementation of the Altair Specific Plan. The projects are listed and detailed in the Development Agreement between the Master Developer and the City of Temecula (see Section 11,7). These projects include: Western Bypass Road connecting SR -79 South (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. Improvements to Rancho California Road at its intersection with the Western Bypass Bridge over Murrieta Creek between Western Bypass and Temecula Parkway Storm water management system Water system improvements Sewer system improvements B Street intersection with Pujol Street and with the Western Bypass Pedestrian promenade at the west end of Main Street (west of Pujol Street) 11.3 Phasing Altair will be developed in multiple phases, with the advancement of circulation, utilities and other infrastructure as necessary for each phase. Relocation of substantial quantities of earth, particularly in grading of the Western Bypass Corridor, is an important consideration in the phasing schedule to avoid soil export and subsequent re -grading. The north parcels at Villages A and B are anticipated to comprise the first phase of development. Phasing will subsequently continue southward, village by village, as indicated in Figure 11-2 Phasing Plan. The process of developing the site, village by village, will be commensurate with market demand. The Development Agreement between the Master Developer and the City of Temecula outlines the on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements that must be complete at certain development thresholds within each phase. Phasing may occur out of sequence, as long as the infrastructure required for that phase is completed. 11-5 5PEdaFit November 2017 PHASING SUMMARY IWWH 1 aw Ml NI1XE fOi05$ kcF MO' We rl000 W ISR .a 5•50-I w,18E W 117.14 Witt lett WP nn W6" %CAE C .0*11 7.74 MINE 0 mum Ism yukE 71. Ltd F .4s xixE,' re. M r om Oat IPSI WF •Xi L' 745 H]. 34Sr RAC .0I41.01 I/.II PHASING MAP TRACT MAP NO. 36959-1 ti NORTH PHASE ■ e 7 t�' 1 1 �3 TRACT MAP NO. 36959-2 i CENTRAL PHASE i •., �1 I I� TRACT MAP 1 NO. 36959-3 SOUTH PHASE TRACT MAP NO, 36959 CIVIC PHASE GRAPHIC SCALE *1 0 700 4.0 4 0 1700 • • ri fir. Figure 11-2 Altair Conceptual Phasing Pian November 2017 SPEC: PIC PLAWFJD , 11.4 Maintenance 1 1 IMPI EMEN1A11ON Maintenance shall generally be the responsibility of the property owners within the Altair development, except at public roads and any spaces dedicated to the City of Temecula. Included in this project are parks, parkways and public areas that beautify the development. The future maintenance of these common areas into perpetuity shall be the responsibility of the Home Owner's Association (IHOA) established by the development, There will be a Master HOA for spaces shared by the entire community and sub-HOA's within each village or planning district. Common area landscaping and open areas will be developed in conjunction with the project. The maintenance of these areas will also be the responsibility of the Home Owner's Association. See Figure 11-3 Developer Responsibility Map. The following areas will be maintained by the City: • Western Bypass Corridor, including the Class 1 Bikeway where it is in the public right of way. The main portion of the Class 1 Bikeway is on private property and will be maintained by the Master HOA. • the north portion of Altair Vista from Coromell Trail to the Western Bypass • "B" Street south • "C" Street • Village C Park • Grand Stair • Plaza at west end of Main Street (Main Street Transition) The School site will be maintained by the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) after ownership of the property is transferred to the District. If the TVUSD declines to accept the dedication, then the property will be maintained by the respective property owners and the Master HOA, as applies. 11.5 Density Transfer Transfer of dwelling units is permitted between districts in the specific plan area with the following limitations: A. The total number of dwelling units in the specific plan area shall not exceed 1,750 units. B. No planning area may exceed the target quantity of dwelling units by more than 20%. C. Transfer must not cause significantly increased or new environmental impacts. l7. Circulation, infrastructure and utility systems must be adequate for the altered density distribution. E. Applications for density transfer shall include a Project Residential Unit Reconciliation Report comparing the approved number of units to the proposed quantity for each planning area, including the remaining permitted quantity of dwelling units. =115PE ; November 2017 fIMPLEMENTATION 11 Master Developer Constructed, Master Developer Constructed, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Constructed, Sub HOA Maintained Master HOA Maintained Deeded to Guest Builder, Deeded to Guest Builder, Private Roads: Master Developer Responsible for Curb to Curb Street Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Public Roads: Master Developer Responsible for Curb to Curb Street Improvements, City of Temecula Maintained Master Developer Road Frontage Improvements, Deeded to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Constructed Pedestrian Corridor Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Park Improvements, Deeded to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Park Improvements, Easement Granted to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Park Improvements on Land Owned and Maintained by the City of Temecula Master Developer Park Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Recreation Center, Master HOA Maintained Guest Builder Constructed, Sub HOA Maintained Figure 11-3 Developer Responsibility Map November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANFN ' i IMPLEMEN1Ai1ON 11.6 Lot Reconfiguration or Consolidation Lots within the Altair Specific Plan area may be consolidated, subdivided or otherwise adjusted as allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Temecula and other applicable codes. Such adjustments do not require an amendment this Specific Pian, as long as the resultant lot(s) comply with the intent and guidelines of this Specific Plan. All Tots shall meet the minimum lot dimensions outlined in Section 10, Development Standards. This Specific Plan does not limit construction of buildings over lot lines of contiguous lots under the same ownership. 11.7 Financing Strategies Funding for the construction of the infrastructure and facilities at Altair may be provided by a variety of potential sources, such as Developer Financing; Development Impact Fees (DIF); Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF); Federal, State or Local Grant Funding; or revenue from any Community Facilities District, Assessment District, Infrastructure Financing District, Gasoline Taxes, or the General Fund. In several instances including but not limited to the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge, the sewer facilities, parks, etc., the developer shall utilize fee credits and/or reimbursements from the various agencies, including the City of Temecula, to directly of set the costs expended by the developer. Some of these credits and reimbursements are outlined in the Development Agreement described below. The Master Developer and the City of Temecula will enter into a Development Agreement for Altair Specific Plan and Related Entitlements to enable adequate and timely funding of the infrastructure necessary to Altair's success. The Agreement will outline public and private improvement cost responsibilities, project related costs, credits and/or reimbursements and corresponding agencies. The Development Agreement lays out the timing of infrastructure improvements relative to project phasing. A Community Finance District (CFD) will be formed which will include special taxes to fund public infrastructure related to the project as well as the projected annual deficit for the cost of City Services. 5PEdaFit ; November 2017 IMPLEMENTATION I I 11.8 Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. B. The owners and their successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 11.9 Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, each Occupied Residential Property in the Specific Plan area shall pay Forty -Three Dollars 043.00} per dwelling unit per year, to be increased each fiscal year by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's payment, to fund the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs. B. For the purposes of this provision, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. For the purposes of this provision "Wildlife Conservation Costs" means: (1) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority within the Interstate 15 freeway Special Linkage Area south of the Project whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lions) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or November 2017 11 IMPI EMEl11AT1ON (2) Acquisition by the City of lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the Project for conservation; and/or (3) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (i) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Specific Plan area. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community {Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 11.10 Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or portion of this specific plan, or any future amendments or additions hereto, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this specific plan, or any future amendments or additions hereto. The City hereby declares that it would have adopted these requirements and each sentence, subsection, clause, phrase or portion or any future amendments or additions thereto, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, portions or any future amendments or additions thereto may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. =FL FIC PLAN November 2017 November 20$7 Altair Appendix -Plant Lists (Refer to various Specific Plan Sections for NOTE: Plant species identified in Table 6 - shall not be used in areas adjacent to the Natural (Permanent) Slopes: Scientific Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRI FOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTAL'S CERCOCARPUS BETULO'DES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUT'FOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LA UR/NA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULA TUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS GLAUCA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CERCIS OCCIDENTAL'S 'ALBA' ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM CANUM SSP. CANUM KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA MIMULUS AURANTIACUS OPUNTIA LITTORAL'S PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA SPECIFIC PLAN APPENDIX Design Intent Descriptions of each area) 2 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) MSHCP corridor and/or native open space. Common Name COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE NARROWLEAF MILKWEED BIGBERRY MANZANITA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON MONKEY -FLOWER COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY November 2017 Water SoCal Use Native L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X APPENDIX Altair Appendix -Plant Lists (Refer to various Specific Plan Sections for NOTE: Plant species identified in Table 6 - shall not be used in areas adjacent to the Natural (Permanent) Slopes: Scientific Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSQLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTAL15 CERC©CARPUS BETULOIDES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALQSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARCHTOSTAPHYLQS GLAUCA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLILJS CEA NO THUS TOMENTOSUS CERCIS OCCIDENTAL'S ALBA' ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM CANUM SSP. CANUM KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA MIMULUS AURANTIACUS OPUNTIA LITTORAL'S PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA Design Intent Descriptions of each area) 2 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) MSHCP corridor and/or native open space. Common Name COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHA MISE NARROWLEAF MILKWEED BIGBERRY MANZANITA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEA VED PENSTEMMON MONKEY -FLOWER COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON CGFFEEBERRY Water SoCal Use Native L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANR APPENDIX Temporary Slopes: Seed Mix AMBROSIA PSILOSTACHYA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA CAMISSONIOPSIS CHEIRANTHIFOLIA CLARKIA PURPUREA CORETHROGYNE FILAGINIFOLIA DISTICHLIS SPICATA STRICTA ERIOGONUM FASCICULA TUM ERIOPHYLLUM CONFERTIFLORUM ESCHSCHOLZIA CALIFORNICA GALIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM ISOCOMA MENZIESII LUPINUS BICOLOR SALVIA APIANA SALVIA MELLIFERA STIPA PULCHRA Seed Mix Supplemental Products (UNWED 1000 WOOD FIBER ECOLOGY CONTROLS M-BINDER/TACK BIOSOL FORTE 7-2-1 ORGANIC FERTILIZER AM -120 MYCORRHIZAL INOCULUM TRI -C SOLUBLE HUMATE Pure Live Seed Lbs.jAcre WESTERN RAGWEED CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH SUN CUP FOUR -SPOT CLARKIA CALIFORNIA -ASTER SAL TGRASS BUCKWHEAT GOLDEN -YARROW CALIFORNIA POPPY NARROW -LEAVED BEDSTRA W GOLDENBUSH MINIATURE LUPINE WHITE SAGE BLACK SAGE PURPLE NEEDLEGRASS 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.10 1.00 2.00 0.70 1.50 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50 1.00 3.00 Application Rate 2000 LBS/ACRE 200 LBS/ACRE 800 LBS/ACRE 60 LBS/ACRE 1 LBS/ACRE NOTE. THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 Hiking Trails, Bikeways Scientific Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRJFOL!A QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CERCOCARPUS BETULOIDES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS GLAUCA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS `ALBA' ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM CANUM SSP. CANUM KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA MIMULUS A URA NTIA CUS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLU5 RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA SALVIA APIA NA SALVIA MELLIFERA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers ADENOSTEMA FASCICULATUM `NICOLAS' ARTEMESIA CALIFORNICA 'CANYON GRAY' A-4 Common Name COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE NARROWLEAF MILKWEED BIGBERRY MANZANITA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON MONKEY -FLOWER COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY WHITE SAGE BLACK SAGE MISSION MANZANITA PROSTRATE CHA MISE CANYON GRAY SAGEBRUSH November 2017 Water SoCaI Use Native L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X SPECIFIC PLANIrII BACCHARIS PILULARIS PIGEON POINT' ERIOGONUM FASC1CULATUM 'DANA POINT' ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM Vines LONICERA SUBSPICA TA VITIS CAL1FORNICA Seed Mix AMBROSIA PSILOSTACHYA ARTEMISIA CAL1FORNICA CAMISSONIOPSIS CHEIRANTHIFOLIA CLARKIA PURPUREA CORETHROGYNE FILAGINIFOLIA DISTICHLIS SPICATA STRICTA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM ERIOPHYLLUM CONFERTIFLORUM ESCHSCHOLZIA CALIFORNICA GALIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM ISOCOMA MENZIESI! LUPINUS BICOLOR SALVIA APIANA SALVIA MELLIFERA STIPA PULCHRA Seed Mix Supplemental Products CONWED 1000 WOOD FIBER ECOLOGY CONTROLS M-BINDER/TACK BIOSOL FORTE 7-2-1 ORGANIC FERTILIZER AM -120 MYCORRHIZAL INOCULUM TRI -C SOLUBLE HUMATE DWARF COYOTE BUSH DANA POINT BUCKWHEAT BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT L VL L L L CHAPARRAL HONEYSUCKLE L CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L Pure Live Seed Lbs./Acre WESTERN RAGWEED CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH SUN CUP FOUR -SPOT CLARKIA CALIFORNIA -ASTER SALTGRASS BUCKWHEAT GOLDEN -YARROW CALIFORNIA POPPY NARROW -LEAVED BEDSTRAW GOLDENBUSH MINIATURE LUPINE WHITE SAGE BLACK SAGE PURPLE NEEDLEGRASS 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.10 1.00 2.00 0.70 1.50 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50 1.00 3.00 Application Rate 2000 LBS/ACRE 200 LBS/ACRE 800 LBS/ACRE 60 LBS/ACRE 1 LBS/ACRE APPENDIX NOTE: SEED MIX MAY BE OM17TED WHEN FULL PLANT COVERAGE IS OBTAINED THROUGH CONTAINER STOCK. NOTE: THIS LIST 15 NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A -S APPEN DIX Key Pedestrian Walkways Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA ALBIZIA JUL1BRISSIN ARBUTUS 'MARINA' CERCID1UM'DESERT MUSEUM' CHITALPA x TASHKENTENSIS GEIJERA PARV1FLORA LA URUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' PINUS ELDARICA PISTACHIA CHINENS!S POPULUS FREMONTI! 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS ILEX QUERCUS VIRGINIANA `HERITAGE' RHUS LANCEA Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEAR/5 'WARREN JONES' CITRUS SPP. LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. AR1STIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BA CCHA RIS PIL ULARIS BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA A-6 Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA SILK TREE MARINA ARBUTUS PALO VERDE CHITALPA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE AFGHAN PINE CHINESE PISTACHE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK HOLLY OAK SOUTHERN LIVE OAK AFRICAN SUMAC STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW ORGANGE, LEMON, LIME, ETC. CRAPE MYRTLE TO YON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZAN1TA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH Water SoCaI Use Native L M M L X L M L L L M M X L X L X L M L L L L M M L X VL X L X L X VL X VL X L X L L L X L X L X L X L X L L November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN%lZ BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEA NO THUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEA NO THUS TOMENTOSUS CIS TUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULA TA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ENCELIA FARINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' EUPHORBIA MILII 'RED1-RED' FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GAL VESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GA URA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUMJAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MAHONIA NEVINII MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORAL'S OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAL' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS 'MAKI' RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SPECIFIC PLAN BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAFCEANOTHUS CEA NO THUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON SILVERBERRY BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH RED EUPHORBIA PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TO YON YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON SHRUBBY YEW PINE MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CURRENT L L VL M L X L L X L L L L L L L X L L X L L M L X L M L L X L X X L L L M VL X L L X M X M L X L L X M M M L X L X L X M X November 2017. APPENDIX APPENDIX A-8 SALVIA A PIA NA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGI1 SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS `CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASC1CULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS -CA TI PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE VL X L X L L L L X L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L M L M L X NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK Drainage Draws, Bioswales, Retention/Detention/Water Quality Basins Scientific Name Trees - Shade PLATANUS ACERIFQLIA 'BLOODGOOD' * * PLATANUSACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA'** PLATANUS RACEMOSA 'ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA SALIX LASIOLEPIS Common Name LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ARROYO WILLOW* (* WET AREAS ONLY) Water SoCaI Use Native M M M X M X L X H X ** Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs/ Grasses ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARTEMISIA DOUGLASIANA BACCHARIS SALICIFOLIA JUNCUS MEXICANUS JUNCUS PATENS JUNCUS XIPHOIDES LEYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS RIBES SPP. ROSA CALIFORNICA RUBUS URSINUS VERBENA LASIOSTACHYS Seed Mix ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM AGROSTIS PALLENS AMBROSIA PSILOSTACHYA ARTEMISIA DOUGLASIANA CLAYTONIA PERFOLIATA DESCHAMPSIA DANTHONIDIDES GRACILIS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES HORDEUM BRACHYANTHERUM JUNCUS B UFO NI US MIMULUS GUTTATUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS OENOTHERA ELATA HOOKERII BLUE ELDERBERRY NARROWLEAF MILKWEED MUGWORT MULE FAT MEXICAN RUSH CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH IRIS -LEAVED RUSH BLUE LYME GRASS DEER GRASS CURRENT CALIFORNIA ROSE CALIFORNIA BLACKBERRY WESTERN VERAIN L X L M M M M M M M M M M M Pure Live Seed Lbs./Acre 1.00 3.00 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.50 COMMON YARROW SEASHORE BENT GRASS WESTERN RAGWEED CALIFORNIA MUGWORT MINER'S LETTUCE ANNUAL HAIR GRASS BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS MEADOW BARLEY TOAD RUSH COMMON MONKEYFLO WER DEERGRASS EVENING PRIMROSE SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 APPENDIX APPENDIX A-10 PLANTAGO INSULARIS DESERT PLANTAIN 5.00 FESTUCA MICROSTACHYS SMALL FESCUE 5.00 TRIFOLIUM OBTUSIFLORUM CLAMMY CLOVER 3.00 Seed Mix Supplemental Products CONWED 1000 WOOD FIBER ECOLOGY CONTROLS M-BINDER/TACK BIOSOL FORTE 7-2-1 ORGANIC FERTILIZER AM -120 MYCORRHIZAL INOCULUM TRI -C SOLUBLE HUMA TE Application Rate 2000 LBS/ACRE 200 LBS/ACRE 800 LBS/ACRE 60 LBS/ACRE 1 LBS/ACRE NOTE: SEED MIX MAY BE OMITTED WHEN FULL PLANT COVERAGE 15 OBTAINED THROUGH CONTAINER STOCK. NOTE: TOPS OF SLOPES AND DRYER AREAS SHALL TRANSITION TO THE NATURAL SLOPES PLANT PALETTE. NOTE: THIS LIST I5 NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN%lI Roundabouts Scientific Name Trees - Shade CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' QUERCUS AGRI FOLIA Shrubs AGAVE SPP ARISTIDA PURPUREA BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULA TA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP, ENCELIA CALIFORN!CA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULA TUM EUPHORBIA MIL!! 'REDI-RED' GA L VESIA SPECIOSA HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA ILEX VOMITORIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPAR!US MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS OPUNTIA L!TTORALIS OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAL° SALVIA CLEVELAND!! SALVIA GREGII SANTOLINA SPP, TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' SPECCFIC PLAN Common Name PALO VERDE COAST LIVE OAK CENTURY PLANT PURPLE THREE AWN DESERT MARIGOLD BULBINE CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON CALIFORNIA ENCELIA GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA L ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON L RED/YELLOW YUCCA L BACC YAUPON LANTANA LA VENDER BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED DEER GRASS COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE LAVENDER COTTON GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA Water SoCal Use Native L X L X L L X L L L L L L L L L X L L X L L X X L L L L X VL X M X L X L L L L L L X November 2017 APPENDIX A.--11 APPENDIX A-12 Groundcovers BACCHARIS PfLULARAIS CVS. CEANGTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEA NO THUS DYMONDIA CALIFORNIA ENCELIA TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS L L L L X L L L NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANT Entry Statements Scientific Name Trees - Shade PLATANUSACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'** PLATANUSACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA'** PLATANUS RACEMOSA 'ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS A GRIFOLIA SALIX LASIOLEPIS Common Name LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ARROYO WILLOW* (* WET AREAS ONLY) Water SoCaI Use Native M M M M L H ** Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEARIS 'WARREN JONES' HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS `CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CIS TUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM SPECIFIC PLAN STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY November 20t7 X X X X L L L L X VL X L X L X VL X VL X L L L X L X L X L L X L L L L VL M L X L L X L L APPENDIX A COREOPSIS AURICULA TA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLI R1ON SPP. ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA M1Ldd 'RED!—RED' FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GA URA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM TEXA NUM' LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPAR1US MAHONIA NEVINII MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS OPUNTIA SANTA—RITA 'TUBAC' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS PODOCARPUS GACILIOR RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA A PIA NA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELAND!! SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA A-14 DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON SILVERBERRY BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YA UPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART—LEAVED PENSTEMMON LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY—FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON FERN PINE (HEDGE FORM) MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONA DEBERR Y SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE November 2017 L L L L L X L X L X L L X L L X L M L X L M L L X L L X L X L L L M L X VL X L L X M X M L X L L X M M M L X L X L X M X VL X L X L L L SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ROSEMARINUS `PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS -CA TI PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA V1TIS CALIFORNICA BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEA NOTHUS DYMONDIA CALIFORNIA ENCELIA TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L X L L VL X L t X L L X L L L L X L L L M L M t X NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 APPENDIX A -1S APPENDIX Park and Recreation Areas Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN ARBUTUS 'MARINA' CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' CHITALPA x TASHKENTENSIS GEIJERA PAR VIFLORA LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' PINUS ELDARICA PISTACHIA CHINENSIS PLATANUSACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'** PLATANUSACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA'`* PLATANUS RACEMOSA 'ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS ILEX QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 'HERITAGE' RHUS LANCEA Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA SILK TREE MARINA ARBUTUS PALO VERDE CHITALPA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE AFGHAN PINE CHINESE PISTACHE LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK HOLLY OAK SOUTHERN LIVE OAK AFRICAN SUMAC Water SoCal Use Native L M M L X L M L L L M M M M X M X L X L X L M L ** Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEARIS 'WARREN JONES' CITRUS SPP. HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW ORGANGE, LEMON, LIME, ETC. TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHA MISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN L L L M L VL L L VL VL L L L L L X X X X X X X X X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA BULBJNE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA. CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULATA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EP/LOB/UM SPP. {ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA MILII 'RED! -RED' FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GAURA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM TEXANUM' LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MAHONIA NEVINII MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON SIL VERBERRY BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR November 2017 L X L L X L L L L VL M L X L L X L L L L L L L X L X L X L L X L L X L M L X L M L L X L L X L X L L L M L X VL X L L X M X M L X A-1? APPENDIX OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAC' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS PODOCARPUS GACILIOR RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELAND!! SALVIA GREG!! SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULT1VARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ROSEMA RINUS 'PROSTRA TUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS -CA TI PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON FERN PINE (HEDGE FORM) MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONA DEBERR Y SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZAN1TA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA CALIFORNIA ENCELIA TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKST1CKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L L X M M M L X L X L X M X VL X L X L L L L X L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L X L L L M L M L X NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK School Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN ARBUTUS `MARINA' CERCIDIUM `DESERT MUSEUM' CHITALPA x TASHKENTENSIS GEIJERA PARVIFLORA LAURUS NOBILIS'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' PINUS ELDARICA PISTACHIA CHINENSIS PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'** PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA `COLUMBIA'** PLATANUS RACEMOSA 'ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII `NEVADA` QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS ILEX QUERCUS VIRGINIANA `HERITAGE' RHUS LANCEA Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA SILK TREE MARINA ARBUTUS PALO VERDE CHITALPA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE AFGHAN PINE CHINESE PISTACHE LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK HOLLY OAK SOUTHERN LIVE OAK AFRICAN SUMAC Water SoCaI Use Native L M M L X L M L L L M M M M X M X L X L X L M L * * Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEARIS `WARREN JONES' CITRUS SPP. HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA 1LICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA OfMSPECCFIC PLAN STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW ORGANGE, LEMON, LIME, ETC. TOWN HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH November 2017 L L L M L VL L L VL VL L L L L L L X x x X X x X X X X A-19 APPENDIX BA CCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS A URICULA TA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FA RINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. {ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GA URA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LA VANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXA NUM' LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MAHONIA NEVINII MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA R1GENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAC' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS A-20 BENTENNIAL BA CCHARIS DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON SIL VERBERRY BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TO YON YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON L L X L L L L VL M L X L L X L L L L L L L X L X L X L L X L L X M L X L M L L X L L X L X L L L M L X VL X L L X M X M L X L L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANE PODOCARPUS GACILIOR RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA GREGII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DELA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRA TUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS -CA TI PARTHENOC!SSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA FERN PINE (HEDGE FORM) MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEA NO THUS DYMONDIA CALIFORNIA ENCELIA TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEJNIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE M M M L X L X L X M X VL X L X L L L L X L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L X L L L M L M L X NOTE. THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 APPENDIX A -z1 APPENDIX Villages A, B, C, D, E, F, G Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN ARBUTUS 'MARINA' CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' CHITALPA x TASHKENTENSIS GEIJERA PAR VIFLORA LAURUS NOBIL1S 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' PINUS ELDARICA PISTACHIA CHINENSIS POPULUS FREMONTII "NEVADA" QUERCUS A GRIFOLIA QUERCUS ENGL EMA NNII QUERCUS ILEX QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 'HERITAGE' RHUS LANCEA Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEARIS 'WARREN JONES' CITRUS SPP. HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA MAGNOLIA G. `LITTLE GEM' PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE AMERICANA ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES A- Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA SILK TREE MARINA ARBUTUS PALO VERDE CHITALPA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW SWEET BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE AFGHAN PINE CHINESE PISTACHE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK HOLLY OAK SOUTHERN LIVE OAK AFRICAN SUMAC STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW ORGANGE, LEMON, LIME, ETC. TO YON CRAPE MYRTLE LITTLE GEM MANGOLIA HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHA MISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH DESERT BROOM Water SoCal Use Native L M M L X L M L L L M M X L X L X L M L L L L M L X M M VL X L X L X VL X VL X L X L L L X L X L X L X L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA. CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULA TA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. DODONAEA VISCOSA ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ENCELIA FA RINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONI1 EPILOBIUM SPP. {ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' EUPHORBIA MILII 'REDI-RED' FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GA L VESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GA URA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LAVANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MAHONIA NEVINII MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA 'TUBAC' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS 'MAKI' RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA DESERT MARIGOLD WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEA NOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON HOPSEED BUSH SIL VERBERRY BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH RED EUPHORBIA PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L L L L L VL M L X L L X L L L L L L L L X L L X L L M L X L M L L X L X X LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON SHRUBBY YEW PINE MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY November 2017 L L L M VL X L L X M X M L X L L X M M M L X A-23 APPENDIX A-24 RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELAND!! SALVIA GREW! SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA L1LACINA DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHAR1S `CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS -CAT! PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA LEMONA DEBERR Y SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L X L X M X VL X L X L L L L X L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L M L M L X NOTE: THIS LIST I5 NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK Civic/ Community Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN ARBUTUS 'MARINA' CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' CHITALPA x TASHKENTENSIS GEIJERA PAR VIFLORA LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' PINUS ELDARICA PISTACHIA CHINENSIS POPULUS FREMONTII 'NEVADA' QUERCUS A GRIFOLIA QUERCUS ENGL EMA NNII QUERCUS ILEX QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 'HERITAGE' RHUS LANCER Trees - Accent ARBUTUS UNEDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CHILOPSIS LINEAR'S 'WARREN JONES' CITRUS SPP. HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA MAGNOLIA G. `LITTLE GEM' PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE AMERICANA ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA SPECCFIC PLAN Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA SILK TREE MARINA ARBUTUS PALO VERDE CHITALPA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW S WEE T BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE AFGHAN PINE CHINESE PISTACHE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK HOLLY OAK SOUTHERN LIVE OAK AFRICAN SUMAC STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD W. JONES DESERT WILLOW ORGANGE LEMON, LIME, ETC. TOYON LITTLE GEM MANGOLIA HOLLYLEAF CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHA MISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD November 2017 Water SoCal Use Native L M M L X L M L L L M M X L X L X L M L L L L M L X M VL X L X L X VL X VL X L X L L L X L X L X L L X L APPENDIX A-2, BUDDLEIA MARRUBIIFOLIA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS A URICULA TA `NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. DODONAEA VISCOSA ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA MIDI 'REDI-RED` FEIJOA SELLOWIANA GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GA URA LINDHEIMER! HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LA VANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LIGUSTRUMJAPONICUM °TEXANUM' LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MAHONIA NEVINII MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS OPUNTIA LITTORAL'S OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA TUBAC' PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS PODOCARPUS GACILIOR A-26 WOOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEA NOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON HOPSEED BUSH SIL VERBERRY BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA PINEAPPLE GUAVA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YA UPFIND ON YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON LANTANA LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER JAPANESE PRIVET BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED NEVIN MAHONIA MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON FERN PINE (HEDGE FORM) November 2017 L L L VL M L X L L X L L L L L L L L X L X L X L L X L L X L M L X L M L L X L L X L X L L L M L X VL X L L X M X M L X L L X M PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS RHAPHIOLEPIS MAJESTIC BEAUTY' RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELAND!! SALVIA GREG!! SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS `CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASC1CULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMA RINUS 'PROSTRA TUS` SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines FICUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS -CAT! PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSP!DATA VIT1S CALIFORNICA SHRUBBY YEW PINE MAJESTIC BEAUTY YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONA DEBERR Y SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CIA W BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE M M M L X L X L X M X VL X L X L L L L X L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L M L M L X NOTE: THIS UST I5 NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 A-27 APPENDIX Street Types: Western Bypass Corridor 1 and 2 Scientific Name Trees - Shade PLATANUSACERIFOLIA `BLOODGOOD'** PLATANUSACERIFOLIA `COLUMBIA'** PLATANUS RACEMOSA `ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII `NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Common Name LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK Water SoCal Use Native M M M X M X L X L X L X L X ** Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CERCOCARPUS BETULOIDES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS IL1C!FOLIA JLICIFOLJA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLJUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA AR'TEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARJS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS DASYLIRION SPP. ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBB©NWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANI TA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS DESERT SPOON BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X VL X L X L L L X L X L X L X L L X L L X L L X L X L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANT EPIL OBIUM SPP. (ZA USCHNERIA) ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM GALVESIA SPECIOSA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELAND!! SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHAR1S PIL ULA RA IS CVS. BACCHARIS PILULARIS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM Vines VIT1S CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA L BUCKWHEAT L ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON L TOYON L YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY LEMONA DEBERR Y SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE JOJOBA CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA MISSION MANZANITA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH COYOTE BRUSH BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE X x x x X X t X VL X t X M X L X L X L X t X L X M X VL X L X t L t X L VL X L X L X L t X L X t X L X t X NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 A-29 APPENDIX Street Types: B Street South and C Street Scientific Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ENGLEMANNI/ Trees - Accent CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILIC/FOL/A RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM AGAVE SPP, ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BA CCHA R/S SA RO THRO/DES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS DASYLIRION SPP. ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) ERIOGONUM FASCICULA TUM GA L VESIA SPECIOSA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS OPUNTIA LITTORAL'S PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORN/CA Common Name COAST LIVE OAK ENGELMANN OAK WESTERN REDBUD TO YON HOL L YLEA F CHERRY LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEA NO THUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS DESERT SPOON BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BUCKWHEAT ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON TOYON YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY Water SoCal Use Native L X L X L L X VL X L X L X VL X VL X L L L X L X L X L X L L X L L X L L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X M X L X L X L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN%lI RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA APIANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELANDII SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS VERBENA LILACINA 'DELA MINA' XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. BACCHARIS PILULARIS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM Vines VITIS CALIFORNICA LEMONA DEBERR Y SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE JOJOBA CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA MISSION MANZAN1TA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH COYOTE BRUSH BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L X L X M X VL X L X L L L X L VL X L X L X L L X L X L X L X L X NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 APPENOIX A-31 APPENDIX Street Type: Coromell Trail — Split Lanes, Separate Trail, no Parking Scientific Name Trees - Shade PLATANUSACERIFOLIA `BLOODGOOD'** PLATANUS A CERIFOL IA `COLUMBIA' * * PLATANUS RACEMOSA `ROBERTS' POPULUS FREMONTII `NEVADA' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Common Name LONDON PLANE TREE LONDON PLANE TREE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WESTERN COTTONWOOD COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK Water SoCaI Use Native M M M X M X L X L X L X L X ** Use near roads or hardscape areas only, otherwise use native California Sycamore. Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CERCOCARPUS BETULOIDES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA PRUNUS IL1C!FOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ADENOSTOMA SPARSIFOLIUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA AR'TEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS DASYLIRION SPP. ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ENCELIA FARINOSA ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HO££YLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE RED SHANKS/RIBBONWOOD NARROWLEAF MILKWEED CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANI TA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS DESERT SPOON BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BRITTLE BUSH L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X VL X L X L L L X L X L X L X L L X L L X L L X L X L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANT EP1L OBIUM SPP. (ZA USCHNERIA) ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM GALVESIA SPECIOSA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' LOTUS SCOPARIUS MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS OPUNTIA LITTORALIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA RIBES SPP. SALVIA AP1ANA SALVIA CHAMAEDROIDES SALVIA CLEVELAND!! SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA MELLIFERA SALVIA TRIDENT SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHAR1S PIL ULA RA IS CVS. BACCHARIS PILULARIS ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM Vines VIT1S CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA L BUCKWHEAT L ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON L TOYON L YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L BLUE LYME GRASS DEAR WEED MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY LEMONA DEBERR Y SUGAR BUSH CURRENT WHITE SAGE BLUE SAGE CLEVELAND SAGE PURPLE SAGE BLACK SAGE HYBRID SAGE JOJOBA CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA MISSION MANZANITA DWARF COYOTE BRUSH COYOTE BRUSH BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE X x x x X X t X VL X t X M X L X L X L X t X L X M X VL X L X t L t X L VL X L X L X L t X L X t X L X L X APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-33 APPENDIX Street Type: Altair Vista - Landscaped Parkways with Parking one side and Altair Vista (Public) — Split Lanes with No Parking Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ILEX RHUS LANCER Shrubs AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARISTIDA PURPUREA BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CISTUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULA TA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLA TA DASYLIRION SPP. ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. {ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM EUPHORBIA MILII REDI-RED' GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GA URA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LA VANDULA SPP. LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' A Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA PALO VERDE S WEE T BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE COAST LIVE OAK HOLLY OAK AFRICAN SUMAC CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS PURPLE THREE AWN DESERT MARIGOLD BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON CALIFORNIA ENCELIA GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L LANTANA L LAVENDER L BLUE LYME GRASS L Water SoCal Use Native L L X L L L X L L L L L X L L L VL M L L L L L L L X L L X L L X L L X L M L L X X X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN%lI MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' SALVIA CLEVELAND!! SALVIA GREG!! SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' Groundcovers BACCHARIS `CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PIL ULA RATS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMA RINUS 'PROSTRA TUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS DEER GRASS MYRTLE PENSTEMON YEDDO HAWTHORN CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS M X M L X M L L L L L VL X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 APPENDIX A-35 APPENDIX Street Type: Altair Vista and A Street - Urban Parkways with Parking one side Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ILEX RHUS LANCEA Shrubs AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARISTIDA PURPUREA BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CIS TUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULA TA `NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULA TUM EUPHORBIA MILLI 'REDI-RED' GA L VESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GA URA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LA VANDULA SPP. LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA PALO VERDE S WEE T BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE COAST LIVE OAK HOLLY OAK AFRICAN SUMAC CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS PURPLE THREE AWN DESERT MARIGOLD BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON CALIFORNIA ENCELIA GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L LANTANA LA VENDER BLUE LYME GRASS DEER GRASS Water SoCaI Use Native L L X L L L X L L L L L X L L L VL M L L L L L L L X L L X L L X L L X L M L L X X L L L X M X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK MYRTUS COMMUNIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR` SALVIA CLEVELAND!! SALVIA GREG!! SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOL1NA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' Groundcovers BA CCHAR1S 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULT1VARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORN1CA ERIOGONUM FASC1CULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMA RINUS 'PROSTRA TUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS MYRTLE PENSTEMON YEDDO HAWTHORN CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA BENTENN1AL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS M t X M L t t t t VL X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 APPENDIX Street Type: B Street North - Landscaped Parkways with No Parking Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' QUERCUS A GRIFOLIA QUERCUS ILEX RHUS LANCEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. ARISTIDA PURPUREA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS SAROTHROIDES BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CIS TUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULA TA 'NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ENCELIA CALIFORNICA EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULA TUM EUPHORBIA HILA "REDI-RED GALVESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GA URA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA A -3u Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA PALO VERDE S WEE T BA Y FRUITLESS OLIVE COAST LIVE OAK HOLLY OAK AFRICAN SUMAC CHA MISE CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS MANZANITA PURPLE THREE AWN CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH DESERT BROOM DESERT MARIGOLD BULBINE BAJA DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH CEA NO THUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON CALIFORNIA ENCELIA CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUA RA RED/YELLOW YUCCA TOYON YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L Water SoCal Use Native L L X L L L X L L VL L L L L L L L L L M L L L L L L L L L L L L L M L L L X X X X X X X X X X X X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN LANTANA SPP. LA VANDULA SPP. LEUCOPHYLIUM FRUTESCENS LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' MIMULUS AURANTIACUS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS MYRTUS COMMUNIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RHUS INTERGIFOLIA RHUS OVATA SALVIA CLEVELAND!! SALVIA GREG!! SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOLINA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOR Groundcovers BACCHARIS `CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS PILULARAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS Vines ECUS PUMILA MACFADYENA UNGUIS -CA TI PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VITIS CALIFORNICA LANTANA. LAVENDER TEXAS RANGER BLUE LYME GRASS MONKEY -FLOWER DEER GRASS MYRTLE PENSTEMON YEDDO HAWTHORN COFFEEBERRY LEMONADEBERRY SUGAR BUSH CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA COAST ROSEMARY MISSION MANZANITA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS CREEPING FIG CAT'S CLAW BOSTON IVY CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE L L L L X L X M X M L X M L X L X L X L L L L L VL X L L X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L M L M L X NOTE: THIS LIST I5 NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. November 2017 A-39 APPENDIX Street Type: Altair Vista - One-way Street with Parking one side Scientific Name Trees - Shade ACACIA STENOPHYLLA CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA QUERCUS ILEX RHUS LANCEA Shrubs AGAVE SPP. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CULTIVARS ARISTIDA PURPUREA BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA BULBINE FRUTESCENS CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYIA CALLISTEMON VIM. 'LITTLE JOHN' CEANOTHUS CULTIVARS CIS TUS SPP. CONVOLVULUS CNEORUM COREOPSIS AURICULA TA `NANA' COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA DASYLIRION SPP. ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII EPILOBIUM SPP. (ZAUSCHNERIA) EREMOPHILA HYGRO. 'BLUE BELLS' ERIOGONUM FASCICULA TUM EUPHORBIA MILII REDI-RED' GA L VESIA SPECIOSA GREVILLEA SPP. GA URA LINDHEIMERI HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA ILEX VOMITORIA KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA LANTANA SPP. LA VANDULA SPP. LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS Common Name SHOESTRING ACACIA PALO VERDE S WEE T BAY FRUITLESS OLIVE COAST LIVE OAK HOLLY OAK AFRICAN SUMAC CENTURY PLANT MANZANITA CULTIVARS PURPLE THREE AWN DESERT MARIGOLD BULBINE BAJA DUSTER FAIRY DUSTER LITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSH CEANOTHUS ROCKROSE BUSH MORNING GLORY DWARF COREOPSIS COREOPSIS DESERT SPOON CALIFORNIA ENCELIA GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH BUCKWHEAT RED EUPHORBIA ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON GREVILLEA GUARA RED/YELLOW YUCCA YAUPON YELLOW PENSTEMMON L HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON L Water SoCal Use Native L L X L L L X L L L L L X L L L VL M L L L L L L L X L L X L L X L L X L M L L X X L L L X M X LANTANA LAVENDER BLUE LYME GRASS DEER GRASS November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANK MYRTUS COMMUNIS PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAPHIOLEP1S UMBELLATA 'MINOR` SALVIA CLEVELAND!! SALVIA GREG!! SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA SALVIA TRIDENT SANTOL1NA SPP. SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS VERBENA LILACINA 'DE LA MINA' Groundcovers BA CCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' BA CCHA RIS PIL ULA RAIS CVS. CEANOTHUS CULT1VARS DYMONDIA MARGARETAE ELYMUS TRITICOIDES ENCELIA CALIFORNICA ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM LEYMUS COND. 'CANYON PRINCE' ROSEMA RINUS 'PROSTRA TUS' SENECIO MANDRALISCAE SENECIO SERPENS MYRTLE PENSTEMON YEDDO HAWTHORN CLEVELAND SAGE AUTUMN SAGE PURPLE SAGE HYBRID SAGE LAVENDER COTTON JOJOBA GERMANDER CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA BENTENNIAL BACCHARIS DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CEANOTHUS DYMONDIA BEARDLESS WILD RYEGRASS CALIFORNIA ENCELIA BUCKWHEAT BLUE LYME GRASS TRAILING ROSEMARY KLEINIA BLUE CHALKSTICKS M L X M L L L L L VL X L L X L L L L L X L X L X L X L L L APPENDIX NOTE: THIS LIST IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. ADDITONAL SPECIES MAY BE ADDED IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SPECIFIC PLAN November 2017 A-41 IAPPENDIX Street Type: Altair Vista Culvert and A Street Bridge - Contiguous Sidewalks with no Parking These areas do not have landscaping since they are bridges or faux bridges (culverts.) Street Type: Alley — 24' Width See Village Plant lists. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN l 7 Altair Appendix -Plant Lists (Refer to various Specific Plan Sections for NOTE: Plant species identified in Table 6 - shall not be used in areas adjacent to the Natural (Permanent) Slopes: Scientific Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRI FOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTAL'S CERCOCARPUS BETULO'DES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUT'FOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULA TUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS GLAUCA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS 'ALBA' ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM CANUM SSP. CANUM KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA MIMULUS AURANTIACUS OPUNTIA LITTORAL'S PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA SPECIFIC PLAN Design Intent Descriptions of each area) 2 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) MSHCP corridor and/or native open space. Common Name COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE NARROWLEAF MILKWEED BIGBERRY MANZANITA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON MONKEY -FLOWER COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY November 2017 Water SoCal Use Native L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X APPENDIX APPENDIX Altair Appendix -Plant Lists (Refer to various Specific Plan Sections for NOTE: Plant species identified in Table 6 - shall not be used in areas adjacent to the Natural (Permanent) Slopes: Scientific Name Trees - Shade QUERCUS AGRI FOLIA QUERCUS CHRYSOLEPIS QUERCUS ENGLEMANNII QUERCUS LOBATA Trees - Accent CEANOTHUS ARBOREUS CERCIS OCCIDENTAL'S CERCOCARPUS BETULO'DES FRAXINUS DIPETALA HETEROMELES ARBUT'FOLIA PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA ILICIFOLIA QUERCUS BERBERIDIFOLIA RHUS (MALOSMA) LAURINA SAMBUCUS NIGRA CAERULEA Shrubs ADENOSTOMA FASCICULA TUM ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS GLAUCA ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA BACCHARIS PILULARIS CEANOTHUS CRASSIFOLIUS CEANOTHUS TOMENTOSUS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS 'ALBA' ENCELIA FARINOSA EPILOBIUM CANUM SSP. CANUM KECKIELLA ANTIRHINNOIDES KECKIELLA CORDIFOLIA MIMULUS AURANTIACUS OPUNTIA LITTORAL'S PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA A-14 Design Intent Descriptions of each area) 2 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) MSHCP corridor and/or native open space. Common Name COAST LIVE OAK CANYON OAK ENGELMANN OAK VALLEY OAK ISLAND CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CALIFORNIA ASH TOYON HOLLYLEAF CHERRY SCRUB OAK LAUREL SUMAC BLUE ELDERBERRY CHAMISE NARROWLEAF MILKWEED BIGBERRY MANZANITA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH COYOTE BRUSH HOARYLEAF CEANOTHUS RAMONA CEANOTHUS WESTERN REDBUD BRITTLE BUSH CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA YELLOW PENSTEMMON HEART -LEAVED PENSTEMMON MONKEY -FLOWER COASTAL PRICKLY PEAR PENSTEMON COFFEEBERRY Water SoCal Use Native L X L X L X L X L X L X VL X L X L X VL X L X L X L X VL X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X L X November 2017 SPECIFIC PLANI= Noverndae 2017 November 2017 ATTACHMENT 9 PC RESOLUTION ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN (CIVIC USE) PC RESOLUTION NO.17- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940- 320-007" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the propose Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development in the proposed Project area. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Altair Specific Plan #15 No. PA14-0159, hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The Specific Plan, which is incorporated herein by this reference, complies with the requirements of California Government Code section 65451 based on, but not limited to, the following: (1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the Specific Plan (Sections 2, 3 and 8 of the Specific Plan). (2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the Specific Plan and needed to support the land uses described in the Specific Plan (Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Specific Plan). (3) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable (Sections 3, 8, 9, and 10 of the Specific Plan). (4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above (Sections 5 and 11 of the Specific Plan). (5) The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan). B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.O20(E), the City Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that: (1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the general plan and development code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Land Use Element identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The Specific Plan is consistent with these objectives. The Specific Plan provides a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Specific Plan respects existing topography and embraces existing scenic vistas as focal points for the community. The Specific Plan satisfies two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area," and "[I]ocating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The proposed Specific Plan is also consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which is to create a "regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." A significant portion of the Western Bypass Corridor project is accomplished in the Specific Plan, connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The Specific Plan will create a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the Specific Plan implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." The Specific Plan development is predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the Specific Plan area as natural open space, thus consistent with Policy 1.5 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles." The Specific Plan will establish the design and development framework for the proposed Project. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as amended by this Ordinance. As proposed and conditioned, the Specific Plan will be consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of State Law and other Ordinances of the City. Further findings of consistency with the General Plan can be found in Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. (2) The proposed specific plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of, and is not detrimental to, the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The proposed specific plan is located directly adjacent to Old Town Temecula and its added residential population (3) base will support the commercial uses of Old Town. There are few housing opportunities in Old Town currently, limiting the clientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The proposed specific plan will provide up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. The General Plan sets the policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The subject property is currently undeveloped land with only a few of the required public utilities located onsite. The proposed development within the Specific Plan area will provide the necessary connections, extensions, and upgrades as required to serve the area. (4) The proposed specific plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Specific Plan conforms to the City's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the City's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. In addition, the Specific Plan is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well- designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preserve open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. Section 3. Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the proposed Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the proposed Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the proposed Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the proposed Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. B. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. C. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan. Section 4. Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, each Occupied Residential Property in the Specific Plan area shall pay Forty -Three Dollars ($43.00) per dwelling unit per year, to be increased each fiscal year by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's payment, to fund the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs. B. For the purposes of this provision, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. For the purposes of this provision "Wildlife Conservation Costs" means: (1) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority within the Interstate 15 freeway Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lions) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or (2) Acquisition by the City of lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project for conservation; and/or (3) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (i) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Specific Plan area. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. E. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan. Section 5. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310- 015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007" in substantially the same form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of November, 2017. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson 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. - was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary ATTACHMENT 9.1 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN (CIVIC USE) ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940- 320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development in the proposed Project area. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, ata 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." G. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." H. On , the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. I. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17 - and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Altair Specific Plan hereby makes the following findings: A. The Specific Plan, which is incorporated herein by this reference, complies with the requirements of California Government Code section 65451 based on, but not limited to, the following: (1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the Specific Plan (Sections 2, 3 and 8 of the Specific Plan). (2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the Specific Plan and needed to support the land uses described in the Specific Plan (Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Specific Plan). (3) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable (Sections 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Specific Plan). (4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing (5) measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above (Sections 5 and 11 of the Specific Plan). The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan). B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that: (1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the general plan and development code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Land Use Element identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The Specific Plan is consistent with these objectives. The Specific Plan provides a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Specific Plan respects existing topography and embraces existing scenic vistas as focal points for the community. The Specific Plan satisfies two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area," and "[I]ocating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The proposed Specific Plan is also consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which is to create a "regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." A significant portion of the Western Bypass Corridor project is accomplished in the Specific Plan, connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The Specific Plan will create a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the Specific Plan implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." The Specific Plan development is predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the Specific Plan area as natural open space, thus consistent with Policy 1.5 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles." The Specific Plan will establish the design and development framework for the proposed Project. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as amended by this Ordinance. As proposed and conditioned, the Specific Plan will be consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of State Law and other Ordinances of the City. Further findings of consistency with the General Plan can be found in Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. (2) The proposed specific plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of, and is not detrimental to, the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The proposed specific plan is located directly adjacent to OId Town Temecula and its added residential population base will support the commercial uses of OId Town. There are few housing opportunities in Old Town currently, limiting the clientele of OId Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The proposed specific plan will provide up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. The General Plan sets the policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The subject property is currently undeveloped land with only a few of the required public utilities located onsite. The proposed development within the Specific Plan area will provide the necessary connections, extensions, and upgrades as required to serve the area. (4) The proposed specific plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Specific Plan conforms to the City's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project -wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the City's standards for residential development, and the village -center concept. In addition, the Specific Plan is based on a "Smart Growth" design, which aims to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save public funds over time through efficient utilization of infrastructure. Among other things, smart growth principles include, without limitation, a mix of land uses, well- designed compact neighborhoods, a variety of transportation choices, preserve open spaces, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas, and unique neighborhood identities. Section 3. Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the proposed Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the proposed Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the proposed Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the proposed Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. B. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. C. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.8 of the Specific Plan. Section 4. Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, each Occupied Residential Property in the Specific Plan area shall pay Forty -Three Dollars ($43.00) per dwelling unit per year, to be increased each fiscal year by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's payment, to fund the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs. B. For the purposes of this provision, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. For the purposes of this provision "Wildlife Conservation Costs" means: (1) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority within the Interstate 15 freeway Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lions) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or (2) Acquisition by the City of lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the proposed Project for conservation; and/or (3) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (i) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Specific Plan area. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the proposed Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. E. This requirement is set forth in Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan. Section 5. Section 17.16.070 (Approved specific plans.) of Chapter 17.16 Specific Plan Zoning District (SP-) of Title 17 (Zoning) is hereby amended to add the following, with all other provisions of Section 17.16.070 remaining the same: "SP -15 Altair Specific Plan" Section 6. Zoning Map Amendment. The City Council hereby amends the Official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula to change the zoning classification for the property located on 270 acres in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, west of Old Town (APNs 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007) to the Altair Specific Plan #15. The amended Zoning Map is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 7. Consistency with General Plan. On , the City Council adopted Resolution No. , which amended the Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan, in conformity with Government Code section 65300. Therefore, the foregoing amendments outlined in this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula. Section 8. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is on file in the City Clerk's office and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. Section 9. Severability. If any portion, provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Ordinance. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 11. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of Maryann Edwards, 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. - was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 9A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN - CIVIC USE) Planning Application No.: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: QUIMBY Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA14-0159 A proposed Specific Plan to include the four -lane divided Western Bypass, up to 1,750 residential units, an elementary school, up to 7,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, a clubhouse, civic site, parks, trails, and hillside preservation. The Specific Plan will also include off-site improvements far public infrastructure including, but not limited to, construction of the Western Bypass bridge over Murrieta Creek, road widening of Vincent Maraga, construction of Main Street north of Pujol, and off-site sewer, water and dry utility extensions 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310- 044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007 Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Exempt per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Within 48 Hours of Approval 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,128.00) which includes the Three Thousand and Seventy Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,078.00) fee, required by Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Fifty Dollars ($50.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above. the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City and its attorneys from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deerned for purposes of this condition. to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. Expiration. This approval shall be used within twenty (20) years per the Development Agreement, otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. Consistency with Specific Plans. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 15, Altair Specific Plan. Consistency with Development Agreements. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to Development Agreement (PA14-0161). Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the ER for Altair (SCH No. 2014111020). Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 10. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers, equipment, walls, or other structures. 11. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, itis illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at ail times. 12. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 13. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 14. Subdivision Map Act. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. An Extension of Time may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 60 days prior to the expiration date. 15. Subdivision Phasing. If subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 16 Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's PublicArt Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 17. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median, landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. 18. Class I Multi -Use Trails. Class I multi -use trails shall be provided as per the City of Temecula's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan. The construction plans for the Class 1 trails shall be included on the perimeter landscape plans and constructed in concurrence with the installation of the landscaping. 19. Class II Bicycle Lanes. Class II bicycle lanes, as specified in the City of Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan, shall be identified on the street improvement plans, and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 20. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Altair project is required to comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 21. Maximum Number of Rental Units (Apartments). Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City for a residential community in the Project, the Guest Builder shall provide a letter to the City declaring whether the project will include residential units for sale to homeowners (a "For -Sale Community") or residential units for rent (Apartments) to tenants (a '`For -Rent Community"), and if it is a For -Rent Community, the number of Rental Units being proposed for the For -Rent Community. Further, in conjunction with the overall development of the Project. the Guest Builder will also provide a list of all previously approved For -Sale and For -Rent Communities in the Project and the number of Rental Units for each For Rent Community. There shall be a maximum of 750 Rental Units within the Project. Notwithstanding the forgoing, homes that are in a For -Sale Community that are sold to individuals and then later rented to the public shall not count towards the 750 Rental Unit threshold. 22. Project Phasing. The project shall be built in four phases per the attached "Phasing Exhibit, 10D.' Infrastructure shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits in each phase per the phasing plan. 23. Fiscal Impact Compliance. Any development within the Altair Specific Plan will be required to address impacts to the City's budget as a result of the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the Project area substantially exceeding the municipal revenue generated from the Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has a received a Fiscal Impact Analysis dated October, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the Project; and their successors of interest, at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for a residential dwelling, shall pay the City the sum of two - hundred thirty-seven ($237) per residential dwelling unit within the project each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit. Owner and its successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through a Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq., provided however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to the pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owner and its successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 24. Trail Siting and Location on the South Parcel/Civic Site. 1n addition to the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for cultural resources, MM -CUL -1 a through MM -CUL - 3, City Staff will work with the Pechanga Tribe to determine the final trail alignment for an out and back, or loop trail. Using trait siting guidance identified in the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Section 7.0, the trail will utilize existing dirt roads whenever possible. Portions of existing trail may be eliminated, and revegetated to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Any new trail segment will be designed to discourage and prevent intrusion into adjacent environmentally sensitive areas. 25. Direction Fencing. Directional Fencing for wildlife shall be required as identified in the Specific Plan, EIR, and in conformance with the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 26. Central Park Design Meeting. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits associated with the Central park area; a pre -design meeting shall be held to include Planning; TCSD, and Public Works to complete a final design for the Central Park. The Altair Specific Plan includes a conceptual plan for the park, however, final arrangement and location of amenities shall be determined prior to any grading and/or construction. 27. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check valves prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 28. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development, 29. Pechanga Mitigation Measures, The Altair project is required to comply with Mitigation measures MM -CUL -la through MM -CUL -3. 30 Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent; fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 31. Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 32. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation." 33. Archaeological Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property." 34. Tribal Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer." 35. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,. including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." 36. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 37. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -la — Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. 38. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 b - Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor. At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation andlor re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. 39. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 c — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. The qualified archeologist, or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. 40. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1d — Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -la and 1 b. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. 41. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1e — Unanticipated discovery. If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting. and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -1 b. 42, Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lf — Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP. The City and the Project ApplicantlLand Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes. but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. 43. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The applicant shall implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot- checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. 44. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2b - Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries. If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. 45. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains. If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. 46. MSHCP Pre -Construction Survey. A 30 -day preconstruction survey, in accordance with MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The results of the 30 -day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. 47. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30 -day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist.' 48. Rough Grading Plans. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 49. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 50. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). 51. Quimby Requirements. Per the Development Agreement, the developer has satisfied the City's parkland dedication (Quimby) requirement through the provision of parks and open space identified in the Altair Specific Plan. These parks will be privately maintained, but open to the public. The Central Park in Village C will be dedicated to the City per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). 52. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal; not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan; or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan 53. Landscaping_ Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly; and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 54. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection.' 55. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 56. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 57. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate; "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without Toss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 58. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas. 59. Wall and Fence Plans. Wall and fence plans shall be reviewed with all landscape plans, and shall be consistent with the Altair Specific Plan. 60. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 61. Landscapinq Requirement for Phased Devel pment. if any phase or area of the project site is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of grading; the landscaping plans shall indicate it will be temporarily landscaped and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. 62. WQMP Landscape Compliance. The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with Appendix A, Table 31 of the Low Impact Development (LID) Manual for Southern California for plant materials and treatment facilities, and shall reference the approved precise grading plan for WQMP features. 63. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 64. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. AH required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 65. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 66. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 67. Final Map. A copy of the Final Map for each phase shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division, 68. Environmental Constraint Sheet. