HomeMy WebLinkAbout032019 PC Agenda
ACTION MINUTES
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 20, 2019 6:00 PM
Next in Order:
Resolution: 19-01
CALL TO ORDER:
Gary Youmanscalled the meeting to order at 6:00 PM
Flag Salute: Gary Watts led the audience in the Flag Salute
ROLL CALL:
Present: Guerriero, Telesio, Turley-Trejo, Watts and Youmans
Also Present: Watson, Fisk, Peters, Marroquin, West, Jones, Cooper, Moreno,
Toma, and Jacobo
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak.
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:
Approve the Action Minutes of December 19, 2018 APPROVED 3-0-2, MOTION
1.1
MADE BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
TELESIO; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS, GUERRIERO, TELESIO,
AND TURLEY-TREJO; WATTS AND YOUMANS ABSTAINED
2 Director's Hearing Summary Report RECOMMENDATION:
RECEIVE AND FILE
2.1 Receive and File
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2019 Page 2
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3 Elect 2019 Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
3.1 Appoint the Chairperson, effective January 1, 2019, to preside until December 31,
APPROVED 5-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO,
2019.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER YOUMANS TO NOMINATE
COMMISSIONER WATTS TO SERVE AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.
3.2 Appoint the Vice Chairperson, effective January 1, 2019, to hold this office until
APPROVED 5-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER
December 31, 2019.
GUERRIERO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WATTS TO NOMINATE
COMMISSIONER TURLEY-TREJO TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIRPERSON OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
3.3 Recognition of outgoing Chairperson Youmans
4 Formation of a Planning Commission Old Town Temecula Subcommittee
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Appoint two members of the Planning Commission to serve on the Old Town
APPROVED 5-0; COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO AND
Temecula Subcommittee
CHAIR WATTS VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE AS MEMBERS OF THE OLD
TOWN TEMECULA SUBCOMMITTEE
5 General Plan Consistency Review for an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019-23 Capital
Improvement Program (LR19-0261)
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed
amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019-23 Capital Improvement Program and make
a determination that the proposed amendment is in conformance with the adopted
APPROVED 5-0; MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR
City of Temecula General Plan.
TURLEY-TREJO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO; AYE VOTES
FROM COMMISSIONERS GUERRIERO, TELESIO, TURLEY-TREJO, WATTS
AND YOUMANS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
6 Planning Application Numbers PA18-0081, a Development Plan to allow a three-story
affordable multi-family project totaling sixty units with fifteen units available for special
needs occupants (twelve units for autism and three units for sensory); PA18-1230, a
Minor Exception for parking to reduce the off-street parking requirement from 113 to 102
spaces; PA18-0497, a Tentative Parcel Map to create one lot from three; and PA18-0692,
a Certificate of Historical Appropriateness for the location of the former railroad turntable.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA requirements has been
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2019 Page 3
prepared for the project. The project is generally located approximately 130 feet north of
the Main Street and Pujol Street intersection, on the east side of Pujol Street, Eric Jones
APPROVED 5-0; MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR TURLEY-TREJO, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS
GUERRIERO, TELESIO, TURLEY-TREJO, WATTS AND YOUMANS
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
VINE CREEK RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY
2.27 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PUJOL STREET
APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET NORTH OF THE MAIN STREET AND PUJOL
STREET INTERSECTION ON THE EAST SIDE OF PUJOL STREET (APN NOS.
922-053-021, 922-053-047, 922-053-048)
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA18-0497, A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CREATE ONE LOT FROM THREE LOTS
LOCATED APPROXIMATLY 130 FEET NORTH OF THE MAIN STREET AND
PUJOL STREET INTERSECTION ON THE EAST SIDE OF PUJOL STREET
(APN NOS. 922-053-021, 922-053-047, 922-053-048)
6.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA18-1230, A
MINOR EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED
PARKING FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION PA18-0081 LOCATED
APPROXIMATLY 130 FEET NORTH OF THE MAIN STREET AND PUJOL
STREET INTERSECTION ON THE EAST SIDE OF PUJOL STREET (APN NOS.