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division with the following notes: a. This property is located within 30 miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. 69. Submittal of CC&Rs. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project or any phase thereof shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development. The CC&Rs shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings, and landscaped and open areas, including parkways. Applicants shall provide a deposit in the amount of $3,750 for the review of the CC&Rs. Amended CC&Rs will require a $2,000 deposit. The applicant shall be responsible for al costs incurred during review of the CC&Rs and additional fees may be required during the course of the review. 70. Form and Content of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shale be in the form and content approved by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and its residents. 71. Preparation of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. 72. Review of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owners Association are subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development, Public Works Director, and the City Attorney. 73. CC&Rs and Management and Maintenance of Common Areas. The CC&Rs shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas, drainage facilities, and pollution prevention devices outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan for the project or any phase thereof. 74. CC&Rs and Public Nuisance. The CC&Rs shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated, and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. 75. Termination of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall provide that the association may not be terminated without prior City approval. 76. CC&Rs and Maintenance of Property. The CC&Rs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&Rs, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&Rs or the City Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. 77. Interest in Association. Every owner of a suite or lot governed by CC&Rs shall own as an appurtenance to such suite or lot, either: (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. 78. Maintenance of Open Areas. All open areas and landscaping governed by CC&R shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning Divisions and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 79. Reciprocal Easements. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives, parking areas, drainage facilities, and water quality features, shall be provided by the CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 80. Consent of City of Temecula. An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs, following the Declarant's signature, to read as follows: CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 36959, -1, -2, and -3, require the City of Temecula to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolutions of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs. Luke Watson Director Community Development Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 81. Operation of Association. No lot or suite in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owners group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&Rs, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or suites and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&Rs shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 82. Recordation of CC&Rs. CC&Rs shall be finalized and recorded at the time of Final Map Recordation. 83. Copies of CC&Rs. Three copies of the final recorded CC&Rs shall be provided to the Planning Division. 84. General. The CC&Rs shall contain a provision requiring the HOA to perform yearly inspections of garages to ensure adequate parking. 85. General. The CC&Rs shall contain a list of all disclosures (tax rate — Mello Roos, wildlife, noise, etc.) as required by the City of Temecula and State of California. OUTSIDE AGENCY LETTERS 86. Rancho Water. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water transmittal dated August 26, 2014, a copy of which is attached. 87. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the RCFCWD transmittal dated March 5, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 88. Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the MWD transmittal dated April 14, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 89. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the ACOE transmittal dated May 18, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 90. Southern California Edison (SCE). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the SCE transmittal dated September 17, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 91. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the EMWD transmittal dated September 21, 2016, a copy of which is attached. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 92. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure for a 2 -hour duration for this projects. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 93. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x (2) 2'/2" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent public streets. For all multi -family projects hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant for all and for single family dwellings and tract homes hydrants shall be 500 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 94. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 95. Water Maintenance Agreement. An agreement for the maintenance and repair of any and all existing underground Fire Department water systems, including all fire sprinkler supplies, and all fire hydrants and supplies, will be in place as a condition of this division to maintain available water in perpetuity Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 96. Turning Radius (Culdesac). Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 37 -feet for single family dwelling tracts and 45 feet for multi -family dwelling tracts. (CFC Chapter 5 along with the Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 97. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GWV with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 98. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 99. Gradient Of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 100. Knox Box. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5) 101. File Format Requirements. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format, must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of alternative file formats which may be acceptable PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 102. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. 103. Developer shall execute a City Standard Subdivision Improvement Agreements for the applicable phase of the development to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map. These improvements include, but are not limited to paving, base, signing & striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, pedestrian ramps, drainage structures, and best management practices for stormwater treatment, reconstruction, replacement and repair of adjacent improvements where the subdivision transitions and connects to existing improvements as applicable. Said improvements shall be installed to City Standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 104. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map for each phase, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the Water District Engineer. 105. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase, Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along and within the subdivision boundary. 106. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots abutting the Western Bypass Corridor Road. 107. Developer shall cause Owner to make an offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for the Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. 108. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the Director of Public Works, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. 109. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights -of -ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 110. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Works, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 111. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 112. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with all street improvements on and off-site grading. Perimeter walls, where required, shall be treated with graffiti -resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 113. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06, unless otherwise provided for by a written agreement between the City and the Developer. 114. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein or by development agreement, and State laws, and shall conform to the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. 115. Approval of this Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are certified by the City Council. 116. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Temecula Valley Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to comply with all school district requirements. 117. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans for each phase shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans. 118. A detailed noise attenuation evaluation shall be conducted in a supplemental acoustical study to be submitted when the tract map is filed with the appropriate agency. 119. Prior to the approval of a development plan or tentative map for individual planning areas, the developer and City staff will review plans, especially for multi -family housing areas, commercial uses, and parks for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 120. Prior to approval of any development projects, appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review shall be obtained by the developer. These agencies shall be determined by the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works. 121. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the Director of Public Works for recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. 122. The developer or the developer's successor -in -interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement, litter removal and erosion control as applicable. 123. Prior to approval of any development projects, the developer shall investigate the feasibility of a reclaimed water system, to irrigate landscaping within the roadway medians, parkways, drainage channel, schools, the community park, the paseo park, neighborhood parks, and other common open space areas. The developer shall provide evidence that compliance with this condition is in accordance with Senate Bill 2095. 124. Developer shall provide to the Director of Public Works, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements (e.g. roads, driveways, sidewalks, utilities, water quality treatment facilities and private storm drain improvements, etc.) located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. 125. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 126. All lighting shall be reviewed by the City to assure compliance with the Ordinance No. 655. 127. Any signs proposed for this development shall ata minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs consistent with the Specific Plan. Grading 128. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 129. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 130. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, erosion control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements as applicable. 131. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: a) Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. b) Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. c) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. d) Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. e) Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. f) Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 132. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 133. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of completion of grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 134. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 135. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 136. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 137. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 138. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 139. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 140. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Drainage 141. Floodplain/Floodway Development. If applicable, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, which requires a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. A FEMA -approved CLOMR shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The developer shall pay all fees required by FEMA (and City) for processing of the FEMA reviews. 142. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100 -year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site as required by the City. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 143. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 144. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 145. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 146. All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100 -year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 147. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the interim detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 148. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 149. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site as required by the Director of Public works. 150. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements as necessary. 151. During review of any future tentative map, an updated geotechnical/geologic report shall be prepared to include any necessary revisions to earthwork, foundation, design, and construction recommendations. 152. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 153. Geological Report. The developer shall complete any outstanding County geologists requirements, recommendations and/or proposed Conditions of Approval as identified during entitlement. 154. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The documents format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. WQMP / SWPPP 155. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board: b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; or other affected agencies 156. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal for any phase approval by Public Works. A copy of the final project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: httq://www.cityoftemecu€a.orq!Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/WQM Pand N PD ESIW QMP.htm 157. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http:/1www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/GovernmentlPublicWorkslengineeringconstman ual.htm 158. 0 & M Agreement: The developer shall submit a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement for review and approval 159. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 160. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDJD) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml Circulation 161. Prior to Final Map recordation for each phase, the Developer is responsible to bond for or construct the traffic signals at the project's accesses, as required, including the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications. 162. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to and from developments areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual tentative maps and/or development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works, consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 163. The exact location and number of access points shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works upon future tentative map and/or development plan approvals consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 164. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards or as approved with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Map. 165. All intersection intervals shall comply with City standards and requirements. 166. Developer, at its sole cost, shall design and improve Vincent Moraga Road to ensure that all driveways providing access from to adjoining properties shall be allowed for safe ingress and/or egress. Improvements may include, but not be limited to, truck deceleration, acceleration and turn -in lanes. The improvements shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for public roadway and rights of way consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 167. Developer, at its sole cost, shall fund the acquisition and installation of traffic signals and related roadway and right of way improvements, when warranted. The design and installation shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula, consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 168. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in accordance with City Engineering Standards. The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on all improvement, grading, or landscape plans prepared in association with the development. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor as defined by City of Temecula Engineering Standards. 169. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). Additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. 170. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Temecula Standards based on R -value tests. AH private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. 171. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown in the Altair Specific Plan. Any substantive re -phasing of the development must be approved by the Planning and Public Works Director through a re -phasing application. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. 172. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program 173. The Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be established in compliance with the approved mitigation measures identified in the approved Traffic Impact Analysis and shall be completed prior to issuance of first occupancy permit in each additional phases of the development as required by the Director of Public Works. Water and Sewer 174. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applicable thru completion of this development. 175. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase as subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 176. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 177. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at locations approved by the Water District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 178. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean -outs at locations approved by the Sewer District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. Final Map Notes 179. Add the following notes to the final map as non -mapping data: "All improvements within private Streets are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with including but not limited to: Curbs, gutter, A.C. paving, street lights, storm drains. All Storm Water treatment control facilities are considered private requiring private maintenance." Master HOA 180. Developer shall establish a Master homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a phase, the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: d. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. e. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to reasonably disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. f. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the "Common Area Lots and/or the Association's Easements," the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements within the period specified by the City's notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. g. Special Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association's Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal pro rata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. h. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth on the "Developer Responsibility Map" of the Specific Ran. Lighting Restrictions on Private Residential Lots: Restrictions on lighting within residential lots adjacent to open space conservation areas shall be as set forth in the Specific Plan and Final EIR. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 181. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance when applicable, from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; e. Riverside County Health Department; f. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau; g. Planning Department; h. Department of Public Works; i. Community Services District; j. Caltrans; k. Rancho California Water District; I. Eastern Municipal Water District; m. Verizon; n. Telephone Company; o. Southern California Edison Company; p. The Gas Company; and q. Metropolitan Water District or other affected agencies 182. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid or fee credits have been provided. 183. Securities. For each of the phases, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the grading and erosion & sediment control improvements. 184. Area Drainage Plan (ADP) Fee to RCFC&WCD. For each phase, the developer shall demonstrate to the City that the flood mitigation charge (ADP fee) has been paid to RCFC&WCD. If the full ADP fee has already been credited to this property, no new charge will be required. 185. The developer shall provide proof to the Department of Public Works and Planning that the conditions of any Wildlife Agency or Army Corps permits if necessary for any restoration have been bonded for and shall be implemented consistent with the timing requirements of the permits. 186. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided in Altair Specific Plan and the Development Agreement. 187. The project shall comply with the latest disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the California Building Code. 188. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for each phase of this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the Director of Public Works. 189. This project requires off site grading. No grading for any improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records, and submits a recorded copy to the Director of Public Works a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the Director of Public Works and Planning Director. 190. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained: a. from Public Works for public offsite improvements; b. from the California Department of Transportation if encroaching within their right- of-way; and c. from Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) if encroaching within their right-of-way. 191. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the Director of Public Works for the proposed haul route. 192. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an "as -graded" geologic plan with the Director of Public Works. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based an a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24"x 36" mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 193. Final Map. Final Map shall be approved and recorded for the applicable phase. 194. The developer shall provide proof to the Director of Public Works that the has contributed its fair share towards regional traffic improvements systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area the area through a Development Agreement. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development of each phase. 195. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. Phasing 196. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 197. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. 198. The Developer shall be permitted to seek a reimbursement agreement for qualifying facilities and improvements. The City and the Developer shall proceed in good faith to allocate appropriate reimbursements to the Developer pursuant to the City's then enforceable ordinance applicable to such reimbursement pursuant to Development Agreement. Tract Map 36959-1 (North Phase) In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of North Phase and prior to 1st building permit in North Phase: 199. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side of Vincent Moraga between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor northbound right turn lane improvements within this road segment. 200. Acquisition of right-of-way on the south side of Rancho California Road between Vincent Moraga Drive and the Murrieta Creek Bridge and construction of all intersection improvements within this road segment including an additional westbound left turn lane on Rancho California Road to Vincent Moraga Drive. 201. Traffic signal and utility relocation where needed and construction of the ultimate build -out of the Rancho California Road, Diaz Road and Vincent Moraga Drive intersection. 202. Construction of the designed onsite Western Bypass Corridor Phase 1 improvements from the project's northern property line to the future Altair Vista intersection. 203. Construction of the Ridge Park Drive and Western Bypass Corridor intersection improvements to provide left -turn ingress and right-in/right-out to Ridge Park Drive. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 204. Install Multi -Way Stop Controls at the First Street & Pujol Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 205. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the North Phase and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 350`h building permit in North Phase, or ii) the 1st building permit in the Central Phase: 206. Acquisition of right-of-way on the west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 207. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side and west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Ridge Park Drive and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 208. Following the occupancy of both villages within this North Phase (Village A and Village B), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road; (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-2 (Central Phase) In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Central Phase and prior to 1st building permit in Central Phase: 209. Construction of the designed Coromell Trail road segment between Altair Vista and First Street. 210. Installation of one (1) new left turn lane (re -stripe only), and modify signal operation, install signal indications and necessary equipment at Ynez Road and Santiago Road. 211. Construction of traffic signals at the Pujol Street and First Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 212. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase and completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on pads south of the Village C Park: a. Construction of the "A" Street vehicular bridge that crosses over the Village C Park. 213. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase, shall commence before the 700th building permit is issued in the project and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 950th building permit in the project, or ii) the 1St building permit in the South Phase: a. Construction of either the Western Bypass Bridge or construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Civic Phase. 214. Following the construction of the Western Bypass Bridge and Phase 2 Road, optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-3 (South Phase) 215. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of South Phase and prior to 1st building permit in South Phase: a. Construction of both the Western Bypass Bridge and construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Nature Center Phase. b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass Corridor and Altair Vista intersection. c. Construction of the designed "`B" Street North road segment between Altair Vista and the Western Bypass Corridor. 216. Following the completion of the villages in this South Phase (Village D, Village E and Village F), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959 (Civic Phase) 217. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Civic Phase and prior to 15f building permit in Civic Phase: a. Construction of all remaining Western Bypass Corridor improvements (Phase 3 which includes 2 western lanes; southbound). b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass and "B" Street intersection. 218. Following completion of both villages in this Civic Phase (Village G and Nature Center), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road. (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (d) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (e) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (f) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 219. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 220. The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the 5 acre community park, the proposed private Parks that are HOA owned and maintained including recreational areas identified in the Altair Specific Plan. 221, The actual design of the 5 acre community park in Central Phase shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. Construction plans and specifications must be approved by the Director of Community Services. 222. All park plans submitted for consideration shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process, 223. The design of the community park in Central Phase shall provide for pedestrian circulation and access for the disabled throughout the park. 224. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, or Master HOA shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites and slopes/landscaping areas except as defined in the Development Agreement, on Developer Responsibility Map. 225. The 5 acre community park shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any Hens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 226. The developer may receive a credit against the park component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) based upon the actual cost of improving the community park in Central Phase. The fee/credit issue shall be addressed pursuant to the execution of a Development Agreement or a Park Improvement Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. ATTACHMENT 9B ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN - SLIP SHEETS FOR CIVIC USE INTRODUCTION 2 2.3 Site The Altair Specific Plan area encompasses 270 acres west of Old Town and Murrieta Creek within the City of Temecula in Riverside County in southern California. The City limits form the western edge of the property. The subject land area is comprised of two portions: the majority 215 acres and a non-contiguous 55 -acre site to the south that is designated for a commercial or institutional use benefitting the public. 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. Riverside r NG% Sprtrk]].1� Mpc¢hin P'rk • Yucalpa San Bernadino National Forest Bi+ Morongo Canyon Preserve wrnore Canyon ilderoe-s Park Uptaiie Garne Hunting Area Mystic Lake Lake Penis State Recreation Area 1erris Reservoir Lake Mathews Mt. San Jacinto Lake Mathews Estelle Mountain Reserve Palm Springs Hemet Santiago Peak Idyllwild County Park Ronald W. Caspers Wildernes Park Diamond Valley Lake San Bernadino Nationa Forest Lake Elsinore Murrieta! Skinner Reservoir Doheny State Park Santa Rosa Plateau kartift Santa Rosa Histnne Area Vail Lake Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Cleveland National Forest Camp Pendleton PalOrnar Mountain Palomar Mountain Stale Par[ Cleveland National Forest Los Coyotes Reservation Capistrano Pa Hellhole Canyon Reserve Oceanside Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN ,c'epic.)50 0 a.• --.1-0/ 't Q1-- : .,.N..-4/ '.,... • NI% fug 02 rc7?. I I L _ - - -s, Civic Center reet —. _ . First Street • ---4... // .... I ..„s0.-...0. 0 ,f k.S• , co . \\_. 1 • idul/ \ ,L / • !TM / View - Gully Altair Vista Figure 2-3 Connection to Open Space Draft November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN If a }r -s oC 0© 0O Tower Promontory Plaza+ Stepsi ` Grand Staircase Civic V � r Center MM O tre 00C:=1 0 Pedestrian Promenade First Street Figure 2-4 Connection to Old Town Temecula SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 2 INTRODUCTION • • ••• Visual Axis Park/Open Space Altair Vista 0 300' 600' N 1200' 2-11 INTRODUCTION 2 D a i4 J • - > _A •a., �4 First Streit 110 Higu e 2-5 View Opportunities w citge } Draft : November 2016 06, Panoramic View 411111 View Up to Open Space/Ridge Park/Open Space Altair Vista 0 300' 600' 1200' 2.5 Land Use 2 INTRODUCTION The predominant land use at Altair is residential, consisting of multifamily, attached and detached housing types. Housing types are further defined in Sections 10.10-10.20. Densities range from 4 to 33 dwelling units per net acre, with the higher densities at the village nodes, in the primary village and at the north end of the property. Development will be phased, achieving 870 to 1,750 dwelling units at full build -out. A Community Center to include a recreation center and clubhouse is provided for residents. Some ancillary retail or restaurant space may be included, depending on market demand, as well as a limited number of live/work units located within certain village centers, where street frontage lends itself to ground floor business storefronts. Commercial and live/work uses are allowed in all residential and mixed-use zones with a limit on the total area of such uses in Altair, as described in Table 3-1. An approximate 7 -acre site is set aside for an elementary school and playfield. The school site is located adjacent to the recreation center and near the main park to facilitate shared parking and common amenities. The separate 55 -acre property to the south, referred to as the Civic Site in this Plan,, provides the opportunity for an educational, institutional or business use that will serve as an economic generator for the City of Temecula. Possible uses include conference and/or higher educational classroom space. Up to 450,000 square feet of floor space may be achieved. The existing oak tree groves at the west side of the Civic Site will be preserved. Land Use is discussed in further detail in Section 3. 2-15 SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 2-20 IN f+2ODUCTION 2 Policy 1.3 Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity. Policy 1.4 Support the use of innovative site planning and architectural design in residential development. Policy 15 Encourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles. The Land Use section of this specific plan describes the diversity of residential types and the concentration of densities at village nodes and plazas. Development is predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western porton of the property as natural open space. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan addresses both the need for active parks and recreational space for residents and conservation of natural open space to protect wildlife and resources. Goal 7 A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the' diverse recreation needs of residents. Policy 1.1 Ensure sufficient parkland and recreation facilities to support new development through acquisition and/or dedication that meets the requirement for 5 acres of useable pork land per 1,000 population. Policy 1.5 Coordinate long-range park, trail and open space planning with Riverside County and the City of Murrieta, The neighborhoods at Altair are designed around village greens and parks that serve as focal points identifying each village. These urban green spaces are then linked by a system of pedestrian walkways and trails across open space - a "string of pearls". The core village is developed around a large central park linked to Main Street in Old Town Temecula, both visually and via a pedestrian path. Goal 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. The Altair Specific Plan is consistent with the many General Plan policies airned at achieving this goal. Water conservation and protection strategies are detailed in the Drainage Plan and Water Plan portions of Section 6, as well as in the Landscape Guidelines in Section 10. Draft : November 2016 ;FEIrs=1r. > tw;+Ran/ Goal 3 Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors and general biodiversity. Policy 3.3 Policy 3.4 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Encourage developers to incorporate native drought -resistant vegetation, mature trees, and other significant vegetation into site and landscape designs for proposed projects. Goal 5 Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment .... and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. INTROOi1CTIOtt Policy 5.13 Utilize natural, undeveloped greenbelts as buffers between developments and on outskirts of the City to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula. Portions of the Altair site lie within Proposed Linkage 10 in the Southwest Region of the MSHCP Plan Area. This linkage is intended to provide both "live-in habitat" for various species and a movement corridor connecting the Santa Margarita and the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserves. The proposed Western Bypass as well as roads at the north and south ends of the site will serve as a buffer between development and the Linkage. Edge treatment along these roads will be developed through the environmental review process with input from Riverside County and MSHCP stakeholders. The Linkage conserves the ridgeline and escarpment west of ©Id Town and includes the highest elevations of the Altair property. The Growth Management / Public Facilities Element seeks to ensure that growth in the City occurs in such a manner that services may be provided efficiently and adequately. Goal 2 Orderly and efficient patterns of growth that enhance quality of fife for Temecula residents. The proximity of Altair to Old Town Temecula lends efficiency to the project and City since the facilities needed to serve the land uses are close by. The location eliminates the need to install and maintain long distribution mains. In addition, on site facilities such as the school and parks can serve the surrounding neighborhood. =fflgSPECVIC P4.Af. Draft : November 2016 2-2) IN IIRODUC IOH 2 Goat 4 A quality school system with adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula. Policy 4.4 Coordinate with the Schaal District to provide safe access forschool children walking, bicycling, or driving to and from school sites. Policy 4.5 Pursue the establishment of a trade school, a junior college, and/or a four-year college that offers education required by the engineering, biotechnical and biomedical industries located in Temecula. Policy 4.6 Plan for the joint use of school/municipal facilities wherever feasible and desirable., including: school grounds, buildings, City parks, multi-purpose buildings, and recreation facilities. Altair includes a site of approximately 7 acres for a public elementary school and playfield to be built by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The school site is near the main park and community center. Opportunities for shared use of school and community facilities will be pursued with the School District. The Civic Site also has the potential to be developed for higher education to support local industry. The Air Quality Element strives to improve regional air quality through better land planning, reduction of automobile emissions and energy conservation. Goat 2 Policy 2.2 Goal 3 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula_ Encourage infill development near activity centers, within Mixed Use Overlay Areas, and along transportation corridors. Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions. Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. Altair is a walkable community connected with pedestrian and bicycle trails to the employment, shopping and entertainment activities of Old Town Temecula. Both the location and design of the project will give residents a choice other than automotive transportation. Draft : November 2016 P 1rS=dC. > t0.,1 LAND USE LANAE 3.1 Summary The Altair Specific Plan depicts a 270 -acre community of primarily residential development with supporting civic uses and open space. It presents an urban lifestyle in its density, convenience of activities and close relationship to the shopping, dining and entertainment venues of Old Town Temecula. Altair is intended to house multiple demographics, spanning age groups and household types. A dominant pedestrian network linking active open spaces encourages interaction amongst these diverse residents. Due to the property's shape and location, the Altair Specific Plan area is physically and conceptually divided into three main parts. To the south is a 55 -acre area that is separated from the remaining site by a parcel under ownership of the Metropolitan Water District. The location of the original Luiseno Native American settlement, the Temeku Village Site is immediately adjacent to the south. The parcel also lies within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) corridor, discussed in more detail in Section 8 of this Specific Plan, and supports an existing stand of oak trees. Because of these significant cultural and biological considerations the southern parcel is mostly reserved as open space. The remaining area of approximately 13 acres is intended for civic or community use that will generate employment or stimulate the local economy. Possible uses include higher education, a convention and / or a training facility. The remaining 215 -acre parcel is bifurcated by the Western Bypass road that carries through - traffic around Old Town Temecula, To the west of this road is predominantly natural open space that is a component of the Proposed Linkage 10 of the MSHCP (discussed in Section 8.1). Only two small residential components lie west of the Bypass, villages A and G. The area east of the Bypass is developed with the most density. Uses are mainly residential with supporting civic and community uses (including a school) and interstitial and active open space. These residential uses are described in the following Community Design narrative and in the village descriptions that follow. All residential uses allow a small amount of accessory commercial use to support the neighborhood. These might be a corner coffee shop, ice cream parlor or live/work units with ground floor offices. Accessory commercial uses shall be at street level near village cores. TABLE 3-1 describes the acreage and density of each land use. FIGURE 3-2 shows the location of each use on the Altair site and FIGURE 3-3 shows zoning per parcel. LEdaFit ; Draft : November 2016 Offsite Space Open Ili S S • r Natural Open Space Tri • —i nYnm • -� Civic a „_rt Center 1 .Main Street T 0 rr1 J e 215 -Acre Parcel Line 9e o Western .E— Bypass 15) l Natural or Revegetated Open Space Off -Site Natural Open Space Property Line 55 -Acre Civic Site Parcel Line X04; • • Figure 3-1 Natural Open Space Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' 1 200' SPECIFIC PLAhIC/!