922-053-021, 922-053-047, 922-053-048)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2019 Page 4
6.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA18-0692, A
CERTIFICATE OF HISTORICAL APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE LOCATION
OF THE FORMER RAILROAD TURNTABLE LOCATED APPROXIMATLY 130
FEET NORTH OF THE MAIN STREET AND PUJOL STREET INTERSECTION
ON THE EAST SIDE OF PUJOL STREET (APN NOS. 922-053-021, 922-053-
047, 922-053-048)
6.5 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA18-0081, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO APPROVE A THREE-STORY AFFORDABLE
MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT TOTALING SIXTY UNITS WITH FIFTEEN UNITS
AVAILABLE FOR SPECIAL NEEDS OCCUPANTS (TWELVE FOR AUTISM
AND THREE UNITS FOR SENSORY) LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET
NORTH OF THE MAIN STREET AND PUJOL STREET INTERSECTION ON
THE EAST SIDE OF PUJOL STREET (APN NOS. 922-053-021, 922-053-047,
922-053-048)
Rebecca Farnbach, representing Temecula Valley Historical Society, addressed the
Planning Commission
7 Planning Application Nos. PA18-
facade modifications including paint,
material and design element changes, an enclosed outdoor recreation area, additional
outdoor seating with fire pit, and landscape upgrades; and PA18-1478, a Conditional Use
Permit to upgrade a liquor license from a Type 41 ABC License (On-Sale Beer and Wine)
to a Type 75 ABC License (On Sale General Brewpub) and for live indoor entertainment.
APPROVED AS
The project is located at 29375 Rancho California Road, Scott Cooper
AMENDED 5-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER YOUMANS, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS
GUERRIERO, TELESIO, TURLEY-TREJO, WATTS AND YOUMANS
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA18-1478, A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2019 Page 5
TYPE 41 ABC LICENSE (ON-SALE BEER AND WINE) TO A TYPE 75 ABC
LICENSE (ON SALE GENERAL BREWPUB) AND FOR LIVE INDOOR
ENTERTAINMENT LOCATED AT 29375 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND
MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA18-1477, A
RESTAURANT THAT INCLUDES EXTERIOR FACADE MODIFICATIONS
INCLUDING PAINT, MATERIAL AND DESIGN ELEMENT CHANGES, AN
ENCLOSED OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA, ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR
SEATING WITH FIRE PIT, AND LANDSCAPE UPGRADES LOCATED AT
29375 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND MAKING A FINDING OF
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA)
8 Planning Application No. PA18-0131, a Development Plan for a 2.2 acre Park & Ride and
Trailhead facility with fifty standard parking spaces and six spaces for horse trailers
located in Planning Area 33B of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (APN 964-460-003),
APPROVED 5-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECOND
Scott Cooper
BY VICE-CHAIR TURLEY-TREJO; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS
GUERRIERO, TELESIO, TURLEY-TREJO, WATTS AND YOUMANS
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA18-0131, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 2.2 ACRE PARK & RIDE AND TRAILHEAD
FACILITY WITH FIFTY STANDARD PARKING SPACES AND SIX SPACES
FOR HORSE TRAILERS LOCATED IN PLANNING AREA 33B OF THE
RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (APN 964-460-003), AND MAKING A
FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Tim Plewe, on behalf of Michael Cachat, addressed the Planning Commission.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2019 Page 6
REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S)
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m., to the next regular meeting:
Planning Commission, Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main
Street, Temecula, California.
___________________________ ____________________________
Gary Watts, Chairperson Luke Watson
Planning Commission Director of Community Development
STAFF REPORT PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING:
March 20, 2019
TO:
Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning
Commission
FROM:
Luke Watson, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY:
Brandon Rabidou, Case Planner
PROJECT
Planning Application Number PA18-1218, a Modification to a
SUMMARY:
Development Plan to modify an existing building to add
approximately 500 square feet, alter the exterior elevations, and
update the site for ADA access at 28636 Old Town Front Street
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution approving the project subject to Conditions of
Approval
CEQA:
Categorically Exempt
Section 15332, Class 32
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant:
Richard Leigh
General Plan
Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)
Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Downtown Core (DTC)
Existing Conditions/
Land Use:
Site: Retail/Office
North: Retail (under construction)
South: Retail
East: Retail/Vacant Lots
West: Retail
Existing/Proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required
Lot Area:
0.88 acres 0.08 acres
1
Parking Required/Provided:
38 parking spaces Zero parking spaces required
provided
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Located in Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ)? Yes No
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
On September 4, 2018, Richard Leigh submitted Planning Application No. PA18-1218 for the
existing Rancon (see the attached site plan map). The
proposed project includes significant modifications that include approximately 500 square feet of
new building area, façade modifications, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements,
updated trash enclosures, and restroom improvements.
In 2018, the buildings were purchased from the Thesing family (Michael and Rosa). After
evaluating the existing buildings, the new owners expressed a desire to reinvigorate the building
and update the facades in order to provide more marketable suites. Additionally, the new owners
desire to address some differed maintenance while updating the buildings.
The existing building is made up of three sections which include the Rancon section, Champion
similar paint scheme, various facades, and variations of Spanish style architecture. The applicant
proposes to enhance the three different facades while also updating the styles to provide more
visual interest.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the
applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
ANALYSIS
The proposed site plan includes various changes designed to enhance the marketability, safety,
and code compliance of the building. On the Rancon section of the building, the applicant is
looking to consolidate restrooms to enhance the lease areas of the existing building. The new
restrooms would be required to meet current ADA standards. An existing atrium located on the
first floor of the Rancon portion of the building will be enclosed to add approximately 500 square
feet of leasable space. A patio expansion is also proposed for the north side of the Rancon area.
The existing walkways located on Old Town Front Street will be repurposed as patios. In order to
accommodate these new patios, site access will be relocated to the rear of the building and
additional ADA upgrades will be required.
The Rancon portion of the building will also include substantial exterior changes. The applicant is
requesting to change the style of the building to Monterey style architecture. Changes include
smaller columns (in line with the Monterey style) that are more appropriate for the style, a new
paint scheme, and updated patio railing. The proposed colors (Downing Slate and Colonial Gray)
come from the Old Town Specific Plan. Windows and doors for the proposed renovation will
maintain their current style while being updating with new paint (Tricorn Black).
The applicant is requesting to alter the Champion portion of the building to a Mission Revival style
theme. Proposed changes include a new brick façade as well as paint updates. This new color
(Downing Sand) and material (El Dorado Stone Romabrick- Bracciano) will further enhance the
streetscape as it would break up the mass of the building. Staff is supportive of this change as
2
this type of visual variety is encouraged on new projects (Front Street Plaza uses this technique)
in order to break up monotonous blocks.
existing patio walls, and repaint the entire building. For the new patio cover, the existing roof tile
will be matched along the edge of the patio cover in order to provide an appearance of unified
roofline. The patio cover will also include wood columns with a bracket that are commonplace in
Spanish Colonial designs. While evaluating the project, staff identified a proposed color, Pure
White, which is brighter than the approved Old Town Specific Plan color palette. With some
additional research staff determined that many historic Spanish buildings use brighter white
finishes, including the Palomar Hotel. Section V-39 of the Old Town Specific Plan allows for other
colors that vary from the approved color palette on a case by case basis.
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the U-T San Diego on March 7, 2019 and mailed to
the property owners within the required 600-foot radius.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been
deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32).
The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and applicable
zoning designations as retail is a permitted use within the Downtown Core (DTC) district of the
Old Town Specific Plan and the Specific Plan Implementation General Plan Designation that
mirrors the zoning regulations. The site for the proposed project is 0.88 acres, well under the 5-
acre threshold required for an in-fill project. The site was previously developed as a retail center
and consequently has no habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Approval of the
project should not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality
as hotel uses were anticipated in the Old Town Specific Plan. Finally, the site is currently served
by all necessary utilities and public services.
FINDINGS
Modifications Development Plan (Section 17.05.030.E)
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable
requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City.
The proposed modification will feature a façade renovation of the existing structure. The
architectural design of this building will meet the intent of the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP).
The new façade will incorporate a Monterey Style and Spanish architecture that is allowed by the
OTSP. The proposed project will also meet Economic Development Policy 6.4 of the General
attractiveness, accessibility, and economic vital
3
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
The project has been reviewed to ensure compliance with the Development, Building, and Fire
Codes. These codes contain provisions that are designed to ensure for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial Map
2. Site Plan Map
3. Plan Reductions
4. Resolution
5. Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
6. Notice of Public Hearing
4
AERIAL MAP
SITE PLAN MAP
PLAN REDUCTIONS
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA18-1218, A MODIFICATION TO A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO MODIFY AN EXISTING
BUILDING TO ADD APPROXIMATELY 500 SQUARE FEET,
ALTER THE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, AND UPDATE THE
SITE FOR ADA ACCESS AT 28636 OLD TOWN FRONT
STREET, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) (APN 922-034-036)
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On March 20, 2019, Richard Leigh filed Planning Application No. PA18-
1218, a Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Code.
B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application
and environmental review on March 20, 2019, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity
to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application
No. PA18-1218 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the
Application hereby finds, determines and declares that:
Modifications, Development Code Section (17.05.030.E)
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula
and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City;
The proposed modification will feature a façade renovation of the existing
structure. The architectural design of this building will meet the intent of the Old
Town Specific Plan (OTSP). The new façade will incorporate a Monterey Style
and Spanish architecture that is allowed by the OTSP. The proposed project will
also meet Economic Development Policy 6.4 of the General Plan, which states,
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general welfare.