/' O -/, • • • • . • - m )'•-•••1 I /i / AT—T.) - T- ,• , - —j l civic 77:111i!enter r— treet 0 dr, 1 C iv ic Site 3 LAND USE Open Space Civic/Community 1.1 Residential - • • - Property Line Figure 3-2 Land Use fflSPECIVIL: PLAf Draft : November 2016 N 3-3 Planning District Tract Map s Lot No. Land Use z Zone r Area Density Range (for Net Lot Area} Intensity Range Open Space 8uilrlable Lots Min. Max. `- Min. Max. 1 Upper Hur;nJe Conservation Area 36959-1 8 Open Space SP-NO 29.37 ac Conservation Area 36959-2 25 Open Space SP-NO 8.06 ac Conservation Area 36959-3 20 Open Space SP-NO 8.30 ac Open Space 36959-1 7 Open Space SP-NO 4.83 ac Open Space 36959-2 13 Open Space SP-NO 4.60 ac Open Space 36959-3 12 Open Space SP-NO 5,40 ac Open Space 36959 13 Open Space SP-NO 4.01 at Conservation Area 36959 14 Open Space SP-NO 4.23 at Vlllatles VILLAGE A 35959-1 1 Residential SP-R 6.18 ac 9 - 18 D.U.Jac 56 - 110 D.U. 36959-1 2 Residential SP-R 4.17 ac 9 - 18 D-U.Jac 38 - 75 D.U. 36959-1 3 Residential 5P-R 2.36 ac 9 - 18 D.U.Jac 21 - 42 D.U. 36959-1 4 Residential 5P-R 2.89 ac 9 - 18 D.U.Jac 26 - 52 D.U. .0 - 2710 Vtlloge A Subtotal (D.V.? VILLAGE I3 36959-1 5 Residential 5P-R 7.24 ac 9 - 18 D.U.Jac 64 - 128 D.U. 36959-1 6 Residential SP-R 5.16 ac 9 - 18 D.U.Jac 46 - 92 D.U. 22.0 - 220 VrlIoge8SubtoratjD,UJ,1 J VILLAGE C: Recreation Center 36959-2 17 Mixed Use SP-M 1.75 ac Clubhouse 36959-2 18 Mixed Use SP-M 030 ac Park 36959-2 19 Open Space 5P-A0 5 04 '11 North Core 36959-2 2 Residential SP-R 2,37 ac 18 - 29 D.U.Jac 43 - 69 D.U. 36959-2 3 Residential SP-R 3.74 ac 18 - 29 D_U_Jac 68 - 109 D.U. 36959-2 4 Residential 5P-R 1.63 ac 18 - 29 D.U.Jac 29 - 47 D.U. "'5 North Care Subtotal (0 +! !] South Core 36959-2 5 Residential SP-MR 0.40 ac 21 - 33 D.U.Jac 8 - 13 D.U. 36959.2 6 Residential SP-R 2.53 ac 21 - 33 D.U-Jac 54 - 84 D.U. 36959-2 7 Residential SP-R 1,64 ac 21 - 33 D.U.Jac 34 - 54 0.U. 36959-2 8 Residential SP-R 1.84 ac 21 - 33 D.U.Jac 39 - 61 D.U. 36959-2 9 Residential 5P-R 153 ac 21 - 33 D.U.Jac 32 - 50 D.U. 36959-2 10 Residential SP-R 1,30 ac 21 - 33 D_U_Jac 27 - 43 D.U. 36959-2 11 Residential SP-R 1.80 ac 21 - 33 D.U.Jac 38 - 59 D.U. 36959-2 12 Residential 5P-R 2.28 ac 21 - 33 D.U.Jac 48 - 75 O.U. 4-30 Saufti Core 5ubtntal(0_u-i I VILLAGE D 36959-3 1 Residential SP-R 2.55 ac 8 - 18 D.U.Jac 20 - 45 D.U. 36959-3 2 Residential SP-R 2-32 ac 8 - 18 D_U.Jac 18 - 41 0.0- 36959-3 3 Residential SP-R 1.96 ac 8 - 18 D_U.Jac 15 - 35 Q.U. 36959-3 4 Residential SP-R 2.15 ac 8 - 18 D.U.Jac 17 - 38 D.U. Park 36959-3 14 Open Space SP-AO 0'.30 ac 70 - 260 Moue 0 S1btnioI -1.61 ) VILLAGE E 36959-3 5 Residential 5P-R 151 ac 5 - 15 D.U.Jac 8 - 22 D.U. 36959-3 6 Residential SP-R 1.23 ac 5 - 15 D.U.Jac 6 - 18 D.U. 36959-3 7 Residential SP-R 1.17 et 5 - 15 D_U_Jac 6 - 17 D.U. 36959-3 8 Residential SP-R 2.51 er 5 - 15 D_U_fac 13 - 37 Q.U. 36959-3 9 Residential SP-R 1.42 at 5 - 15 D.U.Jac 7 - 21 O.U. 40 - 115 Village D Subtotal (D.11.! 1 VILLAGE F 36959-3 10 Residential 5P-R 4.51 ac 7 - 20 D.U.Jac 30 - 90 D.U. 369593 11 Residential 5P-R 4.52 ac 7 - 20 D.U.Jac 30 - 90 D.U. 6D - 180 Village 0 Subtotal (0l-ll) VILLAGE 0 3 36959 1 Residential SP-R 3.05 ac 4 - 18 D.U.Jac 12 - 54 D.U. 36959 2 Residential SP-R 4,25 ac 4 - 18 D_U-Jac 17 - 76 DM_ SUBTOTAL 74.64 ac 84.26 ac 10 - 2I 0l.11ac avz+ra�r. 870 - I,750 TOTAL DWELLING UNtTS� Table 3 -1 Zones and Development Intensity 3-4 Draft : November 2010 3PEi»S=dr. Schoch A 36959-2 1 Educational SP-E 7.07 ac 50,000 gsf 600 - 730 students Givir Site 3 450,000 gsf 5,000 students, max. Campus 36959 3 Institutional SP-I 2.84 ac Campus 36959 4 Institutional SP-I 3.09 ac Campus 36959 5 Institutional SP-I 2.76 ac Campus 36959 6 Institutional SP-I 4.68 ac Campus 36959 7 Institutional 5P-I 3.16 ac Campus 35959 8 Institutional SP-I 2.25 ac Campus 36959 9 Open Space SP-NO 031 at Campus 36959 10 Open Space SP-NO 4.14 at Campus 36959 11 Open Space SP-NO 0.49 at Conservation Area interstitial Open Space 36959 12 Open Space SP-ND 34.53 at Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 14 Open Space SP-AO 4.54 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 15 Open Space SP-NO 4.7S ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 16 Open Space SP-ND 0.52 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 20 Open Space SP-A0 0.59 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 21 Open Space SP-NO 0.83 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 22 Open Space SP-NO 1.63 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 23 Open Space SP-AO 1.39 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-2 24 Open Space 5P-A0 1.80 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 13 Open Space 5P-A0 4.88 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 15 Open Space SP-NO 4.74 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 16 Open Space SP-NO 0.52 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 17 Open Space SP-A0 0.25 ac Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 18 Open Space SP-NO 038 at Open Space (HOA) 36959-3 19 Open Space SP-AO 2.64 ac Circ ulatlon 28.09 ac TOTALS 159.79 ac 110.11 ac 10 - 21 D.U./ac AVERAGE 870 - 1,750 TOTAL DWELLING UNYTS - 269.90 ac ,Winans: Gross Area: the total area within the lot lines of a lot or parcel of land before public streets, easements or other areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use are deducted_ Net Area: the gross project or lot area, less that portion of the site to be used for arterial and collector roads, public parks, and/or the Roadway portion of a floodplain. For the purposes of this Specific Plan, arterial and collector roads shall include only those roads provided by the Master Builder and/or public roads owned by the City of Temecula. Interstitial Open Space: non-developable area installed by the Master Developer including fixed slope banks and retaining walls, floodways and drainage basins, utility easements, the Class 1 bikeway, the Westem Bypass and Street 1. D.U.: dwelling unit su1Lt e5: y. Maximum density and intensity within a village may be increased by the transfer of unused developmentintensity (D.U.) from one village to another, but the total number of dwelling units in the Altair Specific Plan shall not exceed 1,750 D.U. 2, Commercial and live/work uses are allowed in residential and mixed use designations, but the total amount of commercial space in the Altair Specific Plan shall not exceed 25,000 square feet. See zoning regulations and Table 10-1 for permitted uses. 3. Student housing may be provided as an option at Village G and the CivicSite if an institution of higher education is located on the Civic Site. 4. If the School District does not use the site, residential uses are permitted on this lot as described in Section 3.12. 5. Lot numbers indicated here correspond to the lot numbers in Tentative Tract Map 36959 and 36959-1, 2 and 3. SP - SPECIFIC PLAN NO - NATURAL ©PEN SPACE AO - ACTIVE OPEN SPACE R - RESIDENTIAL ZONE M - MIXED USE MR- MIXED USE / RESIDENTIAL E - EDUCATIONAL ZONE I - INSTITUTIONAL ZONE Table 3-1 Continued Zones and Development Intensity #ia it a 5PEG7Flc FLA'. Draft : November 2016 3-5 Figure 3-3 LAN❑ USE 3 ZONING MAP LEGEND - SP -AO Active Open Space SP -NO Natural Open Space SP -R Residential lone SP -M Mixed -Use SP -MR Mixed -Use/ Residential 1♦ SP -E Educational SP -I Institutional I I 1 Zoning Map Draft : November 2016 SPE IFIC PLANrIr LAND USE 3 tarn Figure 3-4 Village A - Plan Area Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600 I n 1200 SPECIFIC PLANT , LAND USE 3 >1A 1i t 'School Civic Center Figure 3-8 Village - Plan Area Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600 1200 PECIF{C PLAN , LAND USE 3 X f School Civic Center ZG� Figure 3-12 Village C - Plan Area Drag : November 2016 0 340 600' ri I 1200 SPECIFIC FLAN Vii= LAND USE 3 rigure 3-17 Village D - Plan Area Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' LI—LJ 1200 SPE CI F IC FLAN iffli= LAND USE 3 Figure 3-21 Village - Plan Area Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600' I n I 1200 FECIFIC FLAN f LAND USE 3 Figure 3-25 Village - Plan Area Draft : November 2016 0 300' 600" 1200 SPECIFIC PLANT , LAMA USE 3 Figure 3-29 Village G - Plan Area 0 300' 600' n r 1200 Draft : November 2016 ',PEC1FIC PLANIRf 3.11 Village G 3 LAND USE Village G is south of the Western Bypass on land that slopes steeply to the southeast, offering prime views. The area has a stronger connection to the south 55 -acre parcel than to the main residential community of Altair. The interface with the MSHCP corridor is a critical edge condition. A less urban development of clustered, detached homes is appropriate here to take advantage of the views and negotiate the terrain. If the civic site is developed as a higher education campus, then student housing is another possible use of Village G. Student housing may be owned and operated by the educational institution or maybe held privately and rented to students. Student housing would typically be provided in micro -units or multifamily walk-up residences. BOUNDARIES: Western Bypass to the north and northeast; Camino Estribo to the east; Metropolitan Water District drainage area to the south; MSI -ICP corridor to the west. SIZE: Approximately 7.3 gross acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: Camino Estribo from the south. Pedestrian and bicycle routes parallel vehicular path. Two points of vehicular fire access must be provided for each village area that has 35 dwelling units or more. MINIMUM DENSITY PRODUCT: Detached Housing DWELLING UNITS: See Table 3-1. ALLOWABLE BUILDING TYPES: The following building types are allowed in Village G. See Section 10.10 for definitions and standards of each building type. Lower density uses should be focused toward the north end of this village, with higher scale framing the urban park. Student housing, if provided, would typically be developed in micro -units or multifamily walk-up residences. Detached Housing Multiplex Rowhouses Micro Units Multifamily Walk -Up B Street i North Primary_�1 Access C Street Camino Estril B Street • C Street South Secondary Fire Access (emergency only) X Figure 3-30 Vehicular Access - Village G CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY: ACTUAL DESIGN 'MAY VARY. Draft : November 2016 ;PECIFIC PLAN Figure 3-31 Pedestrian 3 LAND USE BUILDING FRONTAGE: Buildings should front on CStreet, BStreet South, secondary roads and on open space. Additional frontages may be provided along landscaped paseos, mews or courts. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at village boundaries. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the village limits. See Sections 10.4 and 10.5 for further explanation of setbacks and yards. From C Street ROW: All other Lot Lines: 3 ft. min 0 ft. min ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-4 stories No maximum 10 ft. max. B Street North C Street Camino EstribThoo 1111 C Street B Street South Circulation - Village G SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESkGN MAY VARY. Draft : November 2016 3-59 LAND USE 3 d r d Draft : November 2016 ai LCdFJ[ FLAN I , LAND USE 3 3-68 Figure 3-36 Civic Site - PIan Area Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN nii= 3.13 Civic Site 3 LAND USE The southernmost parcel at Altair will be reserved for an institutional use that will benefit the public through education, employment, and / or civic functions. A significant portion of the site will be natural open space. BOUNDARIES: Camino Estribo and open space to the west; C Street and storm water easement (open space) to the north; Murrieta Creek to the east and south, SIZE: Approximately 55 total gross acres and 9.6 net acres. Pad size may vary through implementation of retaining walls and/ or stepped foundation systems. ACCESS: B Street South from the Western Bypass and 1-15; C Street from Village G. MAXIMUM SIZE: Institutional Use: Office or R+D Use: 5,000 students, maximum 450,000 s.f. max, in multiple buildings BUILDING TYPE: The scale, materials and style of the buildings should be appropriate for a public institution and should be an asset to the community. The buildings must also be sensitive to the adjacent natural open space and the Temeku Village site to the south. The buildings should relate to eachother to maintain a consistent campus aesthetic. If it is developed as a higher education campus, then student housing to support the campus is allowed on the civic site. Student housing and rented to students. Student housing would typically be provided in micro -units or multifamily residences. SPECLFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 LAND USE 3 BUILDING FRONTAGE: A clear campus entry shall be provided on Camino Estribo. Development on this site shall consist of multiple buildings arranged in a cohesive campus focused on shared open space and places for outdoor gathering. Both the buildings and the common spaces should take advantage of the impressive vistas from this site. See Figure 9-2. BUILDING SETBACK: Setbacks are required only at the designated streets and at south parcel boundary. There are no setback requirements at interior lot lines, streets or alleys within the overall boundary.. At Camino Estribo and C Street: 10 ft. min f c Street Secondar Fire • Open Space # PrirnarYAccessCaminoEstribu••* Open Space• AttCeSS Only No maximum Western Bypass u SIDe Scud Figure 3-37 Vehicular Access — Civic Site CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLANA ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: Up to 5 stories 3 LAND USE DRIVEWAY AND SECONDARY STREET STANDARDS: 1. There shall be one primary driveway entry onto Camino Estribo. 2. Up to two secondary driveways may also be provided on Camino Estribo in addition to the primary driveway. PARKING STANDARDS: 1. Parking shall be provided per the City of Temecula Zoning Code for the actual use of the site. C Stree i I Open Space f r ■ i Camino Estriho L • Western Bypass Street South • • s 1 Figure 3-38 Pedestrian Circulation - Civic Site W CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 JVD USE APPLICABLE PROJECT STANDARDS: Table 3-1 Land Use Zones and Development Intensity 4 Circulation Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan 8 Open Space and Recreation Plan 9 Design Guidelines 10 Development Standards GRADING STANDARDS: The site slopes down from west to the east and south, with slope banks on three sides. See Section 9.8 for standards regarding slopes and retaining walls, COMMON OPEN SPACE: Most of the south parcel will be left as natural open space. An existing stand of native oak trees at the west side of the parcel will be maintained. The south portion of the parcel will also be maintained as an open space buffer between new development and the historic Temecu Village site to the south. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: N/A LANDSCAPE PALETTE: See "Civic / Community" section under Appendix A Plant List and Section 10.5.10. See Section 10.6 for Landscape Standards. CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES: The Environmental Impact Report for Altair describes mitigation measures that, while applicable to the entire site, are particularly relevant to the conservation open space in the south and west portions of the south parcel and the goal of encouraging wildlife movement through this tract. Noted measures include: • Control Zones for exterior lighting; • Shielded exterior light fixtures that avoid light spillage or uplighting; • Site features and landscaping that screen vehicle headlights; • Construction of a berm and landscape buffer along the southern edge of the south parcel to screen views of buildings and activity from adjacent conserved lands; • Installation of a Wildlife Fence as shown in Figure 8-1 and described in Section 8.1. • Construction period best practices to minimize noise, erosion and other disturbances; • The portion of Camino Estribo west of the development area will remain unpaved to minimize vehicular speeds. Draft : November 2016 ALTAIR VISTA WESTERN BYPASS C STREET B STREET S livor 0 �G S� COROMELL TRAIL it OLD TOWN ,41,14 Ui MAIN STREET rn FIRST STREET & STREET NORTH Figure 4-12 SPECIFIC PLAN 4 CIRCULATION LEGEND: =min STREET SECTION - WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOi9 1 (PUBLIC) STREET SECTION - WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR 2 (PLIBUC) STRT SECTION - C STREET & B STREET S. (PUBLIC) STREET SECTION - COROI E L TRAJL SPLIT IPRIVATE) • ■ ■ STREET SECTION - COROMELL TRAIL (PRIVATE) i STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA &A SI Fit I, PLANTED PARKWAYS (PRIVATE] STALL I SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA S& A si h1EE 1, URBAN PARKWAYS. (PRIVATE) STRI T SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA ONE WAY HATH PARKING ONE SIDE {PRIVATE) STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA (PLIBUC) STREET SECTION - ALTAIR VISTA CULVERT / A. SI Fitt) BRIDGE STRtt r SECTION - B STREET N. WITH CLAS 181IE TRAIL (PFiII11Tq STRtt I SECTION - B STREET f.1. WffH SMARM BIKE LANE {PRIVATE) TRANSmONAL AREA PER TENTATIVE MAP ROUNDABOUT - 1 ROUNDABOUT -2 ROUNDABOUT - S Vehicular Circulation Plan Draft : November 2016 >F. CIRCULATION 4 C Street & B Street South Figure AM! Street Section — C Street (TTM lots Q+R) & B Street South ( lots D,S+P) ( Public) C Street and B StreetSouth - 60° ROW , FIGURE 4-16 (Section) and FIGURE 4-17 (Axonometric). Features: • Two 14 -foot travel lanes with 6 -foot wide bike lanes each side. • 6 -foot sidewalk along one side. • 10 -foot landscaped parkway along the other side of the street. • Decorative street lights will be located based on safety and comfort. • Dedicated bike lanes shall be provided. • Street trees shall be spaced at 24 feet on center. Trees shall be a minimum of 100% 24" box size. ■ Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLANM= NATIVE SLOPE 4 CIRCULATION SCORF) CQNCRE 1 E NATIVE SLOPE REET LIGI--IT Figure 4-17 Street Axon - C Street & S Street South ( Public) C Street and B Street South These areas shall use a combination of primarily SoCal natives with limited non-native shrubs and groundcovers. SoCal native shrubs and groundcovers shall compose a minimum of 85% of the total planting area of this zone and non -natives a maximum of 15%. Low water use plants shall compose a minimum of 90% of the total planting area of this zone and medium water use plants a maximum of 10%. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and groundcovers shall be based on water usage. (However, low water use plants may be added to medium water use zones if they can tolerate the additional water.) Turf is not allowed in parkways. (Bioswales are considered a separate landscape area type and therefore have their own category description and plant list.) — REFER TO THE CIRCULATION SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. — REFER TO THE APPENDIX FOR PLANT LIST. SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 u SPECIFIC f LAh: Figure 5-; Project Grading Diagram ill Draft : November 2016 5 GRADING PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 EXHIBIT F - TRACT 36959 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN PLAN LEC NO: EXIS11WO STCRW CRAW LINE xwaMEn VIM. MARLINE PROPOSED GDNCCETE CWNNEL Figure 6-3 Storm Drainage Plan Draft : November 2016 .SPECIFIC PLANT 6 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES • 2 24', 6' CONC. 'CHANNEL 2 " 24- 36" 2 42 JOIN EX. 2e 24 EX 24' EX. 24" EX. 24" 24" ..,— .... ONC..—-T EX. EX. 36" EX 24"J I CHANNEL ,t." 36" r PUJOLSTREET EX. 2-24" Ex. 24" (1# CIVIC PHASE TR 36959 a' / C STREET 24 24 6 CONC CHANNEL DC. 8° CONC. CHANNEL SOUTH PHASE TR 36959-3 21) ,asc2" _ 1 • 24- 19" 36" ffli SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 LEGEND: EXISTING STORM ORAN LINE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ONE PROPOSED CONCRETE CHANN I INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 —1241 12" w WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR 8.. - - -'8" RW NV 12- W w 9' RW 12' W 12 W 8" W 8" RW 12" w 8" w S' RW FX a' w PUJOL STREET Ito Ien 1 z IRI -r\ fW8TPC RECYCLED WAIF? IME £x24" m in IIS I I _>\ PUJOL STREEY�+� L CENTRAL PHASE TR 36959-2 CIVIC PHASE TR 36959 EWINS DOWESIIC *4TR lN1E / ffJJ LEGEND: 1- EXISTwG ©OWESTIC WATER LINE EXISTING RECYCLED WATER LINE sr Anio sn ACM.avcrr 11 a. ar imo1 sa wawa -1 1 / \11 / 1 1 12" W 11111 1111 1 4. / 1Lt- / • ii --\ EX W EX. 30''WW PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER LINE PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER LINE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT 11 10-w \ 1*1 €x �a a" RW 1 1,FxCT RW vu.36\ io ,,,„„ Ff;ON� f EX.ys / 9URiV yO�STR ice Aaj Ex, "-"'• 89, NMD SA, y' EXHIBIT D-2 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL WATER PLAN OCTOBER 2016 Figure 6-6( continued) Enlarged Domestic Water Plans by Phaseill Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLANgi NFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 6 >I / \ •- 4—• „L" ,„ ' ,: ' --.--7a---;/ , c . • \\\ (7 •-=, \ \ • EXHIRIT C - TRACT 36959 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN LEGEND: 3 E7USTING GRAVITY SE‘Arr-R UNE EXISTING FORCE MAIN PROP. GRAVITY SEWER UNE PROP. 24SEWER FORCE MAIN IV EMWD aqi 1 , ti aL, 1 ss Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE 8 UTILITIES 6 WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR iA E COROM ELL ` } 7I TRAIL __ _ PUJOL STREET `•� Lx I - PROP. +: Ek. }2" FORCE 44W Ex. PUJOL LIFT STAi1C t (UPGRADES BY EMWD - PROP- 10" AWE OW a8' f5SCE mum r PROP. PUJOLSTREE I PRPP_ 24- FORCE MAN (B'1 EMWD) £x. 8 7+7" FORCE WO 18" FORCE WI — Fx 20'ICRCE WAY Ex. r8' FCPCE uwv _ I .PROP. 24" /FORCE WIN / (BY EMWD) .1 VJE5R� DyQR1DOR N E R•: .i — €x zo" rcnacE MAN !2 Ex, re- FORCE MMN E. 20" FORCE MAW Ek. 15' FORCE MAIN Er 8" TO 8E REPLACED PUJOL STREET ) Ex. PUJOL LIF1 STA1ION (UPGRADES BY EMWU) OLD TOWN FRONT STREET 410 SOUTH PHASE TR 36959-3 '3 NORTH PHASE TR 36959-1 Figure 6-8 Enlarged Sewer Plans by Phase s L Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLANK 6 INFRASTRUCTURE I & UTILITIES CIVIC PHASE TR 36959 4 - PROP 10" 31 •RnP. lo' 7 rn nTs WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR s PUJOLSTREET (Y. 7+7' FDNC( Nd01' (X !8 FORCE MAN � -- LI- B' f WOE MAW Eu. PWOL LIFT STATION IUPCRADES By EMWD) 37' ({A4L^( ANW 1 le Fara NNW r nr CENTRAL959-2 !` TR 36959-2 B STREET - r ` ,A II ' • 'P` "'alit"( di(6 1- .4 LEGEND: 12 R10oR � E Y SS liesi tiP $ 4P 9— B ,LTA}RVISTA Is 7 t do (X. IS. FORCE MAW EX 20" FORCE MAW (X, 70" FORCE Fr41N EX.. *8FORCE MEIN CF- 8" TO ,# — — uknr r P(P(Ar .> PUJOL STREET PROP. PROP. 12' PROs EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER LINE EXISTING FORCE IWI PROP. GRAVITY SEW$R LINE PROP. 29' SEWER FORCE MAW $Y EMWO (x. FROAR Sr. LIFT STATION OLD TOWN FRONT STREET PROP. 12 FX. PUJOL LIFT STATION (UPGRADES BY BIND) EXHIBIT C-2 ALTAIR CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 OCTOBER 2016 112 OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN The City of Temecula General Plan targets 5 acres of useable park land per 1,000 population in its Open Space and Conservation Element in order to ensure sufficient park land and recreation facilities. While the General Plan excludes natural open space and trails from its park standard, they are a substantial and integral part of the open space and recreation network at Altair. The large amount of natural and interstitial open space and usable cycling and running trails complements the available active open space. This inter -connected system is consistent with and contributes to the Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, discussed previously in Section 4. To meet the General Plan target, Altair would need between 9.6 and 19.3 acres of useable park land, based on an expected person per household factor of 2.2 and planned development intensity in the range of 870-1,750 dwelling units. The target factor of 5 acres per 1,000 persons is high for the region. The City of San Diego, for instance, requires only 2.8 acres per 1,000 population in its General Plan, while the City of Riverside requires 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Escondido recognizes the value of passive parks and habitat land by targeting passive and active open space in equal measure, with a combined total of 11.8 acres per 1,000 people. The combined passive and active open space area in the Altair Specific Plan totals approximately 135 acres. This equates to 35 acres per 1,000 residents at the maximum density of 1,750 dwelling units. A successful community has many different kinds of open space that offer a range of activities and varying levels of privacy and control. Open space is divided into four main categories in the Altair Specific Plan: natural open space, interstitial open space, active open space and private open space. A summary of open spaces are shown in Tables 8-1 and 8-2 and general locations are indicated in Figure 8-1. SPECIFIC PLAN Draft ; November 2016 Use Acres _ % of Total Conservation Open Space Open Space Clubhouse and Recreation Center Parks, Trails & Bikeways Master Developer 10.18 Guest Builders 3.55 Elementary School 2.00 84.59 31.33 2.05 31.3% 11.6% 0.8% Total 15.73 15.73 5.8% Developed Area* (Residential, School + Civic Sites) Roadways 108.11 40.1% 28.09 10.4% Total 259.90 100.4% * Approximately 20% of the Village Lot Areas are 2:1 open space slopes to the east and/or west of each Village. The final buildable pad area is anticipated to be 60 - 65 acres (22%-24% of the total acreage). Table 8-1 Open Space Summary Location Use Responsibility TOTAL AREA (Acres) Portion of Park Area that is Open to the Public Master Developer / School District Guest Budder Active Open Space Master HOA Maintained Sub -HOA Maintained Village A Active Park Guest Builder 0.95 1 0.65 Village B Active Park Guest Builder 0.65 1 0.40 Village C Active Park Master Developer 5.04 0.75 2 5.04 Plaza Master Developer 4.37 0.37 Promenade Master Developer 0.59 0.59 Community Center Master Developer 2.05 2.05 Village D Active Park Master Developer 0.80 0.15 2 0.80 Village E Active Park Guest Builder 0.35 1 0.25 Between E+ F Active Park Master Developer 0.25 0.25 Village F Active Park Guest Builder 0.60 1 0.40 Village G Active Park Guest Builder 0.10 2 School Play Field School District 2.00 2.00 3 Trail South of 1st Street Class I Bikeway Master Developer 1.40 1.40 Trail North of 1st Street Jogging Path Master Developer 0.78 0.78 Western Bypass Class 1 Bikeway Master Developer 092 0.92 Active Subtotal : 14.19 3.55 15.89 Natural Open Space Upper Hillside M51 -ICP +Slopes Master Developer 68.80 GvlcSite MSHCP+Slopes Master Developer 35.57 Interstitial Open Space Passive Ravines *Slopes Master Developer 21.49 21.49 Total: 140.05 37.38 1. Includes Guest Builder constructed "String of Pear s" parks that are open to the public (1.7 acres). 2_ Estimated Common Open Space parks (varies based on product type) which may be public or private, 3. Subject to joint use agreement with School District. Table 8-2 Park and Open Space Areas Draft : November 2018 PRESERVED / RESTORED OPEN SPACE VILLAGE 'A" PARK VILLAGE 'B' PARK OFF SITE OPEN SPACE . 11111 CLUBHOUSE PPER STAIRCASE SEATING PLAZA SCHOOL RECREATION HOA RECREATION CENTER VILLAGE `C` CORE PARK , MAIN ST. PLAZA 4\--1 OLD TOWN GRAND STAIR PROMENADE VILLAGE '12r PARK VILLAGE 'E' PARK VILLAGE 'F' PARK WILDLIFE FENCE CIVIC SITE 1 rigure 8-1 Parks, Open Space and Amenities Plan SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 OPEN SPACE 8 & RECREATION 8.1 Natural Open Space Natural open space is basically left in its current state. While access is not prohibited, natural open space is not intended to be active or programmed for recreation. There are no trails or facilities for visitors. Natural open space in the Altair Specific Plan is primarily located in the MSHCP corridor west of the Western Bypass and at the southern tip of the site. It includes natural habitat, chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and oak woodland. This area is part of Proposed Linkage 10 in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and will provide both live-in habitat and a passageway for critical species including bobcat and mountain lion. The natural open space within the Specific Plan area is connected to the much larger MSHCP land that extends westward to the ridgeline, maximizing the value of each area as part of a greater conservation zone. The south 55 -acre parcel is mostly natural open space in order to preserve a large stand of native oak and to be sensitive to adjacent uses. The south portion of this parcel is adjacent to the Temeku Village Site. Natural open space in this area provides an appropriate backdrop and helps to maintain the cultural significance of the neighboring historical site. Effective separation of natural habitat from development is critical to preserve the habitat and protect both native species and residents, including their pets, from predators. The Western Bypass Corridor divides most of the natural open space from new development. A wildlife fence will also be provided as shown in Figure 8-1 to keep animals out of the Bypass and to separate the natural open space from Villages A, G and the south parcel. Wildlife Fencing Standard: 1. 8.0' high vinyl coated chain link "Wildlife Fence" with gates included throughout. 2. Locate at the toe of slope along the entire Western Bypass Road as well as areas adjacent to Villages A, G & Civic Site (see Figure 8-1). Draft : November 2016 =,PECIFIC PLANIJ1M OPEN SPACE B & RECREATION 8.3 Active Open Space Active open space is developed for human recreation and gathering. These spaces are the focus of the individual neighborhoods of the Altair Specific Plan and give each village its unique character. Active spaces are closely tied to adjacent architecture, functioning as outdoor rooms. They often occupy important loci or scenic vantage points within the overall plan. Active open space falls into two general types at Altair: public open space and common open space. 8.3.1 Public Open Space Public Open Spaces are parks, playfields, and other spaces for public use that are typically established by the master developer and maintained by the Altair community as a whole. Public Open Spaces include the central park, the Community Center area, upper stair and plaza and the promenade, all at Village C; and the village parks. Guest builders can also install and maintain public open spaces as long as they are open to the general public, such as at the village parks. Active public open spaces also include circulation elements such as Class I bikeways and established paths that can be used for walking or jogging. The pedestrian link from Village C to Main Street is a series of connected urban spaces at the Grand Stair and Main Street plaza that encourages interaction between residents of Altair and Old Town. A Recreation Center and Clubhouse are provided to serve all residents of Altair. Both of these facilities are located in the Community Center at Village C and they define and punctuate the Plaza at the top of the Main Street axis. See the Village C description in Section 3 for more information on this area of the Plan and its adjacencies. The Recreation Center features an outdoor pool and spa framed by the recreation building and a pergola. Inside the recreation building are locker rooms, restrooms, spaces for fitness equipment and yoga or other exercise classes, a children's game room and offices and other support spaces. The Recreation Center edges grand steps at the peak of the Main Street axis, a prime gathering space and scenic viewpoint. =IIMISPECIFIC: PLAN Draft : November 2016 8-7 OEVEk OPMErr 3TAHDAf10S 10 - -- Description of Use 'pen Spam• -:,def,,; Public/lnsriwoinn&l SP -AO SP -NO SP -R SP -M SP -MR SP -E 5P -f Iresiuentiar 2 Single-family detached Duplex (two-family dwellings) Single-family attached (greater than two units) Multiple -family Manufactured Homes Mobilehome Park Efficiency / Micro- Units Transitional Housing Secondary Dwelling Unit 4 Group Homes Congregate care facilities (elderly or disabled) Residential care facilities (for elderly, disabled, mentally disordered, dependent or neglected children) Recovery or treatment facility Guest House 4 Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities Bed and breakfast establishment Family day care homes Live/ Work Home Occupation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - P C P C C C C C C C P P P P P P P - - P C P C C C P P P P P P P P P P - P c P C C _ P P P P P P i> Norvesiderilasi3 Day care centers Educational, K-3th grade Educational, trade or vocational school Higher Education Conference facility Libraries Museums and galleries (nonprofit) Nonprofit clubs and lodge halls Religious Institutions Hospital and Ancillary Medical Office - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - - - P 3 P 3 P' 3 - - P - - P P P C - C - - P P P C - P C P P P P P - P P r,-ommR.rc 1 Retail Restaurant Offices - - - P P P P P P P P P Open Space Community Gardens Athletic Field Bicycle Paths Communications and microwave installations Game courts, badminton,tennis, racqetball Gaif course and clubhouse, driving range Nature centers/ exhibits Parking Areas Picnic group facilities Private parks and recreation facilities Public parks and recreation facilities Recreational vehicle park Riding stable, public or private Shooting galleries, ranges, archery courses P P P C P - P P 4 P P P - - - C - - - C - C - C - - P - P C - - P P P P - - - - - P C P - - P - P - - - - - - P C P - - P - P C - - - = a = C: = _ = P P P F= - I' F' F' P P C - Legend P Use is permitted in subject zone C Use is conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Use is prohibited fn subject zone Notes 1 Parking for park visitor use only. Conform with Housing Type regulations per Sections 10-10.10-21- 3 A CUP is required if use is added after initial development. 4 Conform with "accessory dwelling' regulations per Sections 10.11.10.21. Table 10-1 Permitted Uses Draft : November 2016 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS Standards +iii.r;.;e A Village 13 VillaLie C 41114 ,2 0 ;+illaee F Villar?e f Village G. th,.., 8 :South Parcel min. ma%.3 min. ma0 min. max min. max.3 min. max.3 min. maxi min. maxi min. maxi min. maxi Lot Minimum Lot Area NIA Minimum Lot Frontage Determ ned by Building Type. See Sections 10.10-10.18 and Table 10-4 5etbarks free;) 1.2 From Altair Vista Property Line 3 4 t0 4 3 10 3 5 s 5 0 5 5 0 5 3 3 5 From Western Bypass ROW 20 130 20 100 10 - 10 From Ridge Park Drive ROW 20 160 From Levant Trail ROW 3 From "A" Street Property line 0 5 From Camino Estribo ROW 10 All other Lot Lines 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 - 0 Height Maximum Height (feet) 6,7 65 70 75 65 55 55 55 50 85 Maximum Stories 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 2 5 other acquirements Park Space Minimum total area 0.95 acre 0.60 acre 5.00 acres 0.37 acres 0.50 acres 1.00 acres, 0.35 acre 2.00 Minimum contiguous area 0.65 acre 0,40 acre 5.00 acres 0.37 acres 0.25 acres 0.40 acres - 1.50 Common Open Space (sq. ft per unit) Determined by Building Type- see Sec ion 10.10-10-18 and Table 10-4 Private Open Space (sq. ft. per unit) Determined by Building Type. See Sections 10.10-10.18 and Table 10-4 Allowable Building Types Detached Housing (Section 10.11) ■ il * r 1 1 8 1• Multiplex (Section 10.12) ■ 1 • r r ■ is II B Rawhouse (Section 10.13) ■ ■ a • • • 1 . 8 Live / Work (Section 10.14) ■ 1 • • is . s Multifamily Walk -Up (Section 10.15) ■ 1 • • 1 r r r 8 Multifamily Podium (Section 10.16) ■ ■ 1 ■ * pi 8 Micro Unit (Section 10.17) ■ f • 11 ei a 11 s Mixed Use (Section 10.18) ■ 1 CS Iconic Tower (Section 10.19) M Civic Buildings (Section 10.20) • r Community Buildings (Section 10.21) ■ r m e ■ ■ ■ a Notes: 1. Setbacks do not apply to interior lot lines. 2. See Section 10.5 for allowable encroachments into setback area. 3. At least 30% of the building frontage area must comply with the maximum setback. See Fig. 10.1 4. Measured from Boundary Road easement at Village A. 5. May be increased to 8 feet maximum where an arcade is provided per Section 9.4. 6. Structure height is measured as the vertical distance from the grade established by the Grading Plan exhibit referenced in this Specific Plan to the highest point of the parapet of a flat or mansard roof, or to the mid -point of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. Screened mechanical and electrical equipment, chimneys, towers, railings and other integral parts of a building or structure occupying no more than five percent of the roof area shall be excluded from this measurement. Photovoltaic panels and their support framework may be excluded from this measurement. 7. Buildings greater than 55 feet in height from the lowest Floor of fire department access shall provide certain high-rise provisions in compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code and California Fire Code. 8. If the School District elects not to receive the land, the land may be developed with the indicated residential uses. Setback and height regulations will match Village B. The park space requirements remain. Table 10-2 Zoning Regulations .eil C1hiai PLAIT Draft : November 2016 WILDLIFE FENCE A 14-51 te' Itr=trdu • NATIVE SHALE TREE • NATNE ACCENT TREE • NATIVE RIPARIAN TREE • PARK TREE • NATIVE OR LOW WATEI • NATIVE CR LOW WATEI DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 PRESERVED / RESTORED OPEN SPACE VILLAGE `09ARK VILLAGE `B' PARK SCHOOL RECREATION HOA RECREATION 1 CENTER CLUBHOUSE UPPER STAIRCASE SEATING PLAZA PROMENADE VILLAGE 'C' CORE PARK , MAIN ST,SPLAZA ;- °:in Sveei OLD TOWN GRAND STAIR VILLAGE 'D' PARK r,rsr Sre ,1 VILLAGE 'E' PARK VILLAGE 'F' PARK f6 41111:74 '1171 J! Figure 10-7 Conceptual Landscape Plan CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY; ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Draft : November 2016 USE VILLAGE TREE USE VILLAGE ACCENT TREE SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 ■ NATURAL SLOPES USING TYSON METHOD. HYDRASE EA AND CONTAINER STOCK PER LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES, TYP (PERMANENTLY IRRIGATED) TREES CLUSTERED FOR NATURAL WILDLIFE BUFFER PRESERVED OPEN SPACE J PRESERVED OPEN SPACE r TREES CONCENTRATED AT TOE OF SLOPE FOR A NATURAL CHARACTER, TYP Figure 10-11 Landscape Exhibit 4 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY: ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLANL WESTERN BYPASS Immo ALTAIR VISTA COROMELL TRAIL A STREET B STREET C STREET • ROUNDABOUT Refer to the Vehicular Circulation Plan for spacing and quantities per street. Refer to the plant list Appendix for tree species and species percentages per street. tv OLD TOWN c 0 1 , MAIN STREET 1 � m IIIIPFIRST STREET Figure 10-12 Street Tree Plan 10-15 SPECIFIC PLAN Draft : November 2016 OEV LOC 4 a 10 STAHbAI e. Description of Use Required Number of Spaces Additional Requirements Residential Uses Single -Family residence Detached residence 2 enclosed spaces per residence - Guest or service parking shall be provided for all residential uses at a rate of one space for every 10 dwelling units, unless noted otherwise, see Note 1. Duplex (two-family dwellings) 2 enclosed spaces per residence Single-family attached (greater than two units) 1.5 enclosed spaces per unit plus 0.5 covered space per unit Multiple -family residential 1 bedroom or less 1 covered space per unit _ Guest or service parking shall be provided for all residential uses at a rate of one space for every 20 dwelling units, unless noted otherwise. See Note 1. . Provide secured bicycle parking for multifamily residential uses at a rate of 0.5 spaces per unit. Units with individual enclosed garages are exempt From this requirement. 2 bedrooms 1.5 covered spaces per unit plus 0.5 uncovered spaces per unit 3 bedrooms or more 2 covered spaces per unit plus 0.25 uncovered spaces per unit Efficiency Units (micro -units) 0,5 covered spaces per unit Transitional Housing 0.5 covered spaces per unit Congregate care Facilities (elderly or disabled) 0.5 covered spaces per unit plus 1 guest space for every 8 units Residential care facilities+ group homes 1 covered space for every 3 residents Guest House Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities Bed and breakfast establishment 1 space per guest room or suite Family day care homes Same as far applicable residence plus 1 uncovered space for every 4 non-resident children Live/ Work 1.5 enclosed spaces per unit plus 0.5 uncovered space per unit Home Occupation Same as for applicable residence Nonresidential Uses Educational (trade or vocational school) Higher Education 1 space per 300 gross square feet (gsf) Bicycle Spaces: 1 space for every 10 vehicle spaces Conference facility Religious Institutions 1 space for every 3 seats or 1 space per 35 gross square feet (gsf( 1 space for every 20 vehicle spaces Libraries, museums, galleries 1 space per 500 grass square feet (gsf) 1 space For every 14 vehicle spaces Recreational facilities (including pools) 1 space per 1,000 sf gross of recreation area Office 1 space per 300 gross square feet (gsf)_ Retail 1 space per 400 gross square feet (gsf) 1 space for every 20 vehicle spaces Restaurant, lodge hall, club 1 space per 200 gross square feet (gsf) tes: 1. Guest parking requirement may be satisfied by on -street parking on internal streets and on A Street. Street parking on Altair Vista may not be used to satisfy the residential guest parking requirement. Table 10i-, Parking Requirements Parking for the Recreation Center, Clubhouse and Park in Village C will be available to the public on a first corne, first served basis. However, school parking will be prohibited in those lots. Parking on the school site will be for the exclusive use of the school on days when school is in session. On days when the school is closed, the school parking lot will be open to the public, =ipm Draft : November 2016 , 1043 DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 10 — 10-26 10.10 Building Types A wide variety of building types are encouraged at Altair, to promote the social diversity of the community as well as serving the housing needs of the City of Temecula. A mix of building types also enhances visual interest and creates a vibrant urban fabric. The building types should support the goals of a compact and walkable com- munity with fairly high densities. Traditional, single-family houses on single lots are not included, as they are al- ready prevalent in the City. Large footprint multi -family housing encircling common garages, commonly referred to as "wraps', are also discouraged because they create uncomfortably large block lengths for pedestrians. Building types are listed below and are described in greater detail in the following pages. Table 10-4 as well as the Planning Area descriptions in Section 3 identify allowable building types for each village. I Building Type Lot Width (ft.) Lot Depth (ft.) Private Open Space Common Open Space Building Height section min. max. min. max. 3 ratio 3,s min. size area per d.u. (stories) 10.11 Detached Housing 25 45 60 100% 4 100 s.f. 80 s.f. 2 - 4 10.12 Multiplex 24 35 10096 100 s.#4 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.13 Rowhouse 24 -- 5 -- 100% 100 s.f4 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.14 Live / Work 24 -- 35 -- 100% 100 s.f 4 60 s.f. 2 - 4 10.15 Multifamily Walk -Up -- -- -- -- 100% 80 s.f. 60 s.f. 2-4 10.16 Multifamily Podium -- -- -- -- 100% 60 s.f. 50 s.f. 4 - 5 10.17 Micro Unit 75% 50 s.f. 45 s.f. 10.18 Mixed Use -. -• -- 100% 60 s.f. 50 s.f. 4 - 5 10.19 Iconic Tower • - -• -- -- 50-75 feet i 10.20 Civic Buildings .. 2 - 5 10.21 Community Buildings 1 - 3 Notes: 1. Percentage of dwelling units that must provide a private exterior open space of the minimum size indicated. 2. As defined by -the building type in which the micro -unit is located. 