The project has been reviewed to ensure compliance with the Development,
Building, and Fire Codes. These codes contain provisions that are designed to
ensure for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes
the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval
of the Modification Application:
A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed
project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review
(Section 15332, Class 32);
1. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan
designation and applicable zoning designations as retail is permitted use
within the Downtown Core (DTC) district of the Old Town Specific Plan and
the Specific Plan Implementation General Plan Designation that mirrors the
zoning regulations. The site for the proposed project is 0.88 acres, well
under the 5-acre threshold required for an in-fill project. The site was
previously developed as a retail center and consequently has no habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species. Approval of the project should not
result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water
quality as hotel uses were anticipated in the Old Town Specific Plan. Finally,
the site is currently served by all necessary utilities and public services.
Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
approves Planning Application No. PA18-1218, subject to the Conditions of Approval set
forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED
Section 5. by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 20th day of March 2019.
Gary Watts, Chairman
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. 19- was duly and regularly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on
the 20th day of March 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Luke Watson
Secretary
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula
PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
CASE NO: APPLICANT:
PA18-1218 Richard Leigh
PROPOSAL:
A Modification to a Development Plan to modify an existing building to add
approximately 500 square feet, alter the exterior elevations, and update the site
for ADA access at 28636 Old Town Front Street
ENVIRONMENTAL:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of
Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section 15332, Class 32)
CASE PLANNER:
Brandon Rabidou, (951)-506-5142
PLACE OF HEARING:
41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590,City of Temecula, Council Chambers
DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING:
March 20, 2019 6:00 p.m.
Thecomplete agenda packet (including any supplemental materials) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at
the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting.
TemeculaCA.gov and will be available for public review at
the respective meeting. Any writing distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting
of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street,
Temecula), 8:00 a.m. TemeculaCA.gov and
will be available for public review at the meeting.
Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within time required by, and controlled by,
Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review
of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Planning Commission shall be limited to those issues raised at
the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice.
Questions?
Please call the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400.
R:\\1AGENDA MANAGER\\PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS\\2019\\032019\\PA18-1218 ROSA'S CANTINA (BR)\\PA18-1218 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING.DOCX
STAFF REPORT PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING:
March 20, 2019
TO:
Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning
Commission
FROM:
Luke Watson, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY:
Eric Jones, Case Planner
PROJECT
Planning Application Number PA18-1610, a Conditional Use Permit
SUMMARY:
to allow an existing restaurant to obtain a Type 47 (On-Sale General
Eating Place) License from ABC for a project located at 28636 Old
Town Front Street (APN: 922-034-036).
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution approving the project subject to Conditions of
Approval
CEQA:
Categorically Exempt
Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant:
Ricky Leigh
General Plan
Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)
Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Specific Plan 5 (Old Town)
Existing Conditions/
Land Use:
Site: Existing Commercial Building / Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)
North: Existing Commercial Building / Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)
South: Main Street, Existing Commercial Building / Specific Plan
Implementation (SPI)
East: Vacant Lot, Existing Commercial Building / Specific Plan
Implementation (SPI)
West: Old Town Front Street, Existing Commercial Building / Specific Plan
Implementation (SPI)
Existing/Proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required
Lot Area:
0.88 Acres 0.08 Acres
1
Total Floor Area/Ratio:
N/A N/A
Landscape Area/Coverage:
N/A N/A
Parking Required/Provided:
N/A N/A
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Located in Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ)? Yes No
AHOZ Gain/Loss: N/A
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
On November 30, 2018, Ricky
Application PA18-1610. The application is a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for a
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 47 License (On-Sale General
Eating Place).
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the
applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
ANALYSIS
The project site is an existing restaurant Cantina) located within the Downtown Core
District of the Old Town Specific Plan. The restaurant totals approximately 3,538 square feet.
Proposed hours of operations are Monday through Thursday 10 A.M. 10:00 P.M. and Friday
through Sunday 9 A.M. 2:00 A.M. Live entertainment is not proposed as part of the
application.
The restaurant currently serves beer and wine via an ABC Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine
Eating Place) License. The Conditional Use Permit will allow the restaurant to obtain a Type 47
(OnSale General Eating Place) License. This license will allow for beer, wine, and distilled
spirits to be served on the premises. According to the California Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control (ABC), the City does not need to process findings of Public Convenience or
Necessity because the use is a restaurant. These findings will be made by ABC. The project
has been conditioned to ensure the kitchen will provide full menu service when alcohol is being
served.
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the U-T San Diego on March 7, 2019 and mailed
to the property owners within the required 600-foot radius.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been
deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review.
The Conditional Use Permit will allow an existing restaurant within Old Town to obtain an ABC
Type 47 (On-Sale General Eating Place) License. The restaurant is located within an existing
structure. All access to public utilities are available to the site. The proposed use, with issuance
2
of a Conditional Use Permit, is in conformance with all zoning requirements contained in the
Development Code and Old Town Specific Plan. As a result, the conditional use represents a
negligible addition to the restaurant use.
FINDINGS
Conditional Use Permit (Development Code Section 17.04.010.E)
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
The business will operate as a full-service restaurant with the primary purpose of offering a full
menu of food within an existing building. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the
City of Temecula General Plan, which identifies that the site is located in the Specific Plan
Implementation (SPI) zoning district. The Development Code states that restaurants that serve
distilled spirits are conditionally permitted uses. The sale of distilled spirits under a Type 47 (On-
Sale General for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) License would serve as an incidental use to
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
As conditioned, the proposed conditional use for a Type 47 (On-Sale General - Eating Place)
License is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings
and structures because the surrounding area includes similar uses such as restaurants that
serve distilled spirits. The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses,
buildings or structures because the surrounding buildings are designed for restaurant uses and
the site currently contains a restaurant.
The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other
development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning
Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
The existing building is being utilized for restaurants and is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping,
and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the
Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community.
The project meets all the requirements of the Development Code, Fire Code and the Building
Code, which provided safeguards for the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to be detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community.
That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use
permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Director of
Community Development, Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal.
3
The decision to conditionally approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit has been
based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning
Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Plan Reductions
3. Resolution
4. Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
5. Statement of Operations
6. Notice of Public Hearing
4
VICINITY MAP
PLAN REDUCTIONS
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA18-1610, A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING RESTAURANT TO
OBTAIN A TYPE 47 (ON-SALE GENERAL EATING
PLACE) LICENSE FROM ABC AND MAKING A FINDING
OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR A
PROJECT LOCATED AT 28636 OLD TOWN FRONT
STREET (APN 922-034-036)
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On , filed
Planning Application No. PA18-1610, a Conditional Use Permit Application in a manner
in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on March 20, 2019, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application
No. PA18-1610 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the
Application hereby finds, determines and declares that:
Conditional Use Permit, Development Code Section 17.04.010.E
A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code.
The business will operate as a full-service restaurant with the primary purpose of
offering a full menu of food within an existing building. The proposed conditional
use is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, which identifies that the
site is located in the Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) zoning district. The
Development Code states that restaurants that serve distilled spirits are
conditionally permitted uses. The sale of distilled spirits under a Type 47 (On-
Sale General for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) License would serve as an
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
As conditioned, the proposed conditional use for a Type 47 (On-Sale General -
Eating Place) License is compatible with the nature, condition and development
of adjacent uses, buildings and structures because the surrounding area includes
similar uses such as restaurants that serve distilled spirits. The proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because the surrounding buildings are designed for restaurant uses and the site
currently contains a restaurant.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and
required by the planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other
uses in the neighborhood.
The existing building is being utilized for a restaurant and is adequate in size and
shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities,
buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the
Development Code and required by the Planning Commission in order to
integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community.
The project meets all the requirements of the Development Code, Fire Code and
the Building Code, which provided safeguards for the health, safety and general
welfare of the community. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to be
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the
record as a whole before the Director of Community Development, Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal.
The decision to conditionally approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit
has been based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before
the Planning Commission.
Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes
the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval
of the Conditional Use Permit Application:
A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed
project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review
(Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities);
The Conditional Use Permit will allow an existing restaurant within Old Town to
obtain an ABC Type 47 (On-Sale General Eating Place) License. The
restaurant is located within an existing structure. All access to public utilities are
available to the site. The proposed use, with issuance of a Conditional Use
Permit, is in conformance with all zoning requirements contained in the
Development Code and Old Town Specific Plan. As a result, the conditional use
represents a negligible addition to the restaurant use.
Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
approves Planning Application No. PA18-1610, a Conditional Use Permit to allow an
existing restaurant, located at 28636 Old Town Front Street, to obtain a Type 47 (On-
Sale General Eating Place) License from ABC, subject to the Conditions of Approval
set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED
by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 20th day of March, 2019.