3. If project developer provides common open space on the second level or higher, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f, per dwelling unit. 4. If private open space is provided on the third level or higher in the noted housing types, then the minimum area of private open space may be reduced by 20 s.f. for that dwelling unit. 5. Reductions granted by notes 3 and 4 may not be used in combination. Table 10-4 Building Types Draft : November 2016 3PEC1FIC PLAN Il DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 110-62 10.20 Civic Buildings Civic buildings may be located at the School Site (see Section 3.12) and at the South Parcel (see Section 3.13). This category does not include community buildings, such as recreation centers and club houses that are described in Section 10.21. A._ Development Standards: 1. Both the School Site and the South Parcel should be planned as campuses, even if the use is not educational. There should be a clear integration of functional elements within each campus. 2. The relationship between buildings on a campus is as important as the buildings themselves. Buildings should be arranged to form outdoor rooms for shared use by occupants. B. Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. C. Access: 1. Building entries will typically be at the ground floor and should be apparent to visitors. 2. Pedestrian access must be provided from a public way, from public transportation, and from off-street parking. D. Parking: 1. Structured parking is preferred. 2. Surface parking must be landscaped per Section 10.6.11 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.050.H. Solar panels on canopy structures may be substituted for required trees in the same ratio. E. Services: 1. Loading zones shall be provided per Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.060. Delivery and loading areas shall be screened from view from the street. 2. A single area for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided for each campus and shall be screened by an opaque fence or wall and covered. 3. For office and commercial uses, space for two 3 -yard bins is required for the first 20,000 square feet plus one 3 -yard bin for each additional 20,000 square feet of floor area. Compactors are encouraged to reduce the quantity of bins and resultant space needed. 4. See Section 10.9 for enclosure and access requirements for trash collection. 5. Utilities shall be grouped and screened from view from the street or common areas. Draft : November 2016 SPECIFIC FLAN pa= F. Open Space: Common open space will be provided as described in Sections 3.12 (School Site} and 3.13 (South Parcel). Spaces should facilitate gatherings and the interaction of students and/or building occupants. G. Landscape Standards: See Sections 10.6.8 (School} and 10.6.10 (Civic / Community) as well as the corresponding plant lists in Appendix A. H. Frontag_eGuidelines: 1. See Section 9.4 for applicable street frontage types. 2. Frontages for civic buildings should be of a larger scale than residential frontages to convey a greater sense of importance. 3. Architectural elements should characterize social institutions, rather than residences. Spaces that comprise civic frontages are public and should celebrate building entry. 4. Arcades, colonnades, entry courts and shopfronts are appropriate to civic buildings. They also provide shaded exterior public spaces to facilitate civic engagement. 5. Frontages should be designed to tie buildings together and create a single theme for each civic campus. For instance, buildings can be grouped around an entry court with an arcade tying them together I. Building_Size and Massing: 1. Buildings may be two to five stories. 2. Floor plates of individual buildings should not exceed 40,000 st 3. Individual buildings should be well- proportioned. Massing that sprawls horizontally, as in a large 1 -story building, does not present the proper stature of a civic building. Avoid tower forms that compete with the Iconic Tower at Altair's core. J. Accessory Dwellings: Not applicable. SPE IFIL PLAN Draft : November 2016 DEVELOPMENT 10 STANDARDS 10-63 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 il0-64 10.21 Community Buildings The main community buildings at Altair are located in Village C around its central Plaza that anchors the western end of the Main Street axis to the Temecula Civic Center, These include a Recreation Center with pool to the west of Altair Vista and a Community Center / club house east of Altair Vista at the high point of the Village C Park. Smaller community buildings may also occur in the other villages, such as at neighborhood pools and parks. A. Development Standards: 1. The combined community buildings at Village C should frame and define the central Plaza and promontory steps that anchor the Main Street axis. The two buildings should relate to each other to form a cohesive whole. 2. Community buildings should be four-sided, due to their prominent and central location. The Community Center, especially, must have facades addressing the Plaza and Altair Vista as well as the Park. The Park facade may be slightly different in character to engage terraces into the Park and to take advantage of the expanding views. 3. Community buildings should be used to negotiate grade changes, nestling into hillsides, with entries on multiple levels where possible. The Recreation Center, in particular, shall be a two-story structure forming the north edge of the promontory steps, with building entries at the top and bottom landings of these steps and a publicly accessible elevator. 4. Community Buildings should combine interior and exterior space through such design ele- ments as courtyards, terraces, colonnades, roof overhangs and permeable walls with large openings. B. Lot Size: Not applicable to this building type. C. Access: 1. Building entries should occur on all at -grade levels and should be apparent to visitors. 2. Pedestrian access must be provided from the common circulation network and from off- street ffstreet parking. D. Parking: 1. Per Table 10-3. This ratio assumes that most users of Community facilities will be residents who will walk or bike. 2, Surface parking must be landscaped per Section 10.6.11 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.050.1-1. Solar panels on canopy structures may be substituted for required trees in the same ratio. Draft : November 2016 NECIFIG F'LA�JFt%If E. 1. Services: Loading zones shall be provided per Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.24.060. Delivery and loading areas shall be screened from view from the street. 2. An area for refuse, recycling and organic waste bins shall be provided and shall be screened by an opaque fence or wall and covered. 3. See Section 10.9 for enclosure and access requirements for trash collection. 4. Utilities shall be grouped and screened from view from the street or common areas. 5. Mechanical equipment such as cooling towers and water heaters should be located on the buildng roof and screened from view from the street or from above by parapets, equipment screens or trellises. F. Open Space: Open space requirements do not apply to this building type. However, community buildings are typically adjacent to or within shared open spaces and should be integrated into these lanscapes through steped massing, courtyards, arcades or low walls. G. _ Landscapg Standards: See Sections 10.6.10 (Civic / Community) as well as the corresponding plant lists in Appendix A. H Frontage Guidelines; 1. See Section 9.4 for applicable street frontage types. 2. Frontages for community buildings should be of a larger scale than residential frontages to convey a greater sense of importance. 3. Architectural elements should characterize social institutions. Residential elements such as porches and pitched roofs may also be appropriate, but should be at a larger scale. 4. Arcades, colonnades, entry courts and are appropriate to community buildings and provide shaded indoor/outdoor space for passive recreation. 5. A community building sets the aesthetic tone for the village where it is located. The main Recreation Center and Club House, in particular, should be stylistically similar or of similar materials to establish Altair's architectural image. BuildingSize and Massing: 1. Buildings may be one to three stories tall. 2. Floor plates of individual buildings should not exceed 40,000 sf. 3. Individual buildings should be well-proportioned. Massing that sprawls horizontally, as in a large 1 -story building, does not present the proper stature of a civic building. Avoid tower forms that compete with the Iconic Tower at Altair's core. J. Accessory Dwellings: Not applicable. SPECIFIC FLAW Draft : November 2016 .�1•:Cu�.Eu�:: is -65 11-4 LEGEND PRIVRFE STREETS PURUC STREETS OFF -SI IE STREETS Figure 11-1 Public and Private Roads at Altair Draft : November 2016 • IMPLEMENTATION 11 PHASING SUMMARY HUPf 1R1Ci DP ka \raNE a ED [mese •c,f IC [r uw 'LAE 'a' 15.81 ND ieD5O-1 . v Ilan WIRD MU 1 C w,.e< r rncn Tia rb -2 11L1.'E S- mum laze veakE TY SSD I DM ea* S HIKE r 71. ruSE r aw (3aC 1Dstr DueHIHE L' ]ie M. MN fMC `JE am PHASING MAP TRACT MAP NO. 36959.1 NORTH PHASE ■ TRACT MAP I NO. 36959.3 14 SOUTH PHASE 1 TRACT MAP NO. 36959 CIVIC PHASE GRAPH IC SCALE 0 DM 40 SDO 1S Figure 11-2 Altair Conceptual Phasing Plan Draft : November 2016 O FT7r 1=yr; FLANe fIMPLEMENTATION 11 LEGEND Master Developer Constructed, Master Developer Constructed, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Constructed, Sub HOA Maintained Master HOA Maintained Deeded to Guest Builder, Deeded to Guest Builder, Private Roads: Master Developer Responsible for Curb to Curb Street Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Public Roads: Master Developer Responsible for Curb to Curb Street Improvements, City of Temecula Maintained Master Developer Road Frontage Improvements, Deeded to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Constructed Pedestrian Corridor Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Park Improvements, Deeded to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Park Improvements, Easement Granted to the City of Temecula for Maintenance Master Developer Park Improvements on Land Owned and Maintained by the City of Temecula Master Developer Park Improvements, Master HOA Maintained Master Developer Recreation Center, Master HOA Maintained Guest Builder Constructed, Sub HOA Maintained Figure 11-3 Developer Responsibility Map Drat : November 2016 SPECIFIC PLANK ATTACHMENT 10 PC RESOLUTION TTM 36959 PC RESOLUTION NO. - 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 APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36959 TO SUBDIVIDE 270 ACRES INTO 63 NUMBERED LOTS TO DEFINE THE OPEN SPACE AND THE VILLAGE AREAS, AND 20 LETTERED LOTS TO DEFINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposedProject") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EiR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. D. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered a Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, Altair Specific Plan; PA14-0160, Tentative Tract Map 36959; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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. E. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- ,"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. F. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 36959 application PA14-0160, makes the following findings as required by Temecula Municipal Code Section 16.09.140: A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. As designed and conditioned, the proposed map is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, Temecula General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. The map has been reviewed by Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments and is consistent with size, setbacks, parking, water quality and other applicable standards. The proposed subdivision will allow for the construction of up to 1, 750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics which is consistent with the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The subdivision will allow for a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The subdivision will satisfy the following implementation measure listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element implementation Program: 7pjroviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area." The proposed subdivision is also consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The proposed subdivision will create a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the proposed subdivision implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." B. The Tentative Map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use. The land identified in the proposed map is not subject to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Williamson Land Act. in addition, the land has not been used as agriculture in the recent past. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the Tentative Map. The subject site consists of 270 -acres of vacant land. The proposed map subdivides 270 acres to allow for residential, parks, mixed use, and civic/institutional uses. The proposed Tentative Tract Map design is consistent with the Temecula General Plan and the development standards for the Altair Specific Plan. D. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The proposed Project consists of a Tentative Tract Map on vacant property. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed Project. Four impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable after all mitigation has been taken into account (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise and Vibration, and Traffic). A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed Project finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision and improvements have been reviewed and conditioned by the Fire, Public Works, Planning, and Building and Safety Departments. As a result, the proposed Project is consistent or has been conditioned to be consistent with Fire and Building Codes and the City's General Plan and Municipal Code which contain provisions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities to the extent feasible. All development must meet all appropriate Building and Fire Code requirements as they relate to passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. Ali acquired rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The City has reviewed these easements and has found no potential conflicts. H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby Act). The proposed Project involves the construction of a residential development. The project will meet all Quimby requirements through the provision of park improvements, and as outlined in the Development Agreement. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36959 TO SUBDIVIDE 270 ACRES INTO 63 NUMBERED LOTS TO DEFINE THE OPEN SPACE AND THE VILLAGE AREAS, AND 20 LETTERED LOTS TO DEFINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922- 210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)" in the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15t11 day of November, 2017. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [S EAL} 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. - was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Luke Watson Secretary ATTACHMENT 10.1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION TTM 36959 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36959 TO SUBDIVIDE 270 ACRES INTO 63 NUMBERED LOTS TO DEFINE THE OPEN SPACE AND THE VILLAGE AREAS, AND 20 LETTERED LOTS TO DEFINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. D. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered a Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, Altair Specific Plan; PA14-0160, Tentative Tract Map 36959; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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. E. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "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 APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36959 TO SUBDIVIDE 270 ACRES INTO 63 NUMBERED LOTS TO DEFINE THE OPEN SPACE AND THE VILLAGE AREAS, AND 20 LETTERED LOTS TO DEFINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922- 210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)."' G. On December 12, 2017, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project and the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. H. Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. I. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. The City Council in approving the Tentative Tract Map hereby makes the following findings as required by Temecula Municipal Code Section 16.09.140: A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. As designed and conditioned, the proposed map is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, Temecula General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. The map has been reviewed by Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments and is consistent with size, setbacks, parking, water quality and other applicable standards. The proposed subdivision will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics which is consistent with the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The subdivision will allow for a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The subdivision will satisfy the following implementation measure listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area." The proposed subdivision is also consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The proposed subdivision will create a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the proposed subdivision implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[rjequire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." B. The Tentative Map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use. The land identified in the proposed map is not subject to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Williamson Land Act. In addition, the land has not been used for agriculture in the recent past. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the Tentative Map. The subject site consists of 270 -acres of vacant land. The proposed map subdivides 270 acres to allow for residential, parks, mixed use, and civic/institutional uses. The proposed Tentative Tract Map design is consistent with the Temecula General Plan and the development standards for the Altair Specific Plan. D. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The proposed Project consists of a Tentative Tract Map on vacant property. An Environmental impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed Project. Four impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable after all mitigation has been taken into account (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise and Vibration, and Traffic). A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the proposed Project finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision and improvements have been reviewed and conditioned by the Fire, Public Works, Planning, and Building and Safety Departments. As a result, the proposed Project is consistent or has been conditioned to be consistent with Fire and Building Codes and the City's General Plan and Municipal Code which contain provisions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities to the extent feasible. All development must meet all appropriate Building and Fire Code requirements as they relate to passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at Large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. All acquired rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The City has reviewed these easements and has found no potential conflicts. H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby Act). The proposed Project involves the construction of a residential development. The proposed Project will meet all Quimby requirements through the provision of park improvements, and as outlined in the Development Agreement. Section 3. Conditions of Approval. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Planning Application No. PA14-0160, Tentative Tract Map 36959 to subdivide 270 acres into 63 numbered lots to define the open space and village areas, and 20 lettered lots to define public and private streets for the Altair Specific Plan generally located south and west of the intersection of Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga, west of Pujol Street and Murrieta Creek, and north of the Santa Margarita River (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007), subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210- 049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Section 5. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of Maryann Edwards, 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. - was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 10A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (TTM 36959) Planning Application Project Description: EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL No.: PA14-0160 Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: QUIMBY Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION A proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36959, -1, -2, and -3) for "Altair," on 270 acres in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecuta west of Old Town 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310- 044 through 940-310-048, and 940-320-001 through 940-320-007 Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Credits per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Exempt per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161) Within 48 Hours of Approval 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,128.00) which includes the Three Thousand and Seventy Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,078.00) fee, required by Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Fifty Dollars ($50.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City and its attorneys from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments; or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action. or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. Expiration. This approval shall be used within twenty (20) years per the Development Agreement; otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. Consistency with Specific Plans. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 15, Altair Specific Plan. 6. Consistency with Development Agreements. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to Development Agreement (PA14-0161). Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the EIR for Altair (SCH No. 2014111029). Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 10. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers, equipment, walls, or other structures. 11. Water Quality and Drainace. Other than stormwater, it its illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system orfrom leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas. sidewalks, alleys. or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at ail times. i2 Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 13. Phased Construction. 1f construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 14. Subdivision Map Act. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. An Extension of Time may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 60 days prior to the expiration date. 15. Subdivision Phasing. If subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 16. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's PublicArt Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 17. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median; landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. 18. Class I Multi -Use Trails. Class I multi -use trails shall be provided as per the City of Temecula's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan. The construction plans for the Class 1 trails shall be included on the perimeter landscape plans and constructed in concurrence with the installation of the landscaping. 19. Class II Bicycle Lanes. Class II bicycle lanes, as specified in the City of Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, , the Tentative Tract Map and the Specific Plan, shall be identified on the street improvement plans, and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 20. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Altair project is required to comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 21 Maximum Number of Rental Units (Apartments). Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City for a residential community in the Project, the Guest Builder shall provide a letter to the City declaring whether the project will include residential units for sale to homeowners (a "For -Sale Community") or residential units for rent (Apartments) to tenants (a "For -Rent Community"), and if it is a For -Rent Community, the number of Rental Units being proposed for the For -Rent Community. Further, in conjunction with the overall development of the Project, the Guest Builder will also provide a list of all previously approved For -Sale and For -Rent Communities in the Project and the number of Rental Units for each For Rent Community. There shall be a maximum of 750 Rental Units within the Project. Notwithstanding the forgoing, homes that are in a For -Sale Community that are sold to individuals and then later rented to the public shall not count towards the 750 Rental Unit threshold. 22. Prosect Phasing. The project shall be built in four phases per the attached "Phasing Exhibit, 10D." Infrastructure shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits in each phase per the phasing plan. 23. Fiscal Impact Compliance. Any development within the Altair Specific Plan will be required to address impacts to the City's budget as a result of the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the Project area substantially exceeding the municipal revenue generated from the Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has a received a Fiscal Impact Analysis dated October, 2017 ('FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the Project, and their successors of interest, at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for a residential dwelling, shall pay the City the sum of two - hundred thirty-seven ($237) per residential dwelling unit within the project each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit. Owner and its successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through a Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to the pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owner and its successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 24. Trail Siting and Location on the South Parcel/Civic Site. In addition to the mitigation measures identified in the Final DR for cultural resources, MM -CUL -1 a through MM -CUL - 3, City Staff will work with the Pechanga Tribe to determine the final trail alignment for an out and back, or loop trail. Using trail siting guidance identified in the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Section 7.0, the trail will utilize existing dirt roads whenever possible. Portions of existing trail may be eliminated, and revegetated to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Any new trail segment will be designed to discourage and prevent intrusion into adjacent environmentally sensitive areas. 25. Direction Fencing. Directional Fencing for wildlife shall be required as identified in the Specific Plan, El R, and in conformance with the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 26. Central Park Design Meeting. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits associated with the Central park area, a pre -design meeting shall be held to include Planning; TCSD, and Public Works to complete a final design for the Central Park. The Altair Specific Plan includes a conceptual plan for the park, however, final arrangement and location of amenities shall be determined prior to any grading and/or construction. 27. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check valves prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 28. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 29. Pechanga Mitigation Measures. The Altair project is required to comply with Mitigation measures MM -CUL -1 a through MM -CUL -3. 30. Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent; fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological) cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 31. Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 32. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation." 33. Archaeological Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property." 34. Tribal Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer." 35. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition " 36. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 37. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1a — Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. 38. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -lb - Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor. At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re -burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. 39. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 c — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. The qualified archeologist, or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis. 40. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1d — Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM -CUL -la and 1 b. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re -survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City,, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. 41_ Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1e — Unanticipated Discovery. If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor,. and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code §21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM -CUL -1 b. 42. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1f — Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP. The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. 43. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2a — Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The applicant shall implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot- checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. 44. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2b - Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries. If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. 45. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 — Human Remains. If human remains are uncovered during project construction; the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. if the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. 46. MSHCP Pre -Construction Survey. A 30 -day preconstruction survey, in accordance with MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The results of the 30 -day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. 47, Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30 -day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist.' 48. Rough Grading Plans. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 49 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 50. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161). 51 Quimby Requirements. Per the Development Agreement, the developer has satisfied the City's parkland dedication (Quimby) requirement through the provision of parks and open space identified in the Altair Specific Plan. These parks will be privately maintained, but open to the public. The Central Park in Village C will be dedicated to the City per the Development Agreement (PA14-0161), 52_ Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 53. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, `Three landscape site inspections are required, The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 54. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 55 Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 56. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 57. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly; and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 58. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots: shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger, and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas. 59_ Wall and Fence Plans. Wall and fence plans shall be reviewed with all landscape plans. and shall be consistent with the Altair Specific Plan. 60. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 61. Landscaping Requirement for Phased Development. If any phase or area of the project site is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of grading, the landscaping plans shall indicate it will be temporarily landscaped and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. 62. WQMP Landscape Compliance. The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with Appendix A. Table 31 of the Low Impact Development (LID) Manual for Southern California for plant materials and treatment facilities, and shall reference the approved precise grading plan for WQMP features. 63. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 64. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. Alt required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 65. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 66. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 67. Final Map. A copy of the Final Map for each phase shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division, 68. Environmental Constraint Sheet. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division with the following notes: a. This property is located within 30 miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. 69. Submittal of CC&Rs. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project or any phase thereof shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development. The CC&Rs shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings, and landscaped and open areas, including parkways. Applicants shall provide a deposit in the amount of $3,750 for the review of the CC&Rs. Amended CC&Rs will require a $2,000 deposit. The applicant shall be responsible for al costs incurred during review of the CC&Rs and additional fees may be required during the course of the review. 70. Form and Content of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and its residents. 71. Preparation of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. 72. Review of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owners Association are subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development, Public Works Director, and the City Attorney. 73. CC&Rs and Management and Maintenance of Common Areas. The CC&Rs shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas, drainage facilities, and pollution prevention devices outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan for the project or any phase thereof. 74. CC&Rs and Public Nuisance. The CC&Rs shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated, and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. 75. Termination of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall provide that the association may not be terminated without prior City approval. 76. CC&Rs and Maintenance of Property. The CC&Rs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&Rs, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&Rs or the City Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. 77. Interest in Association. Every owner of a suite or lot governed by CC&Rs shall own as an appurtenance to such suite or lot, either: (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. 78. Maintenance of Open Areas. All open areas and landscaping governed by CC&R shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning Divisions and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 79. Reciprocal Easements. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives, parking areas, drainage facilities, and water quality features, shall be provided by the CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 80. Consent of City of Temecula. An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs, following the Declarant's signature, to read as follows: CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 36959, -1, -2, and -3, require the City of Temecula to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolutions of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs. Luke Watson Director Community Development Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 81. Operation of Association. No lot or suite in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owners group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&Rs, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or suites and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&Rs shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 82. Recordation of CC&Rs. CC&Rs shall be finalized and recorded at the time of Final Map Recordation. 83. Copies of CC&Rs. Three copies of the final recorded CC&Rs shall be provided to the Planning Division. 84. General. The CC&Rs shall contain a provision requiring the HOA to perform yearly inspections of garages to ensure adequate parking. 85. General. The CC&Rs shall contain a list of all disclosures (tax rate — Mello Roos, wildlife, noise, etc.) as required by the City of Temecula and State of California. OUTSIDE AGENCY LETTERS 86. Rancho Water. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water transmittal dated August 26, 2014, a copy of which is attached. 87. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the RCFCWD transmittal dated March 5, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 88. Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the MWD transmittal dated April 14, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 89. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the ACOE transmittal dated May 18, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 90. Southern California Edison (SCE). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the SCE transmittal dated September 17, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 91. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the EMWD transmittal dated September 21, 2016, a copy of which is attached. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 92. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure for a 2 -hour duration for this projects. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 93. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x (2) 2'/2" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent public streets. For all multi -family projects hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant for all and for single family dwellings and tract homes hydrants shall be 500 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 94. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 95. Water Maintenance Agreement. An agreement for the maintenance and repair of any and all existing underground Fire Department water systems, including all fire sprinkler supplies, and all fire hydrants and supplies, will be in place as a condition of this division to maintain available water in perpetuity Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 96. Turning Radius (Culdesac) Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 37 -feet for single family dwelling tracts and 45 feet for multi -family dwelling tracts. (CFC Chapter 5 along with the Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 97. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 98. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not fess than 24 feet with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 99. Gradient Of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 100. Knox Box. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5) 101. File Format Requirements. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format, must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of alternative file formats which may be acceptable PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 102. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. 103. Developer shall execute a City Standard Subdivision Improvement Agreements for the applicable phase of the development to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map. These improvements include, but are not limited to paving, base, signing & striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, pedestrian ramps, drainage structures, and best management practices for stormwater treatment, reconstruction, replacement and repair of adjacent improvements where the subdivision transitions and connects to existing improvements as applicable. Said improvements shall be installed to City Standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 104. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map for each phase, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the Water District Engineer. 105. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase, Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along and within the subdivision boundary. 106. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots abutting the Western Bypass Corridor Road. 107. Developer shall cause Owner to make an offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for the Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. 108. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the Director of Public Works, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. 109. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights -of -ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 110. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Works, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 111. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 112. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with all street improvements on and off-site grading. Perimeter walls, where required, shall be treated with graffiti -resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 113. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06, unless otherwise provided for by a written agreement between the City and the Developer. 114. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein or by development agreement, and State laws, and shall conform to the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. 115. Approval of this Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council, and an Environmental Impact Report (EI R) or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are certified by the City Council, 116. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Temecula Valley Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to comply with all school district requirements. 117. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans for each phase shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans. 118. A detailed noise attenuation evaluation shall be conducted in a supplemental acoustical study to be submitted when the tract map is filed with the appropriate agency. 