Gary Watts, Chairman
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. 19- was duly and regularly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on
the 20th day of March, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Luke Watson
Secretary
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.:
PA18-1610
Project Description:
Rosa's Cantina Conditional Use Permit: a Conditional Use Permit to allow
an existing restaurant to obtain a Type 47 (On-Sale General Eating Place)
License from ABC for a project located at 28636 Old town Front Street.
922-034-036
Assessor's Parcel No.:
N/A (No New Square Footage or Grading)
MSHCP Category:
N/A (No New Square Footage)
DIF Category:
TUMF Category:
N/A (No New Square Footage)
Quimby Category:
N/A (Non-Residential Project)
N/A (Not Located within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan)
New Street In-lieu of Fee:
Approval Date:
March 20, 2019
March 20, 2021
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DIVISION
Within 48 Hours of the Approval
1. Filing Notice of Exemption. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a
cashiers check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty
Dollars ($50.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of
Regulations Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not
delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project
granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section
711.4(c)).
General Requirements
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 two years of the approval date; otherwise, it
shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued
to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use
of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit.
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. 5 (Old Town).
6. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially
conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division.
7. 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.
8. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or
revisions to the approval of this project.
9. Bona Fide Eating Place. Type 47 (On Sale General) licensees must operate and maintain
their licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. The on-site sales and consumption of
alcohol are an incidental and ancillary use to the restaurant use. A licensee is presumed to be
operating as a bona fide eating place if the quarterly gross sales of food prepared and sold to
guests on the premises exceeds the gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the same period.
The licensee shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the gross sales of
food and the gross sale of alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. The records shall be
kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the City, or its
designee, upon demand. A full menu shall be available for order during all hours that alcohol is
served. The premises where the licensee operates must possess a full restaurant kitchen
facility containing conveniences for cooking such as a working refrigerator and cooking
devices. The premises must offer sit down meal service and food menus. "Meals" means the
usual assortment of food commonly ordered at various hours of the day. The service of only
sandwiches or salads is not considered compliance with the requirement to provide meals.
The premises must comply with all regulations of the health department.
10. Food Service. The bona fide public eating place shall serve a full menu at all hours that
alcohol is served.
11. Statement of Operations. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations
dated November 30, 2018, on file with the Planning Division, unless a conflict exists between
the Statement of Operations and these Conditions of Approval, in which case the Conditions
of Approval control.
12. Revocation of CUP. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section
Development Code.
13. City Review and Modification of CUP. The City, its Director of Community Development,
Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review
and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on
changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the
modification of business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of nature of the business, and the
expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review
any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the
City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission and City Council is in
addition to, and not in-lieu of, the right of the City, its Director of Community Development,
Planning Commission, and City Council to review, revoke or modify any Conditional Use
Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions
imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or
other code violation thereon.
14. Posting of Local Transportation Providers
transportation service providers and corresponding telephone numbers shall be posted at a
conspicuous location within the building. Information to assist in the compilation of this sign
may be obtained through the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce at (951) 676-5090.
15. Termination of Alcohol Sales. The last call indicating the termination of the sale of alcohol
shall be no less than one half (1/2) hour prior to closing for all nights of operation.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
16. Type 47 License. The applicant has applied for a Type 47 On-Sale General Eating Place
(Restaurant) which authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on
the licensed premises and authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the
licensed premises. Applicant must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a bona
fide eating place. Minors are allowed on the premises.
17. Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Prohibited. The applicant shall comply with
Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.14.010, Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Public
Prohibited.
18. Ensure No Alcohol Sold or Consumed by Person Under the Age of 21. The applicant shall
ensure that no alcohol is sold to or consumed by any person under the age of 21.
19. Identification Verification. Identification will be verified utilizing one of the following: (a) valid
of the 50 States or
Territories of the United States; (e) valid U.S. Passport; (f) valid government issued
identification card issued by a Federal, State, County or City agency.
20. Acceptable Forms of Identification. As noted above, only a valid government issued
identification card issued by a Federal, State, County or City agency is acceptable, providing it
complies with Section 25660 of the Business and Profession Code (B&P), which includes the
following requirements: (a) name of person; (b) date of birth; (c) physical description; (d)
photograph; (e) currently valid (not expired). It is the responsibility of the business owner and
any person who serves or sells alcohol to be aware of current laws and regulations pertaining
to alcoholic beverages.
21. Section 303 (a) (PC). On-sale licensees may not: (a) employ hosts, hostesses, or
entertainers who solicit others to buy them drinks, alcoholic or non-alcoholic; (b) pay or agree
to pay such an employee a percentage of the receipts from the sales of drinks solicited; (c)
permit any person whether an employee or not, to loiter for the purpose of soliciting an
alcoholic drink.