119. Prior to the approval of a development plan or tentative map for individual planning areas, the developer and City staff will review plans, especially for multi -family housing areas, commercial uses, and parks for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 120. Prior to approval of any development projects, appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review shall be obtained by the developer. These agencies shall be determined by the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works, 121. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the Director of Public Works for recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. 122. The developer or the developer's successor -in -interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement, litter removal and erosion control as applicable. 123. Prior to approval of any development projects, the developer shall investigate the feasibility of a reclaimed water system, to irrigate landscaping within the roadway medians, parkways, drainage channel, schools, the community park, the paseo park, neighborhood parks, and other common open space areas. The developer shall provide evidence that compliance with this condition is in accordance with Senate Bill 2095. 124. Developer shall provide to the Director of Public Works, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements (e.g. roads, driveways, sidewalks, utilities, water quality treatment facilities and private storm drain improvements, etc.) located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. 125. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 126. All lighting shall be reviewed by the City to assure compliance with the Ordinance No. 655. 127. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs consistent with the Specific Plan. Grading 128. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 129. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (El R) document. 130. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, erosion control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements as applicable. 131. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: a) Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. b) Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. c) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. d) Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. e) Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. f) Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 132. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 133. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of completion of grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 134. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 135. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 136. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 137. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 138. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 139. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 140. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Drainage 141. Floodplain/Floodway Development. If applicable, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, which requires a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. A FEMA -approved CLOMR shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The developer shall pay all fees required by FEMA (and City) for processing of the FEMA reviews. 142. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100 -year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site as required by the City. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 143. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 144. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 145. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 146. All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100 -year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 147. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the interim detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 148. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 149. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site as required by the Director of Public works. 150. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements as necessary. 151. During review of any future tentative map, an updated geotechnical/geologic report shall be prepared to include any necessary revisions to earthwork, foundation, design, and construction recommendations. 152. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 153. Geological Report. The developer shall complete any outstanding County geologist's requirements, recommendations and/or proposed Conditions of Approval as identified during entitlement. 154. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties, The documents format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. WQMP / SWPPP 155. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; or other affected agencies 156. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal for any phase approval by Public Works. A copy of the final project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: h ttp: //www. cityofte mecu la. o rq!Te m e c u l a/Government/P u b l i cWorks/W Q M Pa n d N P D ES/W QMP.htm 157. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http:/1www.cityoftemecula.orq!Temecula/Government/Publ icWorkslengi neeringconstman ual.htm 158. 0 & M Agreement: The developer shall submit a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement for review and approval 159. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24,140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 160. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDJD) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml Circulation 161. Prior to Final Map recordation for each phase, the Developer is responsible to bond for or construct the traffic signals at the project's accesses, as required, including the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications. 162. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to and from developments areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual tentative maps and/or development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works, consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 163. The exact location and number of access points shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works upon future tentative map and/or development plan approvals consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 164. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards or as approved with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Map. 165. All intersection intervals shall comply with City standards and requirements. 166. Developer, at its sole cost, shall design and improve Vincent Moraga Road to ensure that all driveways providing access from to adjoining properties shall be allowed for safe ingress and/or egress. Improvements may include, but not be limited to, truck deceleration, acceleration and turn -in lanes. The improvements shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for public roadway and rights of way consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 167. Developer, at its sole cost, shall fund the acquisition and installation of traffic signals and related roadway and right of way improvements, when warranted. The design and installation shall conform to the standards adopted by the City of Temecula, consistent with the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. 168. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in accordance with City Engineering Standards. The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on all improvement, grading, or landscape plans prepared in association with the development. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor as defined by City of Temecula Engineering Standards. 169. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). Additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. 170. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Temecula Standards based on R -value tests. AH private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. 171. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown in the Altair Specific Plan. Any substantive re -phasing of the development must be approved by the Planning and Public Works Director through a re -phasing application. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. 172. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program 173. The Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be established in compliance with the approved mitigation measures identified in the approved Traffic Impact Analysis and shall be completed prior to issuance of first occupancy permit in each additional phases of the development as required by the Director of Public Works. Water and Sewer 174. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applicable thru completion of this development. 175. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase as subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 176. Prior to the approval of final engineering for each phase subsequent development applications, the Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 177. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at locations approved by the Water District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 178. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean -outs at locations approved by the Sewer District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. Final Map Notes 179. Add the following notes to the final map as non -mapping data: "All improvements within private Streets are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with including but not limited to: Curbs, gutter, A.C. paving, street lights, storm drains. All Storm Water treatment control facilities are considered private requiring private maintenance." Master HOA 180. Developer shall establish a Master homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a phase, the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: d. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. e. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to reasonably disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. f. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the "Common Area Lots and/or the Association's Easements," the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements within the period specified by the City's notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. g. Special Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association's Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association's Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal pro rata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. h. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth on the "Developer Responsibility Map" of the Specific Ran. Lighting Restrictions on Private Residential Lots: Restrictions on lighting within residential lots adjacent to open space conservation areas shall be as set forth in the Specific Plan and Final EIR. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 181. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance when applicable, from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; e. Riverside County Health Department; f. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau; g. Planning Department; h. Department of Public Works; i. Community Services District; j. Caltrans; k. Rancho California Water District; I. Eastern Municipal Water District; m. Verizon; n. Telephone Company; o. Southern California Edison Company; p. The Gas Company; and q. Metropolitan Water District or other affected agencies 182. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid or fee credits have been provided. 183. Securities. For each of the phases, the developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the grading and erosion & sediment control improvements. 184. Area Drainage Plan (ADP) Fee to RCFC&WCD. For each phase, the developer shall demonstrate to the City that the flood mitigation charge (ADP fee) has been paid to RCFC&WCD. If the full ADP fee has already been credited to this property, no new charge will be required. 185. The developer shall provide proof to the Department of Public Works and Planning that the conditions of any Wildlife Agency or Army Corps permits if necessary for any restoration have been bonded for and shall be implemented consistent with the timing requirements of the permits. 186. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided in Altair Specific Plan and the Development Agreement. 187. The project shall comply with the latest disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the California Building Code. 188. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for each phase of this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the Director of Public Works. 189. This project requires off site grading. No grading for any improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records, and submits a recorded copy to the Director of Public Works a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the Director of Public Works and Planning Director. 190. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained: a. from Public Works for public offsite improvements; b. from the California Department of Transportation if encroaching within their right- of-way; and c. from Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) if encroaching within their right-of-way. 191. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the Director of Public Works for the proposed haul route. 192. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an "as -graded" geologic plan with the Director of Public Works. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based an a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24"x 36" mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 193. Final Map. Final Map shall be approved and recorded for the applicable phase. 194. The developer shall provide proof to the Director of Public Works that the has contributed its fair share towards regional traffic improvements systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area the area through a Development Agreement. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development of each phase. 195. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. Phasing 196. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 197. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. 198. The Developer shall be permitted to seek a reimbursement agreement for qualifying facilities and improvements. The City and the Developer shall proceed in good faith to allocate appropriate reimbursements to the Developer pursuant to the City's then enforceable ordinance applicable to such reimbursement pursuant to Development Agreement. Tract Map 36959-1 (North Phase) In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of North Phase and prior to 1st building permit in North Phase: 199. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side of Vincent Moraga between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor northbound right turn lane improvements within this road segment. 200. Acquisition of right-of-way on the south side of Rancho California Road between Vincent Moraga Drive and the Murrieta Creek Bridge and construction of all intersection improvements within this road segment including an additional westbound left turn lane on Rancho California Road to Vincent Moraga Drive. 201. Traffic signal and utility relocation where needed and construction of the ultimate build -out of the Rancho California Road, Diaz Road and Vincent Moraga Drive intersection. 202. Construction of the designed onsite Western Bypass Corridor Phase 1 improvements from the project's northern property line to the future Altair Vista intersection. 203. Construction of the Ridge Park Drive and Western Bypass Corridor intersection improvements to provide left -turn ingress and right-in/right-out to Ridge Park Drive. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 204. Install Multi -Way Stop Controls at the First Street & Pujol Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 205. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the North Phase and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 350`h building permit in North Phase, or ii) the 1st building permit in the Central Phase: 206. Acquisition of right-of-way on the west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Rancho California Road and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 207. Acquisition of right-of-way on the east side and west side of Vincent Moraga Drive between Felix Valdez and Ridge Park Drive and construction of the designed Western Bypass Corridor improvements within this road segment. 208. Following the occupancy of both villages within this North Phase (Village A and Village B), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road; (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-2 (Central Phase) In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Central Phase and prior to 1st building permit in Central Phase: 209. Construction of the designed Coromell Trail road segment between Altair Vista and First Street. 210. Installation of one (1) new left turn lane (re -stripe only), and modify signal operation, install signal indications and necessary equipment at Ynez Road and Santiago Road. 211. Construction of traffic signals at the Pujol Street and First Street intersection. Developer shall construct one hundred percent (100%) of this Fair Share traffic improvement. 212. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase and completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on pads south of the Village C Park: a. Construction of the "A" Street vehicular bridge that crosses over the Village C Park. 213. The following improvements shall be constructed as part of the Central Phase, shall commence before the 700th building permit is issued in the project and completed prior to the earlier of, i) the 950th building permit in the project, or ii) the 1St building permit in the South Phase: a. Construction of either the Western Bypass Bridge or construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Civic Phase. 214. Following the construction of the Western Bypass Bridge and Phase 2 Road, optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959-3 (South Phase) 215. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of South Phase and prior to 1st building permit in South Phase: a. Construction of both the Western Bypass Bridge and construction of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase 2 improvements (two (2) eastern lanes; ultimate northbound) including parallel Class 1 bikeway. If requested by Developer, City will allow for stockpiling of dirt on either Village G or the Nature Center Parcel prior to grading permit issuance for the Nature Center Phase. b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass Corridor and Altair Vista intersection. c. Construction of the designed "`B" Street North road segment between Altair Vista and the Western Bypass Corridor. 216. Following the completion of the villages in this South Phase (Village D, Village E and Village F), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (b) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (c) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (d) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. Tract Map 36959 (Civic Phase) 217. In addition to the above noted Conditions, the following improvements shall be completed as part of Civic Phase and prior to 15f building permit in Civic Phase: a. Construction of all remaining Western Bypass Corridor improvements (Phase 3 which includes 2 western lanes; southbound). b. Construction of traffic signal improvements at the Western Bypass and "B" Street intersection. 218. Following completion of both villages in this Civic Phase (Village G and Nature Center), optimize Adaptive Traffic Signal Program at: (a) Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road. (b) Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road; (c) Intersection of 1-15 northbound onramp and Temecula Parkway; (d) Intersection of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; (e) Intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road; (f) including the collection of intersection traffic count data at these affected intersections. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 219. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 220. The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) shall be satisfied with the 5 acre community park, the proposed private Parks that are HOA owned and maintained including recreational areas identified in the Altair Specific Plan. 221, The actual design of the 5 acre community park in Central Phase shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. Construction plans and specifications must be approved by the Director of Community Services. 222. All park plans submitted for consideration shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process, 223. The design of the community park in Central Phase shall provide for pedestrian circulation and access for the disabled throughout the park. 224. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, or Master HOA shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites and slopes/landscaping areas except as defined in the Development Agreement, on Developer Responsibility Map. 225. The 5 acre community park shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any Hens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 226. The developer may receive a credit against the park component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) based upon the actual cost of improving the community park in Central Phase. The fee/credit issue shall be addressed pursuant to the execution of a Development Agreement or a Park Improvement Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. Rancho Water Board of Directors Stephen J. Corona President John E. Hoagland Sr. Vico President Ben R. Drake Lisa D. Herman William E. Plummer James "Stew" Stewart Roger C. Ziemer Officers Matthew G. Stone General Manager Richard S. Williamson, P.E. Assistant General Manager Jeffrey D. Armstrong C FOtT Ta surer Fred F. Edgeconrh, MPA Director of Operations & Maintenance Andrew L. Webster, P.E. Chief Engineer Kern E. Garcia District Secretary James B. Gilpin Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel August 26, 2014 Matthew Peters Project Planner City of Temecula Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN, PA14-0159 APN 922-210-049; APN 940-310-013; APN 940-310-015; APN 940-310-016; APN 940-310-044; APN 940-310-045; APN 940-310-046; APN 940-310-047; APN 940-310-048; APN 940-320-001; APN 940-320-002; APN 940-320-003; APN 940-320-004; APN 940-320-005; APN 940-320-006; AND APN 940-320-007 [AMBIENT COMMUNITIES] Dear Mr. Peters: Please be advised that the above -referenced projectlproperty is located within the service boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District). Existing water service is provided to portions of the subject project/property under District Account No. 01-06-95321-0 for APNs 940-310-045, 940-310-046, 940-310-047, and 940-310-048. Additions or modifications to water service arrangements are subject to the Rules and Regulations (governing) Water System Facilities and Service, as well as the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water service to individual lots will require the extension of water facilities within dedicated public and/or private right-of-ways. Individual water meters will be required for each lot and/or project unit, including separate water meters for landscape irrigation, as applicable. Section 9.4 of the Altair Specific Plan should state that utility placement of District utilities for both water and recycled water systems (including related advanced metering infrastructure antenna) is required to comply with RCWD standards and requirements for proper District operations. North of the subject project/property fronts an existing 12 -inch diameter water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within Ridge Park Drive. East of the subject projectlproperty fronts an existing 8 -inch diameter water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within 61h Street. East of the subject project/property also fronts existing 22 -inch diameter and 36 -inch diameter water pipelines (both 1305 Pressure Zone) at the intersection of Calle Cerrillo and Pujol Street. Existing 30 -inch diameter and 42 -inch diameter water pipelines (both 1305 Pressure Zone) bisect the property at APN 922-210-049 and continue to Pujol Street. Section 6.2A of the Altair Specific Plan should be corrected to reference service from the 1305 Pressure Zone, as well as the 22 -inch and 36 -inch diameter parallel water pipelines within Pujol Street. Rancho California Water District 121351Uinchester Road • Po.st Office Bos 9017 • Temecula. California 92589-9017 • (9511 296.6900 • FAX (951( 295.6860 Letter to Matthew PeterslCity of Temecula August 26, 2014 Page 2 An existing 24 -inch diameter recycled water pipeline (1381 Pressure Zone) exists east of the subject project/property within 6`'' Street, which continues along Pujol Street with a 20 -inch diameter recycled water pipeline (1381 Pressure Zone). An existing 20 -inch diameter recycled water pipeline exists east of the subject projectlproperty within Temecula Parkway (1381 Pressure Zone), Section 6.2.1 of the Altair Specific Plan should be corrected to reference service from the Rancho California Water District via the 1381 Pressure Zone. Water availability is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. In addition, water availability is contingent upon the timing of the subject projectlproperty development relative to water supply shortage contingency measures (pursuant to RCWD's Water Shortage Contingency Plan or other applicable ordinances), and/or the adoption of a required Water Supply Assessment for the development, as determined by the Lead Agency. In accordance with Resolution 2007-10-5, the projectlproperty will be required to use recycled water for all landscape irrigation. Recycled water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site recycled water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Requirements for the use of recycled water are available from RCWD. Section 8.5 of the Altair Specific Pian should indicate that the landscape palette should conform to the State's Model Landscape Ordinance, and that the landscaping shall be compatible with recycled water use. Section 5.1.2 of the Altair Specific Plan should indicate that recycled water will be utilized for all grading activities. As soon as feasible, and prior to the preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, the project proponent should contact RCWD for a determination of existing water and recycled water system capability, based upon project -specific demands and fire flow requirements. The project proponent shall provide project area layouts, with roadways, to determine required connections and pipeline sizing. District review will consider necessary system looping of water and recycled water systems, considering the project phasing and other capital improvements identified within Section 11.2 of the Altair Specific Plan. The District will also require fire flow and estimated daily demands for hydraulic review for both systems. The project proponent should contact RCWD for an assessment of project -specific deposits for plan review, fees, and other requirements. Sewer service to the subject projectlproperty would be provided by Eastern Municipal Water District. 14105:1 m0271F4501FEG Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road . Post Office Box 9017 • Temecula, California 92589-9017 • (951) 296.6900 • FAX (951) 296.0860 Letter to Matthew Peters/City of Temecula August 26, 2014 Page 3 If you should have any questions or need additional information, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at the District office at (951) 296-6900. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Engineering Services Supervisor cc: Corey Wallace, Engineering Manager -Design Warren Back, Engineering Manager -Planning Heath McMahon, Construction Contracts Manager Jeff Kirshberg, Principal Engineer Ambient Communities 141CS:1mO271F4501FEG Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road • Post Office Box 9017 • Temecula, California 925899417 • (31) 296-5900 • FAX 1951} 296-6860 www. ranrhownter.rom WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager -Chief Engineer 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.12 00 FAX 951.788.9965 www.rcflood.org RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: Matt Peters Ladies and Gentlemen: Req! 9 20;5 Re: Tract 30129 and PA 14-0160 15$587 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities. other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a In_g ical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: No comment. This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. 'This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. X This project may involve, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan cheek, inspection and administrative fees will be required. X This project is located within the Iimits of the District's Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid by cashier's check or money order only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities. For further information, contact the District's encroachment permit section at 951.955.1266. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requtrements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, c: Riverside County Planning Department Attn: Kristi Lovelady SKM: blm NR Engineering Project Manager Date: March. 5, 2015 WArt a THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT '1 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA '41 f'ei Ih11i Office of the Gelleraf Manager April 14, 2015 Mr. Matt Peters City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Peters: Tentative Tract No. 30129 Your Case No. PA 140160 MWD San Diego Pipelines Nos. 4 and 5 Sta. 1587+00 to 1604+00 RIW Parcels 142-4-1 (Fee) Substr. Job No. 4046-15-001 Thank you for your transmittal letter dated February 19, 2015, submitting prints of the Tentative Tract Map No. 30129 (Sheets 1 through 6 of 6) and conceptual grading plans (Sheets 1 through 12 of 12) for the proposed development located in the vicinity of Pujol Street and Murrieta Creek, in the city of Temecula. Please note that we have granted the City of Temecula's proposed future Highway 79 extension "Western Bypass" bridge and widening the west side of "Pujol Street". Enclosed is a copy of the Metropolitan's road and utility easement dedication to the City of Temecula, Instrument No. 2013-0183349 recorded on April 18, 2013, Official Records of Riverside County. However, this tract development is introducing a private "Altair Vista" road and realigning "Pujol Street" which does not match the City's recently granted easement. Please clarify how this development fits in with.the City's master improvement plans. 700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 • Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054-0153 • Telephone (213) 217-6000 Mr. Matt Peters Page 2 April 14, 2015 We have reviewed the submitted plans and our comments and requirements are as follows: 1. The locations of Metropolitan's 97 -inch -inside -diameter San Diego Pipeline No. 5, accompanying varied width fee right-of-way and portions of our 20 -foot -wide road easement, as shown on Sheets 8 and 9 of 12 of the conceptual grading plans and on Sheets 5 and 6 of 6 of the Tentative Tract Map No. 30129, appears to be in general agreement with our records. However, please note that our San Diego Pipeline No. 4 transitions from a 99 -inch -inside -diameter prestressed concrete pipeline into a 89 - inch -inside -diameter welded steel pipeline located approximately on the east edge of the existing Pujol Street. In addition, we request that our Service Connection WR -34 facilities and accompanying fee right-of-way also be shown and identified as Metro- politan's on all pertinent sheets of the plans. Enclosed for your information and use are prints our Drawings B-50431, B-50454, B-56204, 13-56205, B-66612, B-66613 and 13-48578 and Right -of -Way Map 142-4-1 (Sheet 4 of 6). Metropolitan has no records for the extension of `Pujol Road' located just south of the future "Western Bypass" bridge, as shown on Sheet 8 of 12 of the conceptual grading plans. Please submit evidence to indicate that `Pujol Road' is a dedicated public street at this location; otherwise, this road should not be reflected on the plans. 2. Since ingress/egress and utility rights across our property were reserved per the grant deed for our fee right-of-way (Instrument No. 109720, recorded on December 13, 1967, Official Records of Riverside County), Metropolitan has no general objections to granting public road and utility easement to the City of Temecula. Therefore, the concept of the proposed location of the "Camino Estribo" road across our property, as shown on Sheet 8 of 12 of the conceptual grading plans and on Sheet 5 of your 6 of your Tentative Tract Map No. 30129, is acceptable to Metropolitan. Please note that granting of the "Camino Estribo" road easement will serve as Metropolitan's obligat- ion for the reserved ingress/egress and utility rights in this area on our original grant deed. Metropolitan will subsequently process a quitclaim deed for this obligation in exchange for the "Camino Estribo" public road and utility easement, as this develop- ment moves forward. Appropriate right must be obtained from Metropolitan for the proposed `E Street' public road and utility crossing portion of Metropolitan's property. Please contact Jeffrey Wynn of our Real Property Development and Management Unit, telephone (213) 217-7659, regarding the requirements and procedures for obtaining temporary Mr. Matt Peters Page 3 April 14, 2015 and/or permanent easement documentations prior to any construction including potholing and exploratory borings within our fee right-of-way. The proposed grading for any proposed roads should not result into a retention basin within the limits of our fee property. Please revise the plans accordingly. 3. The proposed grade for the vertical alignment of the `Camino Estribo' and 'E Street' roads crossing over our San Diego Pipeline Nos. 4 and 5 within our fee right-of-way, as shown on Sheets 8 and 9 of 12 of the conceptual grading plans, are unacceptable to Metropolitan. The proposal indicates the placement of substantial fill that would exceed the 10 -feet -maximum allowable cover for our San Diego Pipeline No. 4; 11 -feet -maximum allowable cover between Station 1595+00 and 1597+70 and 16 - feet -maximum allowable cover between Station 1597+70 and 1602+00 for our San Diego Pipeline No. 5 in this area. Please revise your grading plans accordingly. The actual cover over the San Diego Pipeline Nos. 4 and 5 must be determined by pot- holing or other means acceptable to Metropolitan and must be done under Metro- politan's supervision. Access to Metropolitan's adjacent properties must be main- tained across any proposed road crossings. The submitted conceptual grading plans did not provide enough information to deem the project acceptable. The project proponent must submit detailed grading plans and sections of the proposed road crossings including fill slope adjacent to Metropolitan's fee right-of-way. Please note that any additional fill of 2 feet and above our pipeline and fee right-of- way, a soils report and/or settlement analysis showing the predicted settlement of the pipeline at 10 -foot intervals along with the method of settlement analysis, laboratory testing results and any other supporting documents must be submitted for our review. We are transmitting a copy of our geotechnical guidelines for your information and use. 4. To accommodate our access, 16 -foot -wide driveway approaches must be provided on both sides of the proposed roads along our existing access road within our fee right- of-way. Access ramps, where necessary, must be provided from the drive -way approaches. The grades of these ramps must not exceed 10 percent unless the ramps are paved, then the grades may be a maximum of 20 percent. Gates or re -movable bollards, capable of accommodating Metropolitan's locks, must be in -stalled at these Mr. Matt Peters Page 4 April 14, 2015 politan. We require that the storm drain line be extended across our pipe -lines and that the rip -rap maintains a minimum of 20 feet beyond the edge of our San Diego Pipeline No. 4. We have no objections with the proposed storm drain line and rip -rap along the future "Western Bypass" corridor over our San Diego Pipeline Nos. 4 and 5 within our fee right-of-way and discharges at the bottom edge of the embankment, as shown on Sheet 8 of 12 of your conceptual grading plans, is acceptable to Metropolitan. How- ever, we request that storm drain lines crossing must maintain a minimum of 1 foot of vertical clearances over the top of our pipelines. In addition, the storm drain lines must include secondary containment which consists of a continuous steel sleeve or HDPE pipe with fusion -welded joints, extending 10 feet beyond the edges of our pipelines. 6. Our comments and requirements regarding the tentative tract map are as follows: a. Monumentation for the boundary of Metropolitan's fee right-of-way should be described, shown, and referenced with the proper mathematical ties along measured and record lines, so that their correct location may be determined. Copies of calculations prepared should also be submitted. Any monument recovered from Record of Survey 127/80-93, indicating Metropolitan's location, should also be shown and referenced on the submitted map. b. The entire boundary of Metropolitan's fee property must be defined with bearing and distances for reference on the final map. c. Prior to construction of any improvements for this tract, the developer's engineer and/or land surveyor must prepare and file corner records for the preservation of Metropolitan's monuments within the areas of the proposed improvement or grading. Any monuments that may have been destroyed by impending work done to date must be replaced accordingly. 7. We request a stipulation be added to all pertinent plans or specifications to notify Darwin Potter or Gerri Michael of our Water System Operations Group, telephone Mr. Matt Peters Page 5 April 14, 2015 (951) 926-5853, at least two working days prior to starting any work in the vicinity of our facilities and right-of-way. We are returning prints of Sheets 1, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 12 of the- conceptual grading plans and Sheets 1 through 6 of 6 of the Tentative Tract Map No. 30129, stamped "REVIEWED CORRECTIONS NOTED — RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED." Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee property shall be subject to the paramount right of Metropolitan to use the fee property for the purpose for which it was acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary to remove any of the facilities from the fee property, such removal and replacement shall be at the expense of the owner of the facility. For any further correspondence with Metropolitan relating to this project, please make reference to the Substructures Job Number shown in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this letter. Should you require any additional information, please contact Ken Chung, telephone (213) 217-7670. Very truly yours, Kieran M. Callanan, P.E. Manager, Substructures Team KC/km DOC#; 4046-15-001 Enclosures (21) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division -Carlsbad Field Office 5900 La Place Court, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 May 18, 2015 RFref TO ATTENTION OF Office of the Chief Regulatory Division Mr. Matthew Peters Project Planner P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 SUBJECT: information regarding requirement for Department of the Army Permit Dear Mr. Peters: This is in response to information received regarding Altair Specific Plan. Based on the information you have provided, we are unable to determine if the proposed work would be regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Please review your project and determine if you need a permit. Applications and additional information are available on our website http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Mi ssionsjRegulatory/PermitProcess.aspx. If you have any questions, please contact Shari Johnson of my staff at 760-602-4829 or via e-mail at Shari.johnson@usace.army.mil. Therese O. Bradford Chief, South Coast Branch J SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON An J?DISON INTI NATIoNAL'? Conip.ny City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Planning Department Subject: Tract Map No. 36959 September 17, 2015 Please be advised that the division of the property shown on Tract Map No. 36959 will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any facilities and/or easements held by Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said map. This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the Company s rights, title and interest in and to said easement(s), nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of costs for relocation of any affected facilities. In the event that the development requires relocation of facilities, on the subject property, which facilities exist by right of easement or otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested to bear the cost of such relocation and provide Edison with suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights are required prior to the performance of the relocation. If you have any questions, or need additional information in connection with the subject subdivision, please contact me at (626) 302-4473, Steven D. Lowry Title and Real Estate Services Corporate Real Estate Department cc: Butsko Utility Design, Inc. 2131 wa[nut Grove Avenue Rosecnead, CA 91770 emw September 21, 2016 Altair Development Re: Conceptual Approval to grant utility crossings within Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Easements Altair TTM 36959, City Of Temecula This letter is to grant conceptual approval for the utility crossings across existing EMWD easements shown on the Tentative Tract Map 35959 (attached) for the proposed storm drains, water and dry utilities. The location of these utilities will be generally in the same vicinity as shown (attached) and shall be exactly determined and established during final engineering phase. These crossings shall conform to all of EMWD Standards and Specifications as welt as the requirements described in the existing easements. At final engineering all designs of these utility crossings shalt be reviewed and approved by EMWD. EMWD has had the opportunity to review the conceptual grading plan. In order to accommodate access to gravity mains, where EMWD sewers are proposed outside of roadways, access shall be provided through the construction of a minimum 20 -foot wide Decomposed Granite surface capable of sustaining H5-20 vehicle loading. Sufficient ingress and egress shall be provided, including turn- arounds. Sincerely, Maria E. Sambito Director of New Business Cc: John Ward, Director of Engineering Services Armando Arroyo, Senior Civil Engineer Attachments MES 2270 Trumble Road • PQ. Box 8300 • Perris, CA 92572-8300 T 951.928,3777 • F 951.928.6177 emwd,org EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ATTACHMENT 106 TTM 36959 • COMPANIES TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959-3 AND 36959 CITY OF TEMECULA WC.Na 4030' WF*TSRN SWANS COFRIPCR. (PUBLIC) s�»+:A#Ev1aNil:al I pp I 11r..xk1 1 OOROMELL TRAIL (PRIVATE) n. 11.44- :0142 1k a .Y 2Am 2.* I C'kCb[ t WESTERN BYPASS CORRIPCR PUBLICj 51.,1.ar'4�0 1ln?1 Ila.' Ph • 1191 ¢011= COROMELL TRAIL (PRIVATEIVu, FIrpf:Orat 1 Ip iry v� P9.. ] SiePF 214 2I .• • 1�. 129 5, nit .aw4e� • n• fi wa. VINCENT NOR�AnGA (PUBIC( ala ,.eaID 4(1.01 .M MP 08912111. tiv IP T14CIA hti� � �rt HIOIVE PARR OPIVE IPIJSLIC1 MI Ft.. . P. m .....1 M• r kn e ar .0144. 31104 S RK. �� +r rw ALTAIR wok it (PUEYC( # 611141 1276. 2.0414.91101.01 R 11.1F1>AT f Arrow W IMP Eff f 11[-(01 -CC�ST;f �� •.1.. RFfT'4 �- 5TR{WT 8. kuELlc, j -712,91` w a �w rro-lr`e.iii1. sNs 10 `w1•-�, -4':*.ramn0.144- .17 I 1 11M1r 491 w P., 4. I r•4`.�°iwi�41 � 17'2.1 I 7- STREW N. INILIC) 2790 m• a. 1 1. 1911•. ALTAIR VISTA & .A.STREET (PRIVATE) 4.5 1.11 C5. K.191[7p. • M 401.; .710111 2. .9 l- 11.14[ 14 1 22911t owi •6- STREET N. SRI VAI P..01 F l 011. :„.1. 11 19E6 .101, 190 11 [ i" 01".0 �` "? 14. .2 T 1 L t� ALTAIR VISTA- ONE.WAY (PRIVATE)36.1. AII31. .rt. 1.4 1 11,11.451111v1NI'6..414.1 ary 0111. ary L 1 "9112;2.01 a ` 1.9x0 1.14+2* 28212 'E"STREET N.(PRIVATE) 7.W33031-3I-4971%.wl. 12+.1 TA 11Phl 10.9 1 • 1r 0019Pi 1P.p 1 104441 FUM )I 1f,� S 11°2 Mrt.r' I y 1 1 .4<1 011214• y� 1+ H 4 P,KLj 1 1: f tY_•li _t T r1.1.rtkID 4" 7ip1�Y Laf4 (*21* RRST STREET (PUBLIC.. Pn 4.1".'119:: wr ALTAIR VISTA • CULVERT [PRIVAT€I STREET - BRIDGE {PPRIVATEI } 11 w4b ?•1y lfff 091121( Mie I -11r r ..1101 -K 1 OORO1EU. TRAIL IPLIELIC 411...111.963 � rf f k TRACT MAP T • .� -. NO. 36559-1 ISHE5T 4) - fr 1.ft ifril\"1 �?RACYMAPi*114\ f° NO- 38958-2(SHEET 51 1#& it tor ‘14,0.( t L 11 TRACT MAP _ NO_36e56-3 SHEET SI (112049ON kM 1 TRACT MAP NO. 36959 ISHEfiT 71 131a14110 fwlE 1 • +m, PROJECT SUMYART PHA11 Me TR 711111-1 kW 2440 mgsl *20 20914011419111 19]«1011 VP - 1 Wan* 1* - EA4 613 M4 P1; ti k - •*4 P N 8080 .-10 044 412 DP PP1 .aPC P!• 3 RSIEIN 6.s. 111 6930 PP tt6Le 0,5' a pug mei com Pm, 081110101 tow III TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUMMARY Psor 5211 00 280.. mea 1 0'''. 711011 Y*Mwlt 4-5N•�.q•0C4439. •04. _ ��!*2 Ar PINIP 10..4.1 lw u*•[.n s : 2011 16.19.0 w1.11amacaw 11-211 41423.55 PUN 2.&4 011 Prc 144,44 41.41 40▪ 3003 L.00 .0 tr'n.r33 0117 MN1l..1.0 • V730(7 11,4' 41.4119.9.11 6411- OEM 144¢141 APPLICANT GENERA2. NOTES 24 129 Y 9. r.2P n 18 2*. aw .oan 20X4411 *TR 2/la 0104:N mgsl *20 911.75 1551 ..i - •IffO[xf NAK,. 24e67.IPU PPM. EA4 613 Mose. .41 1122.24X.. •*4 P AMV N14411.1 .-10 - PEW. PM 11 b.41V. 9K2.F 4,2 MP 77.11 .11 081110101 tow * .41 MY APER 9.08 PS .N o 91 6'44.94( 49 DP PP!=1.. .121..941151 PK1 155.1. PPM 1252 012016191 PIAUI o i� 70 .. a' *a 031.1693.1e P.M 0 1 PP+rt 1 21 _ u2. -7 -1+5961 PI 04 *2-41 AM Pwq[ P. M TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUMMARY Psor 5211 00 280.. mea 1 0'''. 711011 Y*Mwlt 4-5N•�.q•0C4439. •04. _ ��!*2 Ar PINIP 10..4.1 lw u*•[.n s : 2011 16.19.0 w1.11amacaw 11-211 41423.55 PUN 2.&4 011 Prc 144,44 41.41 40▪ 3003 L.00 .0 tr'n.r33 0117 MN1l..1.0 • V730(7 11,4' 41.4119.9.11 6411- OEM 144¢141 APPLICANT GENERA2. NOTES 24 129 Y 9. r.2P n 18 2*. aw .oan 20X4411 *TR 2/la I1/122 T1•�1 1,01 152 Vlr'AY01 ?11 SAPLE 11.5 4115 P PPX PH. 44110 *240 244U 0410.110. 63190 PPP 101 1913.. N1 Y. pq1 ori 1Fc124 169315 .3.61 1 W. DMPP 1.(.00 1 3323 OIL 1. an 0011.q3a 1PP 1.96 142 21 704 11160 00010.0 17. 901I 122120082228. EDIPPCa 141.4 11 K DPP 1.9.1113. MA IC 399l1411191 Nilo 9AUPd11011. M1141 474 00 Kwl 74' 1,F1n 073 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 9. .111 1 •x ofo-2'r�e�wn.ren. a kr.rcu.r .0.60.93.465 DIVE 641 P WIN 14 7 0634 916.43 .499 POO PPP. 1.131.03003 e. wan Mol 9.13`:+* .4it iiel. vaxasn.v..•- 5 41191mp/ 111.00 31 906 2.F Prt1.911a[2Pr? Ph SIX NM k.. 1p.11i11u . 5. 4 11 w P1*F 40319 9463.39 44 4421. N)i ka4 • .491 4W.4N• .161. ,44t1 ,444 112 01WV,-14f14W K1x 91 K• 14m.irt29111 C WEI 6 PPE 5911 2.w ro r Yn14 n.6.47113 1661116. ull[ ,4•44,0 Ire av4. 411 ,12[ C K 141 won PAW. .41 Pr WG 02C6 44C 0412.12 7 966 IAD 101 � 11124* ua ur PONE 3019*1>.->2r.60 9.411.9 a 110.0.111`211001 019 1: 4 1b0 ..C.: wn0431 3.9 u:.0ar .1.6111 1.11.111169120 M 1[.31• ME 14192916 C.610 CCP B ASIS OF SEAM NOS AN9.09 1933.963 . PEE 0! 93 6.191.341. M. 3.0919 30136.3 P Rexma HMMcA15Tl*2rs 4.00x1Trx65k. PI. P14 �P. 964 lV.k LMIEND Cl1rt.P 1w14k1, •p e u,wamtif 7 UM 12 94 1414 IeNl... x171 Pt a NAK,. - 4 Mose. .41 MP 77.11 .11 r 1I 0108 C.. 10 0411 140 0 155.1. PPM 1252 012016191 PIAUI o 9'maot. kNxc .1 . 4x w*. I1/122 T1•�1 1,01 152 Vlr'AY01 ?11 SAPLE 11.5 4115 P PPX PH. 44110 *240 244U 0410.110. 63190 PPP 101 1913.. N1 Y. pq1 ori 1Fc124 169315 .3.61 1 W. DMPP 1.(.00 1 3323 OIL 1. an 0011.q3a 1PP 1.96 142 21 704 11160 00010.0 17. 901I 122120082228. EDIPPCa 141.4 11 K DPP 1.9.1113. MA IC 399l1411191 Nilo 9AUPd11011. M1141 474 00 Kwl 74' 1,F1n 073 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 9. .111 1 •x ofo-2'r�e�wn.ren. a kr.rcu.r .0.60.93.465 DIVE 641 P WIN 14 7 0634 916.43 .499 POO PPP. 1.131.03003 e. wan Mol 9.13`:+* .4it iiel. vaxasn.v..•- 5 41191mp/ 111.00 31 906 2.F Prt1.911a[2Pr? Ph SIX NM k.. 1p.11i11u . 5. 4 11 w P1*F 40319 9463.39 44 4421. N)i ka4 • .491 4W.4N• .161. ,44t1 ,444 112 01WV,-14f14W K1x 91 K• 14m.irt29111 C WEI 6 PPE 5911 2.w ro r Yn14 n.6.47113 1661116. ull[ ,4•44,0 Ire av4. 411 ,12[ C K 141 won PAW. .41 Pr WG 02C6 44C 0412.12 7 966 IAD 101 � 11124* ua ur PONE 3019*1>.->2r.60 9.411.9 a 110.0.111`211001 019 1: 4 1b0 ..C.: wn0431 3.9 u:.0ar .1.6111 1.11.111169120 M 1[.31• ME 14192916 C.610 CCP B ASIS OF SEAM NOS AN9.09 1933.963 . PEE 0! 93 6.191.341. M. 3.0919 30136.3 P Rexma HMMcA15Tl*2rs 4.00x1Trx65k. PI. P14 �P. 964 lV.k LMIEND Cl1rt.P 1w14k1, •p e u,wamtif 7 VILLAGE MAP TRACT MAP\ NO. 36959.1 LESEHD ruts Wwww TRACT MAP HO. 36959.2 TRACT MAP NU. 3E959.3 TRACT MAP NO. 39959 (WEN GRAPHIC 4CA1I PHASING SUMMARY RM9 WW1 .0.. - p.3 107, "4111'' II w yI[1 y7. WW.'.R aNPK V vw X11` AMCWIdel E nuzr 416 s.a 11E 05 11 .WW r.1n,s x -m a M VIS1NG MAP TRACT MAP, NO. 36959-1 } NORTH PHASE 1 4 A I MRP. TRACT MAP1HO. 35959.7 1 CENTRAI PHASE (0, i *OA 1 "WAL If ao } 1 ' 111 1 �x$1'41!F TRACT MAP NO, 36959-3 SOUTH PHASE TRACT YAP ND. 39959 CIVIC PHASE GISIAPHIC SCALE 4ROY. P69CMFFI ON irk/. ww.01d min,, w. 1!. 10140ex if 4r11..h Or WILL W. 1C30 % W E44 01 (4,ww 510,441w Neal . 111 Wk.. 0�10 ipppI, ..a. W.I. i Pie 17 [r.S W IOcW pR. N[..IS ! rb1. 0 7449 1-1 y4.►uri *0 x17 11 1 m Of MAW MNWV RK;� 1.: SK WMEMWI uu fm°j,r`'m I.n.ra MP,.WOMB1 « Noes 11 1 u PROPOSED EASEMENTS L' 4 =tar aRas7[00n l+E[nxII47 K1TxF w 11pie� M �� !1>lmf4 ry C 0/1a.4 £rt1.141 fY1 .004w3 M11*011 N.M. L:F Jn. f 4,174®,[5 R97a4[!4VAIT ftP I1mo��[r Ffn 7q NA�61M11'45 ,OK 147Igp4AS4.A L'J .CAr4P w f�ny.�: vNnP i>B RPw95 ti Tri £.41VR 1.0 Ort! 1IfP*0S 1000 KYPIf0 L_[ W. ra t : R. 7[.f1NN 1[¢54,91. Er RAW (18.NN1 IR N.a i 747109.£ E }OSTINO EASEI1ENTS Fx041 WM:FR 701 416.1..1W9 AA 017 ▪ NA65K4 iq 714 b 1ra>-pip 1!4 1ie�ref! i!. rNn l 0 [*004.1 .a1 AAA WW1 40 7.11411 1911..I! 1f4 WW. AMIE., ▪ 115..Ic. 100040510...111.•1,41111 N-Rfon( , MIE., 1.-41419,08011011 0 W 11PN? 70 41017*? {VtinMw MM..1[WIC K. i*.11 1 M wfr-vwl. A364IM01 Ww0P.UPPS OM W. A1,g▪ W11 1p 5114.4FOw% K11014IX 844. In., VMS. t5 4m1IV[x 14.040 (Sjl 1500541 965)1474 prW6H g114 740 11 10 40. P.M. MI1171. m 841... p4e0. 411KG . [.615.1 Wq!614 MVO.. ~OA 051rp+[X. 11.1...1 1 Ie... 1�7 41'n011.4 1 =, 1°1�P1 M11.nl .i� 9im4=^mow ar arms w, sow rrzn 4 EMMA, a ,01105010..4.16 IN. RI E %ISTINO EASEMENTS TO AE VACATED 4,<a(11 la Rnc MIA IM WW1 3.1.9,15 RI I.7 141114 Iq 171511-10 A*1 1*r• 4 4 RC71 . Ma %X044. 04.Np,f 1A 0117 1.004 r. 1e 5)!'A•. R5.105105[. 111. W+ ®naroas rta ea'IM 416-fat.PLC 10 n, nab &[.. K ?O n .e u:m Ml..11-1,1 6411x1 W41 w+e 4H nFW.WWW 4 E001 Mk.00..w0 Ywcr 41 4 F5,EYA1CM 1150.0 wla0140444y19F41KIWKWItI niMvugtoo9,141 4 110 n...11Wma01 A.07nE,6+gw001. RRe1S14 rt600awn, u1Nlmn 1&01011 7MP 1.114«E11 v1w a3mR[w. Peen. Kr num a w.oaers,m,w. C S ama Lamm 4110114 71101 41[. 94410011,[071.09710! F46K'} 0.19 -2_4y -94n FK 615 -Z38 -52.E 1.WW *cam an al LaME.F. CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959.1, 36959-2, 36959.3 & 36959 2 a. 7 -NOT '417111011.1041410* F- L. W PUJOLSTRCET C w N N IAA 2 as ..m. N n• , I. n Q mu' a la. A. C EXISTING EASEMENTS Z]rPva Ihatili kIIIP nor 5,0 Ay� WM' PCP..N0. �93F!]tl.�0. RC 371,1,1.p.0.0 &L.P . Ta, pMl,t 0.8nu worn PaR. Si RP' nw M, wf !rLP'.N+M F[C b.Rl a .w9 M.Rtddn RP MR .111-IPICI PIC Mt .111 n �[P+-• tbvr Pa _ _ ap,.ati wrr- �+ytrs,.4„ Tw alt. PRIMP Ria wei l4 ll KM,, -,r, -3,+,R. Rc , tiWP ,t. !W ▪ tP3irel fP PM., MILKS Rx Orta wT AIM.. �y re.• #rpl N[ 1'aa Iw I i . - , 4 1 F 1$o0,M, ipf¢�AS, '+= Ib9Mb PM ba TOP yfif4 WNW. Ir. [tRiiCSw6r MN n�Rf�q i9ao-iWgaMt w,ii SRI ,96MNw[ b IH+fa. it k Mew er. rm 1rE PAKifs PY➢pP Iq r i qe tPC we �ra uu41.4 CLITM. eau raw, r. MEW ,(Q•-,ynPoR Mak tt'' RP MR xul--rams P[[1P1POMP xb, A Wean. kl m,IPiM Canty. low, RP M, w Rn..,,sw.,ee ..r N ,n1 EXISTING EASEMENTS TO EE VACATED AI111•411, TOP sy,,1TOES,.PPPM[TI A I3140, TIT .4101 ,4:40 er UM. New, we bw ,Ri. ▪ 1,14 44-11 �:a`°."tl4 R�,>6b�r.[ Rrur: nr am rYI rIr. VW, 444[114(5 Vsk Irkr•Vrear 8,L 1.01114 Ir. WU w.EPew ». ,sn A[P9,1w[ 11laNOM. Val. WIWI DX PW � �wNYS MF r�!{�ipyi, i[r. ffy,µti N ,NO .33 Fbaa.w+ MP, 0441 14 ,if r+4n 11 01. Per Arc.. PARCEL w,w A I J MAPS irfi 18754 ark FIRM r. M 'm`x "i-'H—ir•��•�, .�.r��4C.m'iry Cr GRAPHIC MOLE I rug 0 W. IAA -'I11 4J0T5.(h li EBILTI COM SXCTI Rw.i Muer ELEV IUN IwieR,a:Io.,KURyILWWL&LT ITM,[iNvf tTT L. W[T kr OAFS %VMOETNWT 1b>r.snE,bArgiffMITCQ!HY n,€ITTT nrlee:.m.TE9n ,weT,e.TTMmNTTT UEu w R,.,,,.etWIMPPIFff.P9PTTETTTMLR P. dal ICE SUR.. ww8e19008,m. C L7 2020 CeRra feel Ru FIRn, 9,Pb GTO STI. 01,0,141 92,08 Trxai 194,,E-9iF3 F, 519- B1 Aroma L_aME.R. 901 .:Ti CITY OF TEMECULA. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35959.1, 36959-2, 35959.3, 36959 .= =OR 3 aP 7 CT100 ..Art - Sf 7F IMPRokort r5 PCR 1.1 i AWN -1a•,C.'Hia7 b•: b•,I�r {SEE Ek✓ eT "c'j- [ri r><1 aae r. r,uw y, 29.37AC ►► CONSERVATION O�1 P_. TRACT MAP Na 35959.2 (SEE SHEET 5) PBD 6* wNi8 wnn wn "wni u u rtT MI ': g;seam X2:27raw Amar. nee QR,W�Ca di r"k yswu, ff,m ,wrcr[s n a WIVE nr.OEM, 118. um1f1V1 X,=93 MOWING EAMAIENTS x 5111 AMasa sr IC Ng- *Ws AIE SEV.A. &LNAPA i I(a Mut AIM rfW uwrl• 1•11"[63.., R1 Fin In re. ll+1 MIL wF • nhAllc FlEee! T, P1 EEeeL1 ., 1Atl i W fo�dwef Jpl1 o I.wiw kr 1 I!?ps. 0s - e oeorJACt Ar sret us s 1 wt[rr Flax am W 11 ALP leo leo PM Ens an N;+Ie Eat -Orr GRAPHIC SCALE r + .m p ABIZECOIS MUCH MWK.Naaae. NW. MEel• B.EYAIRIM NNW W. -o., uv -l.0 FS. teen Wuun Lt uus SCJii.,N Ia ,} A,OCC�L E ALISTIIRESSr'R neat/ vi,114.lo 1x8114 a 471:T.n,nxnwr E,nen,e.s HAMMFw Hrff, 101,4I3131E,0fr FI.KrFrAtli PusAta Err .Es C eloralfrirrar FEE NE; ',IA S.ee,]['. FgFlwlei 61STIA-ZASSIs� 2X-SEW mr5r clAsE tom APACE L. CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959-1 Auer 4 0, 7 NOT =oaCer rate Inrr qS TRACT MAP NO 36959-1 {SEE SHEEEf 4) w 1a —16 R78AG i OP N SPACE _] 1 • 75Ac U MAI 5: F'.ED ]:'!Selo _� q 20 0.59AC O EN SPACE rtdr 17 ,yam uIfi 1 9.52AC T �rs5^sem OPEN SPACE SEE IJETAIL "E' "Ht, i1lm Eri" w w 4," -7.' TRACT MAP NO. 369S9-3 (SEE SHEET 6) FIRST STREE F - LOT Tr COROMELL TRAIL -, PRIVATE) 1.07"T' COROP,1C41 7RA1L -, 17 OPkN SPACE li DETAIL FIRST ST C ate a - N! z. S AAPISC SCALE r lm. O. PROPOSED wAsuairms mot 04w 1nw�aM CM. TEmRS .B1 III S*.DNR weir oo k000lOooq,ae .00 1141.0,14 L`! rafd Z1 LUT AYR RIM.., In Q7:4£a .,1.11100 era ria NxFxs,p E max. E mue. 02.1.1 Kr %MS1 . MOWING ERBEIIE 4TE AllE400 @Fr, r1 *1 OE is w M, 0.. n,srwY..a Fr. Rnu.n N. ara. er* Rn PYA. ,yore, at ,w. �a-,�+, 4.w�m-. n. R-, nn ..w.nra, rc rt ., Z. ►HIES aY F114EEUl2 VOW IR AFF AMEN 1* 1.11 31. COMO both VY. RIRBElfla 2-33 KINK B,111. to minnow a • 01141 SRCE ffer VIII FM 4111 LIRDIELL MAL 01P.KfLi. now 111 Macon 11X:71{ .1—!§-'R 16V:RIM17< S4C11Mt Mrs. 41I00 man. EEVA1E111 r0K.L 10ANTI*Nnr.:1WNYt0Ual]Ya♦eniwLry aEtpS0IFrR 41C.O.EGF OA1r1FMOOni• DFeuCUEl114EEnu1('BEE L, C• OVREG As AO wow..u1,aM 11.1318,011011.1. 4 47 202,3 cameo da dao too m sa11,ac p DiSZeO T^33,bd F4 E1e.a".6-5E'f1� tooth A=mote. Wax L_.cME.1e_ NCE XL tont CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959.2 5 eF 7 -NOT 'OR LC10E1 4cCrok TRACT MAP NO. 36958-2 (SEE SHEET 59 MI=3; tly306/1941 PROPOSER ENTANIENTS 7;47;ZraTnrgjt;if47r::::::... 1 _ 1 e i CILLI 1 0 . 1 .0 Et d't . % i .. 1 I, - 4'1' 1 7-.1. ) ....- 21 0.53 AC OPE If SPACE ; . ---'''=-1",.... - -cAt ,,,, - - -...... - -= , ' 1. a ' '''.--,- ',-4 , , AIL ., . 7 L,a 255AC 3 '• 5 .i. 1B-- g ' 6.--' 2 • ' . . /22 AC : . . ''...a.... .N1 .. -1d .. ', ---L:,'.7..'.'3 6151 0 i -'. R -r : ''1''• ' -i1i i !- Er. 15Ev ka S7P4Av110E'•r 521. I MM.. 1. E ••••• ',wow ......11..1.. A1...,:...0.5 E Z;k4q7,1.41.4%,. Sr. W.. ME 0 .540.4. NM.. i • ...1 • E ri;AZE..1.23,...1 PCB 011..304. .0 & MSC1n£13 HV.C5 E ••..c..., AM. %MU, :1.M,..,.,.aI1 , '.4,,Ir.V..krO..=Wr... ENTS M•I:'dC.S.r..NA.1 A1.1..r1, nO ...Pli L.P.. rdri OW. i.• 1 HP.- 11 0 .1p,-,Ky. PIC 000•10 0. tor IVISVSIU,VI. Vi. • OM SPRIL -.EU, 1.. Alt 115e. 1.0.13. Es ke. eiCWT4- " MACHL0,,,_ ,.= e , ea ..1 ,,,..n.., , 5.x, ... N.Lit „„„,„,, ;. Oil Mar UP SIM P 1..1.03 RP CM •C" IL. 1.K. 111.- 0.1%. At .V.V.V. V. 'MR SEE Ndd ,ir.TnrrA7 LEFT l oA3 - . ..7..%,,, 1.t1 TRACT NO 35959 ISSHEET , MAP -, .11 h vIATCHLINE 5 -..,..,, '..? ... .f ' • , .d, 7) rdis d : . , ...". MK' •or• SEE 1 '' I I ..e4,— i r :,..,..:r1L - - ' : -... -..... k• 1441,1! °7,3,1:r1Z71,_",$* _ LEFT i 10. 9 ' -..-235..,. k - TV.Vt 7,0 , LOT '7 8 STREETN, _ __--------. (PUBUC) ..- , -----.L 18 --... . '---:..., -.EE -. ... CIAIAP141C MILL .??' io . — ' . .- 1 1 _ I 0.25A _ PARK . I I 1 ..-•1 1 I 1 1 1 . 1 I. m MArc LINE - s, =. Rio-nr ,.., (.cW-.Cei In0zCuJIJ-D_ sr •- 4 e I '- .:" al .1 crz .• i'l? A a •F - • ,- 1, . t • k I 16- -.1 -,1 ) a ? -.,t,-, ' 4,.. 4 A — i i I •-... , , '.... ,!7,2, . i , , . . . . : :.r ,/ 254C ' 'El !-:;,* 9 ' 42 AC ..,/ . ' ,,,, , , 10 l 4.51 Aez. 1,7 - ,-. 1, K. i -J al -,..1 "d v MATCHLINE /' t i ' ' ' : ' 4,... iEr . / •65 ,./ 8 .- '" cs. Qr r' 1.23 AC ,..,•-‘5' ii .,,,, 1 -7 fp 1--, t e .x- u . : .7.-:. e - i 7 .'z ' /MAC - , . I t 1 n• r - 1 - 1 ..., 1 - SE RIGHT d. 11 KEY MP C Sp i MO 1rrYrID 001 ao Wyk Su., ',Qt. 5Z2711 -'9,11r4.''''' CITY OF TEMECULA Fee einweee, .V.51,,.. WM TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959-3 ,,,,, , '7 Milovia.5 It ,11..1.1044411,37,1,511,11MPI.,... OA MI5 .°.,r,-,.. WWARIIN.r/F1144,111FROMBi d . 15.111,150.1..1...1131.110 ,...Fref,.....15.1” fli TIff R1E. OP MidiVt.....1.1COM fi rEEVON,114., Or /d4 P. rEtVr,L 11.11.B61.0.1. 041.13 L apet AT_ mE a, wir, 1 PRCPOR S PHASE re T.taesss0 +r rt ! C4,,,, �� I 4�• I �� -� or* 1 4OA7P CSTRE€T _ E5 'n,+:'� I 4 -- � �\ ` -[ ta.31AG - - f a '1 _ 1 34.63AC r 5— I �► R I� 0.72 AC °+• �I 1OPEN SPACE EC i..... (PUBLIC) %/ .. - � 8 176.f3AC 1, .. 1 SEE DETAIL 'V 9 I� I t. _ I I _ II 0.• 31 . II " I 11 i A,', !R �5 1 J1 1'+ 11 .u., 1 34. VAC i' ■ CpIdSERVATIONAKA : II J' �e `/. p II 4 / cmunbc ��_.,...-„, LBBB I�+ .m 1 t0,42AG ! ADEN SPACE AGALS n ".sm .` •� LOT.0.B.STREETN I Pii9%iC] {O..3eAC [� fa n "1 .w ° .our w ;te e e = i A,* .r 3 -- r'gi + - i O .•n A. w«r w ti S —;j EKI STING EASEMENTS —��' '�' r ....5', `'•3•in rat rYr n / �wsiMe+.M in"w.r vemui me. .resin. ��..�. mutat. .£( WI aGCI�SE74VAiIONRRFR ra . t �, Rxi Eind'4'ia� •�Rnevrt r+a. ,�Sh „�' ,. �`" "' MWP EASEMENT AR E�3 LOT 13" / ...- a I I �: •. .. •• / / . TRACT M NO.36A5 &3 ! "'' t,w /y- t dRAFRI� acus .r (SES 6) I �� -SHEET - —� ... - 'f 11 Bit ` y �1 ��e � g� IDI 1- 5 LOT'E' - r� 0.12 AC OPEN SPACE i (PUB ic) ,Iv'�I �_rti�ti @ "or ` ��Z w ci...REc AMBLE DETAIL'IDI'' MYw .Is Y 4.55 AC e +` 2.50RC 1 1 i LOT "8' . �'. 44Pbaby k -n +. 71. -LOT YJ LOT Lc •O 3 4 .' oRavMlc scdxe RRJpyt -.7r /- f . S. `, NI N. / / N- h{_., SEE DETAIL "C" KEY MAP \ '\ .m} nenizie Ewa, A4%Na ESAIRN , �+ [' L7 2�Gamma ppbR F 1UI arts•]{. sem. 1944.8E171 CITY OF TEMECULAnteetertue Tis 41 :b5g5 ttlth """ A' j.,Iv' 1 y�` J w NI[C 7 " 7 wtr+•r.'.'r> rt ar .wwr t w 4 MI5 gNw INm'w.M. .rF Jr art 40..1; 'OLE n.wt,mF f«_m.fAil,34;VI.; IF 4 twroan ;MN.. Stu TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36959 MM. L�aME.S. N. EVE -NOT'OR CO.E'tiA ON ATTACHMENT IOC TTM 36959 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN N IF.Ie�-�+«�� WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR IPUBLUCI T014: ;30. VT °^66404 CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A r - TR 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959-3 & 36959r,---- CITY OF TEMECULA I SHEET 3I 1 14 r I , L w SHEETT� I C i � 0000 y` 15i ,000.0+... Ara 1 4 i SHEET 51 j v I r` arm { I p � i I ,rl 1..001« . WESTERN BYPASS CORIIDO R (P4ft M 41.51 ve 117- 1.00 17. 406 17 4* rswr.r.-u .1: .} ✓ V RN. 4o VI ICINT BWBACA IPUSUCI 0� �+A.. R .n NM. 1e ot. re.n� RID48. PARK pRIVE IPUBLK:1 ' Try fef / ur1 I . n +•w rFx•a..>+..� I r.e� ALTAIR VISTA IF 41111.1S,1 V. w5'Sir.61 'r 113' m°ni v. 'CV Mai' ABSTIIEBTS.. ieusu E! x sue�xluK +ea SRT w.�x cSR 1 .F 1'.,, .f'.n 1 1 rmoil n CORONELL TRAIL IPRIVATEI Ta • t. TRACT MAP r I NO 338959.1 COROMEILM IIAILLIIPRIVATE1 1 1 1 I ALTAIR VISTA A A° STREET {PRIVATE b L .n Cyr aa,.[[9. tree 9,.R 14 WI a. r; r STREET Na IPRIVATEI ir. ww'• 01 •s w.. ti.,,�� • r, «y —p PM STREET N (P LP 61_1. SHEET el I 1 SHEET 71 ALTAp VIST0.-CULYERT;PIIIVATE "0.' STREET - BRIDOE [PRIVATE r -"i SQ1WI* e.t • 11 lI A.y !..►1I. T 14 .-" 9.1 . 1 1.. i. ' 1.I$, xta f... — 1 i t SIe.ET 8I.. . 'TRACT MAP O 38958-2 .r °S° STREET 11 [PRIVATE! SHEET 81 •. .. a'. 1• I VMny ,0 '..v+ ALTAIR VISTA - ONE-WAY (PR FVATE -ems.,; ..ti FIRST STREET IPUUMLIC1 1 � SHEET 10 mT r 'T Ij 1 TRACT MAP L.,ND-36SS&3 ti • 1 04171140' CA I Lo' r _ I ifJlR s.a S1 • ""'""A" w I w f 1 SHEET I Ll— aDR4 L (PUBLIC! r y I I / '--‹ J 115 11 11 I.x AFRPMc.CALE TN TRACT MAP NO MESE LEGEND rye+l.PPn ."OW.. TT WI WWI. LW WWI 11,11� ....N.a. Toe 'weer sloe re. mere. 0r. 4111 C0.0.61 UI1LITIES • WI.1 4i LIX 56.1 1.111 I. Karr n ;.0x55.1«'1" .c.R 00.40 RAN AAPLICANE 366 A106.2 0,10.00 ENGINEER ex wee Lk ITT ..uP+w+. �A l0 • 1.6.11 —, 060.1e..1T • —_-_.Y. unAu.c 7 TT P RPC ▪ ATC 4.0.6 6696 TIC .1411400. 56 N▪ O ea -ext nes'rn • .. IT OW./511 160 .46 WW1 ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 1+�5t To -44. 111 o-_'6. 0. . 66-40 .:1-101 '10 aec r 1.0-A1.410010 *1 51 SOURCE OF AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ew.m.mt 1541141 RENOIR leCIIMIR 11.Qf.'iwt'mYw 5PVAIE, 0.1.0150461.66106101.6.10.10.67 41.111.66.5..9. i.0 l Wt'D. n[ rtim..H10.+mu. rf I. 1 . A 60 v, xawu ,uar60[�nwa.o..Ae[crraa snui.mr+.uwt rwm.«seewe C S TNO ■IAO*.eµCC CAM.* 0211 Welt r-tt-f u•:. rC=YJ 1.1..•e ff•f:fdP]*] ter -Rero N..1,0 NA4L6t MMR P CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959-1, 36959.3, 36959-3 $ 36959 - ROT FOR CCNSTRUCDON e F VILLAGE MAP LEGEND TRACT MAP • NO. 769554 ' 's-ZE TRACT MAP NO. 36559.2 4.-. TRACT MAP NO. 369594 TRACT MAP ILO. 36999 1, PHASING SUMMARY LEGEND PHASING MAP TRACT MAP NO. 06955-1 NORTH PHASE,` -, 11 own 444 r'oir•a r � n 4 — SIAIT IN NP 441/4.41 le JaKe T- Pn[ mF 1} CRA PHIL SCALA 1 wT:p1 R TRACT;IAP 1 NO. 369594 SOUTH PHASE TRACT MAP NO. 36959 CIVIC PHASE u1IOVHIC SCALE w LEGAL OESCRIP110N fex nu arts u a"o�`°.nr}rnM: i°.ie eTam r,'nerh. If 'mss. w aen+e i4PM MINNS .ein CiftiTTim ."'"450 .vY7".Te a �iuvaanwr w a,enmin ._I..m a1144. TT. inna rtaneca Nat N1 .Dao+aK wa n uMoa wnn. ues rca�. INELVWIbn wa uuw w no [ A u .cif if IMO. 4 w. inf4I4Merlana WENCH 141.1114 HfS*M4W9'03140. 6&YA115 416.41 wlnaa,c 6r*sow. ICC. EO Y40E44 IOW./ 54.9064110f14.116;4104 t. 91R INC TIMMTwt.11. WwmntiTIA4 WfAM f•4404.PF1 OUW W1135ME. e 4.444404444111411 Ha1.. �.�E,1�a e<%1M„411. inn TDC10 cum. M. 1140404. C s p7 92'.. i40114463013 iwn ao* war.a 4. CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM HO. 36959-1, 36959-2, 36959-3 & 36959 2 13 ..crrweCO1R.x. Ov 01. 1 8 OPEN SPAGE (C47NSERVAn0N) � ry *RANO. s, -As. • NOTE! SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 12 AND 13 i11'F-Si'T£ WPR,74£uEN7SP,ER #Naw MO14AtiA E3111i18lr• (5E£ MYii8T "0-) �xr ON. R. SEE S1iEET 4 LI 09421 W5H(1*..S.&ARf! P PD, Pt • `la W*$ ONlb Ncein. s lam 4,. ,..Camra 94 SGA I ... ,Li a^ati ew2rsam �, r1osn n CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING EXHIBIT A TTM No. 36959-1 3 a3 . WIT rca mresrrnrcn SEE SHEET 5 3ENCHIMJ M .SB.- .n. S1VATION ^ wu«RT.=•t�..tNE.enU,.,..0pouiSval (An.hWMp.m.._Eorn n . ' NNIC.wnawAa>.EenNIR^vcST.41Lnm.a w.vy U+1tlW OL C s '.9M Gt.,.OW Re, •.:r 4:1Z79.1%,541,1 Fp. 611196}551.1. � CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING • EXHIBIT A TTM HO. 36959.7 • NOT FOR WO 4STRUCIION • SEE SHEET 4 F 1.Y F 25 OPEN SPACE {CDNSERVA12ON9 iK G 1, rrwvr raw•".. 16 278AC ter- _ ONAeMlc%CAL* l•�*9 r La.ee t r.aTp`r • NOTE- SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 12 AND 13 SEE SHEET 6 ,spy" x }:x w a _ U tr �r ----•K z- „.„— 1H STttE ct �u.11-006'+].4 n ..I aw .er.. 4 F SE vat May( wo caw .t'+ac ED3X 9EYATOM r+sau 03.41.41114 >Ea. *s.c.Lwsrllumikw.u.(1111.A 204trxemImEil .x..4 EL r IX 440111400a.a. S.XeClDO ko/ S. ic'.x rp'r.44 1 ICS 1 �ML•a ...,, CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING • EXHIBIT A TTM HO. 36959-2 5 13 -1146t PC* C«,.TRYCTIpM :l -5 940 SEE SHEET 5 1+Ha sJ 'S 0..40 At i'1-' $t.r,g;.7v7 922-4&2-023 922-06244 t.. - 16 - - 0..02 AC Lc 922-02-025 ets Is a EAST STi2EET rc o M DETAIL fi SEE SHEET 7 NOTE: SEE SECTIONS CN SHEET 12 ANL) 13. r �Icri MAfEC M] cow traxn SE ATrrP1 j111 it mecum sFrc. r,ea,wr 11111WacWim . 10.,�r<a �ln.rE1,.�1�+�.+e 11..stittste.kswIture De '44.1 > iw....vwf� sitscsFrtnstarmEsrur."a{meds rss. o -It n+1'EtliMbNN C S Sam 21IOC,... !M RPoo 1k,iI S..0 I090 Mina,x' 1 -- &�wiarz:ae Fax 3 SEFOETArt A - 4 ✓JWFEM4Fe 5 11142E %C aEE CITY OF TEMECIILA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959.2 . rqT Fog. commix SH=_T: R.� GRAPHIC EGALS I IFI z I -t — " — SEE DETAIL 'A' 20 OPEN SPACE {CO QSEAVA TPON) NOTE. SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 13 t• +/ SEE SHEETS n K� gefg3.1 NOK N2 j u€?t ELEVAlClL W, n00F1C S.fnT u.O�we� vr,.. iMOOXI cam, 3 3c.fq3 .3103.. FAKBVm :SOK 11, .ti1.11.FA5T0.W.frOP T[ RIF9 wlr mx.ws Ian a•.Acs.orw¢4.0.1f '5111 3r, MI.fir GMM*8P106F3.3 1.1.2131-51el 3...4.3.3rN.1 .. CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959.3 • 13 • NOT FOR KAMSTR,>rnO1: SEE SHEET 7 5 1:23 AC 7 • Sr.. awn C. p.N z GRAPHIC .eau m 4 e NATE' SEE SECT ONS ON SHEET 13 MATO HLINE - SEE RIGHT MATCHLINE- SEE LEFT Cnfa .F'1•ary Jr r a • I r SEE SHEE`9 r L"�'4•t�41� %NEM WA. lag ca4 ...ow rnaz• s-EV.11C01 a.1.1.,113.1w Of., gag [...arc Ptr.[! WA C.4 WBVECITING P'F n'■m Frt Pr,E.y¢rax atokvltwvRin mOmm [rN041tiwar OF a4 gm+Whmn 9etKkpp #a 4µy, w.on; aowcx aukn§]iN�kltOd Mi l• xooa CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING • EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959-3 8 ,w• 13 - NOT FCR CONSTRUCTION SEE. SHEET B 4i r M. mwr , 41.1.61M MALI I•�1 NOTE' SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 13. l r m�Sa Likuo r OPEN SPACE N� t SEE DETAIL '8' Mx r N. AP. SEE SHEET 10 • !ENO.' UMW macs,. Yuc'n+SX BEYAInN .ml.amrx.hrwa.N.i«.m waiecawr. r...t45 144E f4.6.74444844k4roam 4E Wn�fC4..704.1X.vnu4,N504n `w..{ pe w.ve*..wuer rtn WIDMER anO..% wix 41440.6. WW1. S.r.Ga.a:ro NIRp.5.RFwM 1WO San D' CaRuvaa EMS Fean.i• 619Q081ars worm .0.244am -Axes AOC■ Ott la On CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959 9 13 • NOT FOR CON5IiNC11 •i L7.11 L.• OLIN 1 4,11 oWiTHIc sccg.0 • 1J. E.OT SEE SHEET 9 OPEN SPACE •/ NOTE SEE SECTIONS ON SHEET 13 osm r se, cc v MAP 9 OPEN SPACE • 10 1 9 34.63 AC OPEN SPACE (CONSERVATION) 10 2.61 AC OPEN SPACE (CONSERVATION) SEE SHEET 11 13 STREETS {PUBLIC) DETAIL acxr mic SE A. •151.pe .P4.114.11 CUR ock. oggqINeli. FeiC1-1 MARK tC7P. CLEVATM gmeht SkgrArgov..0. 44..0 .5.0•x•ocwinr .26CE0,NP r.aniesecre,of FIE pS.l0 1,1.35M/354 PACKFAP-CiluX•ASCICO.LKPCIAVY.FLOW.1,1 .1.101.151M 0.1.4T Krenee}f .E.KVIPAIEN S W. NM 4,46.M.Via 11111 04 .tZ r61- 4-H64373 619-rA-55na .014 Met AIM uncut. 0.1F1 vv. .C1.6 CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959 10 13 - HOT FCC CMS-M.-C.:4i GPAPPING SCAL8 tl 4414, UPC"1 '4 SEE SHEET 10 9 34.63 AC OPEN SPACE (CONSERVArioN) +.0.15."1 1• Belal W1V414.0. ELEVA17211 MAI S. DEMPAN-, .Skanaerf 1.WIERSECIINCSMIS.11.e.11.i.% ICOaWTflMtocnIto nneu..1.0-cum.wil FUSET .111. MAW C S XCOGOW• Ni WA Nor., SA? 1000 Ion 0•10.044hern• .2, 05 P. .11'411141713 -101.714.443 0. Megan. ....1m301 owl," gr. CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING • EXHIBIT A TTM NO. 36959 13 • ,C)T1,0,1 COMSTPILCI,04 SECTION A -p OR 141 1 S 12 96.9/1 LOT ROT. OLIN 1.401 DLEN Ia tVOTWO R .ce rs*s r imam: alar PM MP. ern. +PIM Mop 1 1,2ari t 4421• irvoy f • To MM., LOT SECTION DB PON* Rom TI. rwle.r.y.ra w' Tryar.samgracE 1 :a aa• 4. -PL SECTION C.c SECTION D -D "'"f4:1.1 SECTIONnal E. MOM WI 12 ' YR Osw2ROT]21 Ono FnOE 1 [atm wlx Wan ani WA e a anti i I TR Oi..a L y) SP. L iii rt TR aos20.1 LOT 122'19N0 .rcacelmu =ECTION F.2. -Jns^ 1 ,L.O/Irol 11 s001. i f i - r MST,. r.ai.?.r.r R .cowlI COS16.4 SES WN 011J2 oredacR 3allase-.E LOT caaasa+cr 1 C.15oo :a L r nsol LL4-ToLeea.e�.. L▪ OT IS CP,..EIPP SPACE e.e1.R.an.s . 102114.0 RpESPOEPaPAL 7S949-3 LOT e1-Ot ,x nec ,C+aw▪ n ip SECTION .2-J iS#1 aagrir9 \ ;.; p�jYq ▪ 9clyo-a LOT L+ TR as:r&LOT re owM N- 2 *MI 11aao.t.NO FeitLLIL.F. la ,omm•o . q.E1ATOrt :onc....m Delia • .. loco •i n C.M 22 01 s. Lc J:� 2 2.2.0. f F]xW 7 Loon.GLOM, Ew71.n.[snwwv rz S.w*Pa#.cs.c a FFa1.T I, id] 1i. 01. PaO 12P6TWLOYkN&.IODPUTheili.H1.10pO RS.yai a CITY OF TEMECULA ° CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A TTM N0. 36959-1, 36959.2, 36959.3 & 36959�J- , OTTT 12 13 .1920 FOM ..0000-24 TR aewo-t 4O"r10 SEW SPACE A 1142114i ix In Non; 40, s0 mow„ M. ` Pm• • Q '''••••- 0. Kmti•22 4022• war SECTION 1.4 Lor t „ rR,esmax ws.� r'sarner• �s=.cE 204. 4 20106 .22222 ill mmN•.o .1 �f .Lire+. ar.T.e1 l� 1-4 er,r 01 } 1 SECTI 0 N PAM 41.1 202411. COT 0 P ARK am SWOTS LOT 21 _I 100 111, 01.4 20T 2 1 mots LOT ts vw E•fm • ONO NY • Irma 1.0 xl LOTfl •10 rR 3e1.50a 1 re. sr Wert.. LTESTUINI 1,11,3,11,31.1.01,13 .n TR SN• 4 4.2 00140. 014 SECTION 0.4 LOT '24 0000 gar.."..- .wr.Fi st I enm SECTION NM SECTION 00 srs Cyd ACE Ado aumw m Win w wEsnc+r.w Irk 1. +•ri fa TIP ✓n ��CnY</mirm SECTIONS is Oamsa LOT IR v,NPr.rr 4202..1111040111 1.20 211.1 SECTION R -R t APRViMq LOT 7 cwu 0.1 Y • si• lSl1 •B• Y A • L. an. . ., T P.M LW. . 411•24 02.02.00 .03 SECTION U•U 61 ats•rnss ▪ 4:2212 TR s0s.s, 0121 1.210= .122 .6 140.00 SECTIONS -if .10940 140,02 1.0T •no naffins-s- � • I 111.1-rC T 4 2 2. smut .. "211'4." e•,sr .mxs• m,ur+rxrar 201 mr04 LOT 13 OPEN SPACE snit..,- t F Ya SECTION 14 Hamm *a w ram ION i r• k*fr1i1 Ir IC R. Y'r dD t Yaw •A :P +� 20.20 00,21. M rW.a...4 TYPICAL EIGRETENTI ON BASIN ' riLt • MI rIt eao3�rrm. I mr. SECTION X -X 025 • 5 19 w Pae • , I se` 1°ae 111. o. •Yw 4 �.y ..T.a.: f • v- 01.1 p SECTION Y -Y nrx ,9 I tore c k4, s ..••. n0.,.• Mt, 1000.1. t TYPICAL OESIRTING OASIS BBIGH PAM( N smis nu assns r BEVILTCN i wozs.os-nrs v,.A LmuRoaaweE os "mfpam,c searc:w 1,222242.0042. 2220000.0:01.rou•K s.� 10. LW 20200110 C s 2n2acnrTnn 112, wen, EsS. Isis WI -014M mom'• CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING - EXHIBIT A • ` TTM NO. 36959.1, 36959.2, 36959-3 $ 36959 SI 1 13 13 - NOT FOR CONSTRI]CISOM ATTACHMENT 100 CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT ALTAIR PROJECT PHASING - EXHIBIT B FIVE PRIMARY PHASES - BASED ON GRADING Updated: 03/15/2016 Civic Phase South Phase Central Phase Western Bypass Bridge Phase _s•°'6',_. . TOTAL P ROJ ECT Civic Phase Units/Village Cumulative Units G 130 Units 1,750 Units 130 Units South Units/Village D 160 Units E 115 Units F 180 Units 455 Units Phase Cumulative Units 1,325 Units 1,440 Units 1,620 Units Central Phase Units/Village Cumulative Units C -N 225 Units 725 Units C -S 440 Units 1,165 Units 665 Units North Phase Units/Village Cumulative Units A 280 Units 280 Units B 220 Units 500 Units 500 Units NORTH PHASE — Prior to 1st Building Permit North Phase rough graded Ridge Park Drive improvements Altair Vista phase 1 Western Bypass phase 1 Vincent Moraga widening from Ridge Park Dr to Rancho Calif Rd (except east lanes between Felix Valdez & Rancho Calif Rd)* East Lanes to build -out width between Felix Valdez & Rancho Calif Road Left turn lane on Rancho Cal Four-way stop at First Street and Pujol Street North Phase Offsite Sewer * Master Developer shall put forth a good faith effort to acquire the ROW needed along Vincent Moraga. If unsuccessful in the ROW acquisition after several attempts, then the City shall initiate eminent domain proceedings as necessary. These improvements shall be complete prior to the earlier of, i) issuance of the 350th building permit for the project, or ii) issuance of the 1st building permit for the Central Phase. All intersection improvements and signal relocations are complete.* Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. CENTRAL PHASE — Prior to 1st Building Permit Central Phase rough graded Altair Vista phase 2 "A" Street phase 1 (secondary access provided by neighborhood internal streets) Levant Trail connects Altair Vista to First Street DG trail at Village B toe of slope Central Phase Offsite Sewer Signal Improvements at First Street and Pujol Street Yellow Arrows CJ: Interim pedestrian access to Old Town will occur from the east side of the Western Bypass, along the base of the Village B pad, to Pujol St. and across the Main St. Bridge. Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. CENTRAL PHASE — Prior to Building Permits in Village C, south of the park 1 iy Village C Park phase 2 — "Soft' Landscape. . "4—r liW Altair Vista phase 3 "A" Street phase 2 and vehicular bridge Western Bypass phase 2 (2 lanes constructed; ultimate NB), parallel Class 1 Bikeway* Recreation Center (west building) or Community Center (east building) — C of 0 to be obtained prior to the earlier of, i) 950th building permit for the project, or ii) 1st building permit for the South Phase. Schcd 1 Main Street transition, grand stairway and Village C Park PH 1 (ADA access provided to 'A' Street) * Start: Construction of the WBC Bridge or grading of the South Phase to complete the WBC connection shall start prior to the 700th building permit (40%) for the project. Complete: The WBC Road and Bridge improvements shall be constructed prior to the earlier of, i) issuance of the 950th building permit for the project (54%), or ii) issuance of the 1st building permit for the South Phase. If the Civic Phase grading has not yet commenced, the City shall provide the Master Developer with the ability to stock pile dirt onto the Civic Site. ire Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. SOUTH PHASE — Prior to 1st Building Permit 1 Village C Park phase 2 — 'Hard' Landscape. South Phase rough graded Altair Vista phase 4 "B" Street North connects to Western Bypass and Pujolol Stretommintwors, Signal improvements at Western Bypass and Altair Vista Western Bypass phase 2 (2 lanes constructed; ultimate NB) and parallel Class 1 Bikeway* Western Bypass Bridge* 4 is Mf * Start: Construction of the WBC Bridge or grading of the South Phase to complete the WBC connection shall start prior to the 700th building permit (40%) for the project. Complete: The WBC Road and Bridge improvements shall be constructed prior to the earlier of, i) issuance of the 950th building permit for the project (54%), or ii) issuance of the 1st building permit for the South Phase. If the Civic Phase grading has not yet commenced, the City shall provide the Master Developer with the ability to stock pile dirt onto the Civic Site. .Ir Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. SOUTH PHASE — Prior to 300th Building Permit Village D Park LiAINMPROIRMOIMerlill0; Village E/F Park Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. CIVIC PHASE — Prior to 1st Building Permit Civic Phase rough graded "B" Street South "C" Street Signal improvements at Western Bypass and "B" Street jy Western Bypass phase 3, 2 SB lanes constructed Recreation Center (west building) or Community Center (east building), C of ❑ for whichever building has not yet been constructed Civic Phase Offsite Sewer Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. TOTAL PROJECT TIMING OF CIVIC PHASE DELIVERY & WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE Due to traffic volumes, the Western Bypass Bridge will need to be installed prior to a building permit being issued for the Civic Site. If the Civic Phase is accelerated then so will construction of the Western Bypass Bridge as well as the connection to Pujol Street. Yellow Highlight: Identifies improvements being constructed earlier than in previous submittal. ATTACHMENT 10E DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY MAP - rir 36959 TR 36959-7 SLOPES: MASTER DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTED, MASTER HOA MAINTAINED MASTER DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTED, DEEDED 1O GUEST BUILDER, MASTER HOA MAIN IAi NLL) MASTER DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTED, DLLDLD 10 GUES1 BUILDER, SUB I'IOA MAIN IAiNLI] ROADS: PRIVATE ROADS: MASTER DEVELOPER RESPONSIBLE FOR CURB TO CURB STREET IMPROVEMENTS, MASTER HOA MAINTAINED PUBLIC ROADS: MASTER DEVELOPER RESPONSIBLE FOR CURB TO CURB STREET IMPROVEMENTS, CITY OF TEMECU LA MAINTAINED Y V alk4ir COMPLETELY TEMECULA MAS 1 LR DEVELOPER ROAD FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS, DEEDED TO THE CI) Y OFT FOR MAIN TEN AN CE ECULA MAS ILR DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTED PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, MAST `LR HOA MAINIAINLI] MASTER DEVELOPER PARK IMPROVEMENTS, DEEDED 10 THE CITY OF TEMECU LA FOR MAINTENANCE MASTER DEVELOPER PARK IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITU OF TEMECULA FOR MINTEN AN CE MASTER DEVELOPER PARK IMPROVLMLNTS ON LAND OWNED AND MAIN1AINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA MASTER DEVELOPER PARK IMPROVEMENTS, MASTER FIOA MAINTAINED MASTER DEVELOPER RECREATION CENTER, MASTER HOA MAINTAINED GUEST BUILDER CONSTRUCTED, SUB HOA -MAINTAINED DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY MAP carrierjohnson + CULTI}R3 ATTACHMENT 11 PC RESOLUTION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PC RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (QS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Development Agreement for the Altair Specific Plan #15 No. PA14-0161, hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The Development Agreement complies with the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65865 through 65869.5 in that the Development Agreement specifies in detail and contains the following: 1. Provisions in Section 9.1 requiring periodic review at least every twelve months, at which time the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement (California Government Code Section 65865.1). Duration of the Development Agreement, as specified in Section 2.3 of the Agreement as being twenty (20) years (Government Code Section 65865.2). 3. The permitted uses of the property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes in Sections 2, 3, and 7-10 of the Specific Plan (which is incorporated into the Development Agreement and herein by this reference) and in Section 4 of the Development Agreement (Government Code Section 65865.2). 4. Terms and conditions in Section 11 of the Specific Plan (which is incorporated into the Development Agreement by reference), and in Sections 2-4 of the Development Agreement, that require the developer to construct all necessary public improvements necessary to access and improve the property for the proposed use (Government Code Section 65865.2). Pursuant to Section 65867.5, the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the City's General Plan and the following goals and policies: The Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended. The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Land Use Element identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Development Agreement will satisfy two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area," and "[I]ocating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The Development Agreement is also consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which is to create a "regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." The Development Agreement will require the developer to construct a significant portion of the Western Bypass Corridor project connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. The Development Agreement is also consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the Development Agreement implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." The Development Agreement will allow development predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the property as natural open space, thus consistent with Policy 1.5 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles." Further findings of consistency between the Specific Plan, which the Development Agreement implements, and the General Plan can be found in Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan by providing extraordinary public benefits in the form of public infrastructure, parks, trails, and a 55 -acre civic site for public use to justify the increased density associated with the Altair Specific Plan and Development Agreement. C. Pursuant to Section 65867.5(c), a Development Agreement that includes a subdivision shall not be approved unless the agreement provides that any tentative map prepared for the subdivision will comply with the provisions of Government Code section 66473.7. Section 3.7.5 of the Development Agreement provides that any tentative map prepared for the proposed Project shall comply with California Government Code Section 66473.7. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310- 016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007" in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of November, 2017. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA y 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. - was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary ATTACHMENT 11.1 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940- 310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 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. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0150, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "Project') were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (05), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance of the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ron H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. E. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161, a Development Agreement, 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 in opposition to, this matter. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." G. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." H. On , the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project and the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. I. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 17- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)." Resolution No. 17 - and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Development Agreement with Ambient Communities for the Altair Specific Plan hereby makes the following findings: A. The Development Agreement complies with the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65865 through 65869.5 in that the Development Agreement specifies in detail and contains the following: 1. Provisions in Section 9.1 requiring periodic review at least every twelve months, at which time the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement (California Government Code Section 65865.1). Duration of the Development Agreement, as specified in Section 2.3 of the Agreement as being twenty (20) years (Government Code Section 65865.2). 3. The permitted uses of the property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes in Sections 2, 3, and 7-10 of the Specific Plan (which is incorporated into the Development Agreement and herein by this reference) and in Section 4 of the Development Agreement (Government Code Section 65865.2). Terms and conditions in Section 11 of the Specific Plan (which is incorporated into the Development Agreement by reference), and in Sections 2-4 of the Development Agreement, that require the developer to construct all necessary public improvements necessary to access and improve the property for the proposed use (Government Code Section 65865.2). Pursuant to Section 65867.5, the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the City's General Plan and the following goals and policies: The Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended. The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income, and demographics. The Land Use Element identifies the objective for this area which is to "provide complimentary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range of the housing opportunities west of 1-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area." The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of a range of multifamily and detached housing types within walking distance of Old Town that will result in a vibrant combination of uses for the aggregate planning areas. The Development Agreement will satisfy two of the four implementation measures listed in LU -22 of the Land Use Element Implementation Program: "[p]roviding infill residential opportunities within the area and the adjacent Westside Specific Plan to create a nighttime population for the area," and "[I]ocating additional public and community facilities within and surrounding the Old Town area." The Development Agreement is also consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which is to create a "regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." The Development Agreement will require the developer to construct a significant portion of the Western Bypass Corridor project connecting SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Drive. The Development Agreement is also consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element which is to "provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." Single-family detached houses represent 80% of the existing housing stock in the City. The Development Agreement will allow for the construction of a mixture of housing which is needed in the City. Among other policies in the Housing Element, the Development Agreement implements Policy 1.2 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types." It also implements Policy 1.3 which is to "[r]equire a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people orientation and diversity." The Development Agreement will allow development predominantly east of the Western Bypass, preserving the western portion of the property as natural open space, thus consistent with Policy 1.5 of the Housing Element which is to "[e]ncourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles." Further findings of consistency between the Specific Plan, which the Development Agreement implements, and the General Plan can be found in Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan by providing extraordinary public benefits in the form of public infrastructure, parks, trails, and a 55 -acre civic site for public use to justify the increased density associated with the Altair Specific Plan and Development Agreement. C. Pursuant to Section 65867.5(c), a Development Agreement that includes a subdivision shall not be approved unless the agreement provides that any tentative map prepared for the subdivision will comply with the provisions of Government Code section 66473.7. Section 3.7.5 of the Development Agreement provides that any tentative map prepared for the proposed Project shall comply with California Government Code Section 66473.7. Section 3. Consistency with General Plan. On , the City Council adopted Resolution No. , which amended the Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan, in conformity with Government Code section 65300.5. Therefore, the foregoing amendments outlined in this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula. Section 4. Approval of the Development Agreement. The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Temecula West Village, LLC, in substantially the form presented to the City Council and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the City. Upon execution by all parties, an original shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 5. Severability. If any portion, provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 7. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Rand' Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) 1, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. - was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 11A ALTAIR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF TEMECULA AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street. Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: City Clerk Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Govt. Code Sections 6103 and 27383 Development Agreement between City of Temecula and Temecula West Village, LLC Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into as of , 2017 ("Agreement Date"), by and between TEMECULA WEST VILLAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter "OWNER"), and the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation. organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter "CITY"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code (the "Development Agreement Legislation") and Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Agreement. The parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use thereof in these Recitals. 13. The Development Agreement Legislation authorizes the CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other matters: ensure high quality development in accordance with comprehensive plans; provide certainty in the approval of development projects so as to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in the cost of housing and other development to the consumer; provide assurance to the applicants for development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and subject to conditions of approval, in order to strengthen the public planning process and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development; and provide for economic assistance to OWNER for the entitlements authorizing development related improvements. C. OWNER is the owner of certain real property within the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside, State of California (the "Property"), as more particularly described in Attachment 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof. OWNER desires to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the applicable regulations of the City of Temecula and those regulations of other agencies exercising jurisdiction upon the project. The Scope of Development of the Property as contemplated by this Agreement is described in the Agreement in Section 1.4. D. OWNER has applied for, and the CITY has approved, the Development Plan Approval(s) and OWNER and CITY have entered into this Agreement in order to create a beneficial project and a physical environment that will conform to and complement the goals of the CITY, create a development project sensitive to human needs and values, facilitate efficient traffic circulation and develop the Property. As part of the process of granting this Entitlement, the City Council of the CITY (hereinafter the "City Council") 2 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 has required the preparation of an environmental review and has certified the Specific Plan EIR as regards any significant effects arising from the Development and has otherwise carried out all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of 1970, as amended. E. The following actions were taken with respect to this Agreement and the Project: 1. On , following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Development Plan Approvals and this Agreement; 2. On , after a duly noticed public hearing and pursuant to CEQA, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17- certifying the Altair Specific Plan E1R for this Agreement and the Project and approving a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 3. On , after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 17- approving Altair Specific Plan No. 4. On , after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 17- approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement and on , the City Council adopted the Ordinance, the original of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. F. The CITY has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Project as well as the various potential benefits to the CITY by the development of the Project and concluded that the Project is in the best interests of the CITY and that its provisions are consistent with the City's General Plan and each component thereof. G. In consideration of the substantial public improvements and benefits to be provided by OWNER and the Project, in further consideration of the implementation of the Altair Specific Plan and in order to strengthen the public financing and planning process and reduce the economic costs of development, by this Agreement, the CITY intends to give OWNER assurance that OWNER can proceed with the development of the Project for the Term of this Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and in accordance with the CITY's General Plan, ordinances, policies, rules and regulations existing as of the Effective Date as described in the Agreement. In reliance on the CITY's covenants in this Agreement concerning the Development of the Property, OWNER has and will in the future incur substantial costs in site preparation and the construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities in order to make the Project feasible. H. Pursuant to Section 65867.5 of the- Development Agreement Legislation, the City Council has found and determined that: (i) this Agreement and the Development Plan Approvals implement the goals and policies of the CITY's General Plan, and the Altair 3 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 Specific Plan provides balanced and diversified land uses and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the CITY, (ii) this Agreement is in the best interests of and not detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the CITY and its residents; (iii) adopting this Agreement is consistent with the CITY's General Plan and each element thereof; (iv) constitutes a present exercise of the CITY's police power; and (v) this Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Legislation. I. The CITY and OWNER agree that it may be beneficial to enter into additional agreements or to modify this Agreement with respect to the implementation of the separate components of the Project when more information concerning the details of each component is available, and that this Agreement should expressly allow for such contemplated additional agreements or modifications to this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Legislation, as it applies to the CITY, pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution, and in consideration of the foregoing recitals of fact, all of which arc expressly incorporated into this Agreement, the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and for the further consideration described in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. The following words and phrases are used as defined terms throughout this Development Agreement and each defined term shall have the meaning set forth below. 1.1. Acquisition Price. "Acquisition Price" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.3 of this Agreement. 1.2. Authorizing Ordinance. The "Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. approving this Agreement. 1.3. Central Phase. "Central Phase" refers to the Central Phase of the Project as defined in the Development Plan. 1.4. CEPA. "CEQA" refers to the California Environmental Quality Act as referenced in Recital D of this Agreement. 1.5. CITY. The "CITY" means the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and all of its officials, employees, agencies and departments. 4 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 1.6. CITY Property. "CITY Property" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1. of thi s Agreement. 1.7. City Council. "City Council" means the duly elected and constituted city council of the CITY. 1.8. Contributions. "Contributions" means City capital improvement and development impact fees and other cash contributions by Owner for City capital improvements required pursuant to the Project's conditions of approval or this Agreement. 1.9. Developed Property. "Developed Property" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.2 of this Agreement. 1.10. Development. "Development" or "Develop" or "Developing" means the improvement of the Property for purposes consistent with the Project's land use authorization as set forth in the Development Plan, including, without limitation: grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Off-site Improvements and On-site Improvements, the construction of structures and buildings and the installation of landscaping. 1.11. Development Agreement Legislation. The "Development Agreement Legislation" means Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Effective Date. 1.12. Development Fees. "Development Fees" means Development Impact Fees as defined hereunder imposed on the Development as conditions of development as more particularly set forth in Section 4.2. 1.13. Development Impact Fees. Except as set forth herein and for purposes of this Agreement, Development Impact Fees (sometimes referred to in this Agreement as "DIF") shall mean individually and in the aggregate, the City's currently adopted DIF as established in Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code at the rate then in effect at the time required for payment, subject to the provisions of Section 4. 1.14. Development Plan. The "Development Plan" consists of this Agreement, the Development Plan Approval(s), the Existing Regulations, and those Future Development Approvals, if any, contemplated, necessary, and requested by OWNER and approved by the City to implement the land uses authorized by the Project. 1.15. Development Plan Approval(s). "Development Plan Approval(s)" means the approvals of the City Council and other governmental agencies and other actions and agreements described in Attachment 6 hereto, including those amendments to this Agreement made in accordance with Section 3.9, those amendments to the Development Plan Approvals made in accordance with Section 3.8 and those Future Development Approvals made in accordance with Section 10. 5 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 1.16. Development Transferee. "Development Transferee" means a person or entity that expressly assumes the obligations of a Master Developer under this Agreement pursuant to Section 2.5 hereof: 1.17. Effective Date. 'Effective Date" means the date the Authorizing Ordinance becomes effective. 1.18. Eligible Public Facilit(v)(ies). "Eligible Public Facilit(y)(ies)" means those facilities of the City and other public agencies that are eligible to be financed through the CFD as described in Section 4.5.2. 1.19. End User. "End User" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.1. of this Agreement. 1.20. Escrow Holder. "Escrow Holder" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.3.C. of this Agreement. 1.21. Estoppel Certificate. "Estoppel Certificate" has the meaning set forth in Section 10.5. of this Agreement. 1.22. Existing Regulations. "Existing Regulations" means those written ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, or other written actions of the CITY, other than the Development Plan Approval(s) in effect on the Effective Date, which govern the permitted uses of the Property, building heights, the size of structures, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the timing, fees, and conditions to Development, exactions, assessments, the procedures for, and types of, permits required for the Development, the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Property and the infrastructure required for the Development. By way of enumeration, and not limitation, the Existing Regulations include those portions of the items identified on Attachment 5 which apply to the Property. The CITY has certified two (2) copies of each of the documents listed on Attachment 5. The CITY has retained one (1) set of the certified documents and has provided OWNER with the second (2°d) set. 1.23. Future Development Approvals. "Future Development Approvals" means those entitlements and approvals that are made in accordance with Section 3.10. By way of enumeration, and not limitation, the Future Development Approvals include actions such as development plan review, tentative maps, final maps, use permits, variances, grading permits, occupancy permits and building permits. 1.24. Future Development Costs. "Future Development Costs" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.3.E. of this Agreement. 6 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 1.25. Habitat Restoration Property. "Habitat Restoration Property" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1. of this Agreement. 1.26. Habitat Restoration Property Option. "Habitat Restoration Property Option" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1. of this Agreement. 1.27. Habitat Restoration Property Option Notice. "Habitat Restoration Property Option Notice" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1.C. of this Agreement. 1.28. Habitat Restoration Property Option Purchase Price. "Habitat Restoration Property Option Purchase Price" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1.D. of this Agreement. 1.29. Habitat Restoration Property Option Term. "Habitat Restoration Property Option Term" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.1.A. of this Agreement. 1.30. Hillside Escarpment PSA. "Hillside Escarpment PSA" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.5.D. of this Agreement. 1.31. Holder. "Holder" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.3, of this Agreement. 1.32. Improved Portion. "Improved Portion" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.3 of this Agreement. 1.33. Indemnified Partv(ies). "Indemnified Party(ies)" has the meaning set forth in Section 6 of this Agreement. 1.34. Indemnifying Party(ies). "Indemnifying Party(ies)" has the meaning set forth in Section 6 of this Agreement. 1.35. Lender. "Lender" has the meaning set forth in Section 15.2, of this Agreement. 1.36. Master HOA. "Master HOA" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.4.8. of this Agreement. 1.37. Mello -Roos Act. "Mello -Roos Act" means the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being California Government Code Section 53311 et seq. 1.38. Merchant Builder. "Merchant Builder" means a buyer, assignee, or transferee of one or more individual lots or tracts of the Project, acquiring such lots or tracts with the intention of developing, improving, or using such lots or tracts for development and/or resale. 7 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 1.39. MSHCP. "MSHCP" means the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 1.40. Nature Center Conservation Easement Parcel. "Nature Center Conservation Easement Parcel" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.43 of this Agreement. 1.41. Nature Center Open Space Parcel. "Nature Center Open Space Parcel" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.3. of this Agreement. 1.42. Nature Center Parcel. "Nature Center Parcel" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.3. of this Agreement. 1.43. Nature Center Phase. "Nature Center Phase" refers to the Nature Center Phase of the Project as defined in the Development Plan and will consist of the Nature Center Road Parcel, the Nature Center Parcel, the Nature Center Open Space Parcel and the Nature Center Conservation Easement Parcel, all as depicted on Attachment 4 hereto. 1.44. Nature Center Phase Note. "Nature Center Phase Note" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.3 of this Agreement. 1.45. Nature Center Road Parcel. "Nature Center Road Parcel" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.3 of this Agreement. 1.46. North Phase. "North Phase" refers to the North Phase of the Project as defined in the Development Plan. 1.47. Occupied Residential Property. "Occupied Residential Property" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.2 of this Agreement. 1.48. Off-site Improvements. "Off-site Improvements" means the improvements set forth on Attachment 2 and as more specifically described in the Development Plan. 1.49. On-site Improvements. "On-site Improvements" means physical infrastructure improvements or facilities that are or will be located on the Property as described in the Development Plan. Certain On-site Improvements may be specifically addressed in this Agreement, which are identified on Attachment 3. All other On-site Improvements will be dependent upon the Development and the required Future Development Approvals. 1.50. Operating Memorand(a)(um). "Operating Memorand(a)(um)" has the meaning set forth in Section 3.9.5. of this Agreement. 1.51 OWNER. "OWNER" is initially TEMECULA WEST VILLAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company registered to do business in California, and others who 8 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 subsequently are assigned the rights and obligations of OWNER as Master Developer(s) pursuant to Section 2.5 hereof. 1.52. Pa 'mem Date. "Payment Date- has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.3 of this Agreement. 1.53. Planning Commission. "Planning Commission," means the duly appointed and constituted planning commission of the CITY. 1.54. Project. "Project" means the development of the Property as set forth in the Development Plan Approval(s). 1.55. Project EIR. "Project EIR" means that final environmental impact report prepared for the Project and this Development Agreement, as certified on , 2017 by Resolution No. 17- 1.56. Property. "Property" means that certain real property described in Attachment 1 hereof. 1.57. RCA. "RCA" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.5.A. of this Agreement. 1.58. Reserved Authority. "Reserved Authority has the meaning set forth in Section 5.2. of this Agreement. 1.59. Second Default Notice. "Second Default Notice" has the meaning set forth in Section 15.2. of this Agreement. 1.60. Services Deficit. "Services Deficit" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.7 of this Agreement. 1.61. South Phase. "South Phase" means the South Phase of the Project as defined in the Development Plan. 1.62. Special Tax A. "Special Tax A" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.2 of this Agreement. 1.63. Special Tax B. "Special Tax B" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.2 of this Agreement. 1.64 Special Tax C. "Special Tax C" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.2 of this Agreement. 1.65. Specific Plan. "Specific Plan" means the Altair Specific Plan, approved by Ordinance No. 17- adopted by the City Council on , 2017, and as thereafter amended from time to time in accordance with Section 3.8 of this Agreement. 9 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 Any reference in this Agreement to a Planning Area shall mean the Planning Areas set forth in the Specific Plan as adopted or as amended. 1.66. Subsequent Owner. "Subsequent Owner" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.3 of this Agreement. 1.67. Superpad Improvements. "Superpad Improvements" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.3 of this Agreement. 1.68. SWPPP Costs. "SWPPP Costs" shall mean the costs required to comply with the Chapter 18.18 of the Temecula Municipal Code, as currently exists or may hereafter be amended, and the applicable permits issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board with jurisdiction over the City, as currently exists or may hereafter be amended or approved, including without limitation, the "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan," erosion and sediment control measures, and NPDES mitigation measures. 1.69. Transferred Property. "Transferred Property" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.2. of this Agreement. 1.70. TUMF. "TUMF" means the Transporation Uniform Mitigation Fee established pursuant to Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the Council resolutions adopted pursuant thereto. 1.71. Unimproved Portion. "Unimproved Portion" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.5.3 of this Agreement. 1.72. Western Bypass Bridge. "Western Bypass Bridge" has the meaning set forth in the Development Plan. 1.73. Western Bypass Bridge Phase. "Western Bypass Bridge Phase" means the Western Bypass Bridge Phase of the Project as defined in the Development Plan. 1.74. Western Bypass Road. "Western Bypass Road" has the meaning set forth in the Development Plan. 1.75. Wildlife Conservation Costs. "Wildlife Conservation Costs" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.5(iv) of this Agreement. 1.76. WRCOG. "WRCOG" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.4.3.F. of this Agreement. 2. General Provisions. 2.1. Binding Covenants. The provisions of this Agreement to the extent permitted by law, constitute covenants which shall run with the Property for the benefit 10 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 thereof, and the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. 2.2. interest of OWNER. OWNER represents that OWNER has a legal interest in the Property that satisfies California Government Code Section 65865(b). 2.3. Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date, and shall have a term (the "Term") of twenty (20) consecutive calendar years. The Term shall terminate at 11:59 p.m. of the day preceding the twentieth (20th) anniversary of the Effective Date, subject to specific extensions, revisions, and termination provisions of this Agreement. The Term shall be extended by the mutual agreement of the Parties for one (1) period of ten (10) years subject to the Western Bypass Road and Western Bypass Bridge being constructed and fully dedicated to the City within the initial twenty (20) year Term. The final day of this Agreement's regulation of the Property shall change subject to and upon the facts and terms relating to a specific extension(s), force majeure, revision(s), and termination provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that a court of competent jurisdiction takes any action that stays or delays the Effective Date, and subsequently enters after all appeals or time to appeal have been exhausted, a final judgment or issuance of a final order directed to the CITY to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Agreement, then this Agreement shall be deemed to have no force or effect upon either party. 2.4. Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 2.4.1. Termination occurring pursuant to any specific provision of this Agreement, including, without limitation, a termination in the event of default; 2.4.2. The completion of the total build -out of the Development pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the CITY's issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance of all dedications and improvements required to complete Development; or 2.4.3. The lapse of the Term as set forth in Section 2.3. The termination of this Agreement shall not affect any right or duty arising independently from entitlements issued by the CITY or other land use approvals approved prior to, concurrently or subsequent to the approval of this Agreement, except as may be provided in this Agreement. To provide notice to all, and not as a condition of the effectiveness of a termination of the Agreement, the parties agree to execute and record terminations of or releases of this Agreement as may be requested by either party. 2.5. Transfers and Assignments. 11 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 2.5.1. Restrictions on Transfers of OWNER's Rights and Obligations as Master Developer. OWNER acknowledges and agrees that there are very significant public improvements required for the Project and that the completion of those public improvements will require coordination of CITY, OWNER and any Development Transferees of the Property or any portion thereof. It is essential that any transfer of the Property or a portion of the Property to Development Transferees be completed in such a way that the public improvements will be completed as provided in the Development Plan Approvals and this Agreement. OWNER shall not sell, assign, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of its interests in the Property together with all its right, title and interest in this Agreement, or the portion thereof which is subject to the transferred portion of the Property, to any Development Transferee until such time as the public and private improvements required by the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement have been accepted by the City unless the City has approved the transfer pursuant to this Section. City shall not unreasonably withhold, condition or delay consent to the transfer provided that: (1) the Development Transferee has specifically assumed in writing the obligations, or a portion of the obligations of the OWNER, to design, construct, install and finally complete the public and private improvements required by the Development Plan Approvals and this Agreement; (2) the Development Transferee has substantially equivalent experience and financial capacity as OWNER to complete the public and private improvements required by the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement; and (3) the Development Transferee has obtained replacement bonds, accepted by the City for the public and private improvements required by the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement (in which event, the City shall release the OWNER's corresponding Public Improvement bonds). In the event of any sale, assignment, or other transfer to a Development Transferee pursuant to this Section, (i) OWNER shall notify the City at least sixty (60) days prior to the transfer of the name of the Development Transferee, together with the corresponding entitlements being transferred to such Development Transferee; (ii) submit to the CITY for review the agreement between OWNER and Development Transferee pertaining to such transfer shall provide that the Development Transferee shall be liable for the performance of those obligations of OWNER under this Agreement which relate to the Transferred Property, if any, or shall confirm that the OWNER and all Development Transferees shall remain jointly liable for the design and construction of public and private improvements required by the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement; and (iii) submit to the CITY such further information as the CITY may reasonably need to complete its review and consent to the transfer. 2.5.2. Right to Transfer or Assign to End User. OWNER and any Merchant Builder, shall, without the consent of the CITY or any other party, have the right from time to time and on such number of occasions as it chooses, to sell, assign or otherwise transfer individual lots on final maps approved on the Property or any portion thereof, to any retail purchaser intending to occupy the unit as his or her principal residence ("End User") at any time during the Term of this Agreement. Absent an express written assumption of the obligations or rights hereunder as reasonably approved by the CITY, upon the sale, assignment, or other transfer to an End User of one or more individual lots, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to such lots without the execution or recordation of any further documentation. For purposes of documentation only, the transferor/assignor shall provide CITY with written notice of the name of the End User, 12 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 that assumed rights or obligations hereunder, together with a description of the assumed rights and obligations. 2.5.3. Right to Assign to Merchant Builder. OWNER shall, without the consent of the CITY or any other party, have the right from time to time and on such number of occasions as it chooses to sell, assign or otherwise transfer its interest in a portion of the Property together with some or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement with respect to the portion of the Property which is subject to transfer (the "Transferred Property"), to any Merchant Builder at any time during the Term of this Agreement. Any transfer or assignment must be pursuant to a sale, assignment or other transfer of an interest of such OWNER in a portion of the Property and shall be subject to the following criteria and conditions: (i) the transferor/assignor shall notify the CITY at least twenty (20) days prior to the transfer of the name of the Merchant Builder, together with the corresponding rights and obligations, if any, being transferred to such Merchant Builder; (ii) all Off -Site and On -Site Improvements required for the issuance of building permits for the property being conveyed to the Merchant Builder, other than specific tract improvements, pursuant to the Development Approvals, shall have been completed (or shall be expressly assumed in writing by such Merchant Builder and such assumption is approved in writing by the CITY, pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 2.5.1); and (iii) the agreement between the transferor/assignor and Merchant Builder pertaining to such transfer shall provide, and OWNER shall give CITY notice of such provision, which obligations of OWNER under this Agreement the Merchant Builder shall be liable to perform, and acknowledging those obligations OWNER retains. 2.5.4. Rights and Duties of Successors and Assigns. Any, each and all of the lawful successors and assigns of OWNER, except for End Users, shall have all of the same rights, benefits, duties and obligations of OWNER under this Agreement. All entities holding title to a portion of the Property, except for End Users, shall be jointly liable for the design and construction of the Public Improvements for that portion of the Property as set forth in this Agreement, except as maybe approved by Section 2.5.1 of this Agreement or as may be modified in an Operating Memorandum pursuant to Section 2.6.4. 3. Development and Control of Development. 3.1. Project. While this Agreement is in effect, OWNER shall have the vested right to implement the Development authorized by the Development Plan Approval(s) for the Development and the CITY shall have the right to control the Development in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement . Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, the Existing Regulations shall control the Future Development Approvals and all On-site Improvements and Off - site Improvements and appurtenances in connection therewith to the extent not specifically controlled by the Development Plan Approval(s) and this Agreement. 3.2. Timing of Development. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement or in the Development Plan, regardless of any future enactment, by initiative, or otherwise, OWNER shall have the discretion to develop the Development in one phase or in multiple phases at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective 13 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 business judgment and as the same is in accordance with the Development Plan. Specifically, the CITY agrees that OWNER shall be entitled to apply for and receive permits, maps, occupancy certificates and other entitlements to develop and use the Property at any time, provided that such application is made in accordance with this Agreement and the Existing Regulations. The parties hereto expressly reject the holding of Pardee Construction Company v. City of Camarillo, 37 Ca1.3d 465 (1984), as regards any authority regulating the phasing of the Development and authorize the phasing of the construction on the Property to be consistent with the Development Plan. 3.3. Restrictions on Timing of Development. OWNER responsibility for the construction of the Off -Site Improvements and the On -Site Improvements contemplated by the Development Plan is more particularly described below and set forth in Attachments 2 and 3 attached hereto. Such On -Site Improvements and Off -Site Improvements required by the Development Plan shall be constructed in the following five (5) phases: (i) North Phase; (ii) Central Phase; (iii) South Phase; (iv) Nature Center Phase; and (v) Western Bypass Bridge Phase. On -Site Improvements and Off -Site Improvements within the North Phase of the Development shall be the first On -Site Improvements and Off -Site Improvements constructed by OWNER. Development of the Property generally shall be constructed sequentially from north to south. Any modifications to such general sequence of Development of the Property shall be established pursuant to one or more Operating Memoranda pursuant to Section 3.9.5 of this Agreement. 3.4. Entitlements. Permits and Approvals - Cooperation. 3.4.1. Processing. CITY agrees that it shall accept and expeditiously process, pursuant to CITY's regular procedures, OWNER's applications for amendments to this Agreement, amendments to the Development Plan Approval(s) and the Future Development Approvals. 3.4.2. Further Mitigation. In connection with the completion of the Project, OWNER shall be responsible for the satisfaction of any mitigation measures required by the Specific Plan EIR and the Development Plan Approvals. In the event that OWNER files an application for a Future Development Approval, CITY will review that application in accordance with the Existing Regulations and CEQA (if and only to the extent required by CEQA). 3.4.3. Other Permits. The CITY further agrees to reasonably cooperate with OWNER, at no cost to the CITY, in securing any County, State and Federal permits or authorizations which may be required in connection with development contemplated by the Development Plan. This cooperation shall not entail any economic contribution by the CITY. 14 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 3.4.4. Litigation. The CITY agrees to reasonably cooperate with OWNER in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Agreement in full force and effect. If any legal action is instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the Development Plan Approval(s) or Future Development Approvals, the parties agree to cooperate in the defense of the action. CITY shall defend its interests under this Agreement using attorneys of its own sole selection and OWNER agrees that OWNER shall be responsible for all of CITY's costs, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, costs, expert witnesses, travel, exhibits, displays and the like. Within thirty (30) days of the filing of such litigation OWNER shall deposit with the CITY the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) as security for the reimbursement of CITY's legal fees. OWNER shall reimburse CITY its costs within thirty (30) calendar days' of receipt of any invoice(s) requesting payment for such costs. OWNER shall replenish the deposit should CITY draw upon it within thirty (30) days of written notice from the CITY supported by detailed backup documentation showing how such deposit has been utilized. 3.4.5. Acquisition of Off --Site Property for Public improvements. (i} To the extent the OWNER or a Development Transferee does not have sufficient title or interest in the real property to be improved to permit an Off -Site Improvement to be made, the OWNER or Development Transferee shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required property in a timeframe calculated to allow for the orderly development of the Project. If the OWNER or Development Transferee is unable to acquire the required property, the CITY shall consider in good faith the acquisition of the required property in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 66462.5. Both parties acknowledge and agree that the acquisition of real property in accordance with the California Eminent Domain law requires more time than the suggested timcframcs of Section 66462.5 allow and, therefore, the parties hereby waive these time constraints. The parties further acknowledge and agree that that the City cannot exercise its power of eminent domain unless and until a Resolution of Necessity has been duly adopted by the City Council pursuant to law. This Agreement is neither a commitment nor an announcement of an intent by the City to acquire any or all of the property required for Off Site Improvements. (ii) OWNER and CITY shall develop: (1) a list of rights of way that will be needed for the Public Improvements required by the Development Plan Approvals and this Agreement; (2) the then current ownership of such rights of way; (3) the time required for possession of the rights of way for the completion of the Public Improvement; and (4) the time by which OWNER shall have completed its good faith effort to acquire the right of way. OWNER and CITY shall cooperate so as to maximize the ability to construct the Public Improvements in a timely manner. (iii) OWNER and CITY shall enter into an agreement contemplated by Government Code Section 66462.5 for each Public Improvement in substantially the form of Attachment 7. OWNER shall deposit with the CITY the actual costs reasonably estimated by the CITY for initiating such proceedings and each stage thereof. To the extent that funds from the Community Facilities District financing as 15 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 described in Section 4.5.3 are designated for and available for the acquisition of right of way, OWNER shall provide the City with written authorization pursuant to the Acquisition Agrccmentbetween the CITY and OWNER entered into as part of the Financing to use the CFD funds in this manner. (iv) Subject to the following, if the CITY is unable to acquire the required right of way property by negotiation or condemnation within the timcframc provided for in this Agreement, the CITY shall not use such failure as grounds to deny Future Development Approvals, except for building permits for the Project, to the extent that the Future Development Approval is conditioned upon completion of that Public Improvement despite the fact that the Off --Site Improvement has not been completed, subject to OWNER compliance with the terms of this Agreement, including, without limitation, Section 3.4.5. Further, the CITY's obligation to continue to issue Future Development Approvals as provided for in this Section is contingent upon: (i) the applicable OWNER or Development Transferee having made a timely submittal of the improvement plans required for the respective Off -Site Improvement to the CITY; and (ii) consistent with Government Code Section 66462.5, the OWNER or Development Transferee entering into an agreement with the CITY to reimburse the CITY for costs incurred by the CITY in acquiring the required property; and (iii) so long as OWNER or Development Transferee has deposited with CITY an amount equal to the CITY's calculation of the costs reasonably necessary to acquire the real property, and (iv) Owner or Development Transferee has entered into an Operating Memorandum with CITY for such public work subject to all legal requirements and to construct the Off -Site Improvement(s) which arc uncompleted within a time period reasonably approved by the CITY and OWNER. 3.5. Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. The Existing Regulations, as defined in Section 1.26 of this Agreement, shall govern the Development and Future Development Approvals except as otherwise specified in the Development Plan, the Development Plan Approvals, or in Section 3.6 of this Agreement. 3.6. Reserved Authority of the CITY. 3.6.1. Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, and specifically Section 3.5, the following land use regulations shall apply to the Development: (i) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature adopted by the CITY pursuant to state law for the costs related to processing applications City-wide or such fees and charges as may be agreed to by the parties for Future Development Approvals. (ii) Procedural regulations consistent with this Agreement relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matters of procedure. 16 Public Hearing Draft: 10-18-17 (iii) Changes adopted by the City Council in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, or National Electrical Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Administrative Code and Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and similar uniform codes as required by and in accordance with the authority granted to the City under State law. (iv) Regulations that are not in conflict with the Development Plan Approvals and this Agreement. (v) Regulations that are in conflict with the Development Plan Approval(s) provided OWNER has given written consent to the application of such regulations to the Development. (vi) Federal, State, County, and multi jurisdictional laws and regulations which preempt local regulations, or mandate the adoption of local regulations, and are in conflict with the Development Plan Approvals. (vii) Land use regulations adopted by the City after the Effective Date, in connection with any Future Development Approvals, necessary to protect the safety, or health, or both, of the residents or occupants of the Property, or the residents or people in the CITY, or both. 3.6.2. Future Discretion of CITY. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, this Agreement shall not prevent CITY, in acting on Future Development Approvals, from applying land use regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan Approvals and the intent of this Agreement, nor shall this Agreement prevent CITY from denying or conditionally approving any Future Development Approval on the basis of the land use regulation not in conflict with the Development Plan Approval(s) and the intent of this Agreement. 3.6.3. Modification or Suspension by Federal, State, County, or Multi - Jurisdictional Law. In the event that Federal, State, County, or multi jurisdictional laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such Federal, State, County, or multi jurisdictional laws or regulations; provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions reasonably impractical to enforce. 3.6.4. Intent. CITY acknowledges that OWNER has reasonably entered into this Agreement and will proceed with the Development of the Property on the assumption that CITY has adequately provided for the public health, safety and welfare through the Land Use Regulations. In the event that any future, unforeseen public health or safety emergency arises, CITY agrees that it shall attempt to a