22. Undue Number of Calls for Service. Licensees may not permit their licensed premises to be
a problem for the local law enforcement agency by needing an undue number of calls for
service. The licensed premise includes the parking lot (Section 24200 (a)(B&P).
23. Maintain Premises as a Bona Fide Eating Place. Type 41, 47 and 49 licensees must operate
and maintain their licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. They must make actual
and substantial sale of meals, during the normal meal hours that they are open, at least five
days a week. Normal meal hours are: breakfast 6:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m., lunch 11:00 a.m.
2:00 p.m., and dinner 6:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. Premises that are not open five days a week
must serve meals on the days they are open. The premises must be equipped and
maintained in good faith. This means the premises must possess working refrigeration and
cooking devices, pots, pans, utensils, table service, condiment dispensers, menus, posters,
signs, and enough goods to make substantial meals. The premises must comply with all
regulations of the local health department. Incidental, sporadic or infrequent sales of meals
assortment of food commonly ordered at various hours of the day. The service of only
sandwiches or salads is not considered compliance. However, certain specialty entrees,
such as pizza, fish or ribs, and an assortment of other foods, such as soups, salads or
desserts, may be considered a meal. The Department will presume that a licensee is
operating as a bona fide eating place if the gross sales of food prepared and sold to guests on
processing preliminary to the final serving of food. (Note: Some licensees have a
Sections 23038 and 23787 B&P).
24. No Alcohol Sales between 2:00 am and 6:00 am. Licensees may not sell, give, or deliver
alcohol (by the drink or by the package) between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the same day.
No person may knowingly purchase alcohol between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Section 25631
B&P Code). Licensees may not permit patrons or employees to consume alcohol between
2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the same day (even if someone bought the drinks before 2:00 a.m.
Section 25632 B&P). Some ABC licenses have special conditions (restrictions) as to hours of
25. Inspections
enforcement officers (peace officers) with powers of arrest. Whether in plainclothes or
uniform, peace officers have the legal right to visit and inspect any licensed premises at any
time during business hours without a search warrant or probable cause. This includes
inspecting the bar and back bar, store room, office, closed or locked cabinets, safes, kitchen,
or any other area within the licensed premises. It is legal and reasonable for licensees to
exclude the public from some areas of the premises. However, licensees cannot and must
not deny entry to, resist, delay, obstruct, or assault a peace officer (Sections 25616, 25753,
and 25755 B&P; 148 and 241 (b) PC).
26. Disorderly House. Licensees may not permit their licensed premises to become a disorderly
house. A disorderly house is a licensed outlet (on or off sale) that: (a) disturbs neighbors
with noise, loud music, loitering, littering, vandalism, urination or defecation, graffiti, etc; and/or
(b) has many ongoing crimes inside such as drunks, fights, assaults, prostitution, narcotics,
etc. The licensed premise includes the parking lot (Section 25601 B&P; 316 PC).
27. Employee Training for Identification Checks. The applicant shall ensure all employees
involved with the sales, service and identification checks for the purpose of any sales of
alcoholic beverages is trained in the proper procedures and identification checks. The
Temecula Police Department provides free training for all employers and employees involved
in the service and sales of alcoholic beverages. It is the responsibility of the applicant to set
up a training session for all new employees. Contact the Crime Prevention and Plans Unit at
(951) 506-5132 to set up a training date. Training must be completed prior to the grand
opening of this business and periodic updated training when new employees/ management
are hired.
28. Questions Regarding Conditions. Any questions regarding these conditions should be
directed to Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention and Plans Unit at (951) 695-2773.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula
PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
CASE NO: APPLICANT:
PA18-1610 Ricky Leigh
PROPOSAL:
A Conditional Use Permit to allow an existing restaurant to obtain a Type 47
(On-Sale General Eating Place) License from ABC. The project is located at
28636 Old Town Front Street.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of
Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section 15301, Class 1,
Existing Facilities)
CASE PLANNER:
Eric Jones, (951) 506-5115
PLACE OF HEARING:
41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590,City of Temecula, Council Chambers
DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING:
March 20, 2019 6:00 p.m.
Thecomplete agenda packet (including any supplemental materials) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at
the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting.
TemeculaCA.gov and will be available for public review at
the respective meeting. Any writing distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting
of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street,
Temecula), 8:00 a.m. TemeculaCA.gov and
will be available for public review at the meeting.
Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within time required by, and controlled by,
Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review
of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Planning Commission shall be limited to those issues raised at
the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice.
Questions?
Please call the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400.
R:\\1AGENDA MANAGER\\Planning Commission Items\\2019\\032019\\PA18-1610 CUP (EJ)\\Planning Commission NOPH.docx
STAFF REPORT PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING:
March 20, 2019
TO
: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning
Commission
FROM
: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY:
Dale West, Associate Planner II
APPLICANT NAME
: City of Temecula
PROJECT SUMMARY
: Long Range Planning Application Number LR18-0861, an
amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code amending Titles 1, 8,
10, 15, 16, and 17 to add definitions, make minor policy clarifications
and make minor typographical corrections.
CEQA:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the proposed project has been deemed to be exempt from further
environmental review as there is no possibility that the proposed
ordinance would have a significant impact on the environment
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The
proposed Municipal Code amendments are minor policy changes,
clarifications, and typographical corrections, which do not result in a
significant increase in the intensity or density of any land use above
what is currently allowed. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared
and will be filed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance
n Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula
amending Titles 1, 8, 10, 15, 16, and 17 of the Temecula Municipal
Code to add definitions, make minor policy clarifications and make
minor typographical edits and finding that this ordinance is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines
BACKGROUND
The City of Temecula City Council adopted the Municipal Code in January 1990. Since its adoption,
the City Council has periodically made amendments to various sections of the Code to improve its
clarity and to make necessary corrections. The proposed amendments to the Temecula Municipal
Code include amendments to Titles 1, 8, 10, 15, 16, and 17. The proposed amendments are not
substantial policy changes and do not result in a significant increase in the intensity or density of any
land use above what is currently allowed in accordance with the Municipal Code. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65800, the Planning Commission is required to review and make
1
recommendations to the City Council regarding zoning regulations and amendments to Title 17
(Development Code) of the Temecula Municipal Code. As such, this staff report only addresses
proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. The remaining proposed
amendments to Titles 1, 8, 10, 15 and 16 will be considered by the City Council. The proposed
amendments to the other titles of the Temecula Municipal Code are included in the attached draft
Ordinance, but are not reflected in this staff report.
Listed briefly below are the proposed changes to Title 17 of the Municipal Code, each of which is
discussed in greater detail below.
Њ͵
Time extension for conditional use permits. Section 17.04.010(H) - Corrects text that
Ћ͵
Temporary use permits for major temporary uses. Section 17.04.020(B)(1) - Adds
"temporary construction offices" as a major temporary use that may be permitted in all zones
except for Open Space and Conservation, subject to issuance of a temporary use permit.
Also related to number 16 in this list.
Ќ͵
Findings for temporary use permits.. Section 17.04.020(D)(3) - Corrects text by adding the
word "is" and making the sentence grammatically correct.
Ѝ͵
Time extensions for modifications to an approved development plan. Section 17.05.030(F) -
Clarifies time extensions for modifications to approved development plans.
Ў͵
Revocations for modifications to an approved development plan. Section 17.05.030(G) -
Corrects an internal reference to indicate that the revocation of an approved development
plan will be in accordance with the procedures for revocations and modifications.
Џ͵
Accessory structures and uses in residential districts. Section 17.06.050 (D) - Amends the
notes section in the table establishing setbacks for accessory structures to clarify that only
one detached guest house is permitted on a lot and to update the name of "second dwelling
unit" to "accessory dwelling unit" to correspond with State terminology.
А͵
Fences in residential districts. Section 17.06.050(J)(1) - Clarifies that chain link fencing is
prohibited on residentially zoned property.
Б͵
Special use standards. Section 17.06.050 Clarifies that accessory dwelling units are
subject to compliance with the Building Code.
В͵
Residential performance standards. Section 17.06.070(B) - Clarifies that additions or
accessory structures "shall", not "should", be designed in a manner that is integrated with
the existing structures.
ЊЉ͵
Commercial/Office/Industrial districts use regulations. Section 17.08.030 - Corrects text that
references the commercial districts allowable uses table from "residential" to "commercial."
ЊЊ͵
Modular buildings and structures. Section 17.10.020 - Deletes the reference to temporary
facilities and construction offices under supplemental development standards because the
use was relocated to temporary use permits. Also related to number 7 in this list.
2
ЊЋ͵
Guest parking for multi-family residences. Section 17.24.040 - Amends the off-street parking
requirements for multiple-family residential uses of 13 or more uses to add or clarify the
number of required guest parking spaces.
ЊЌ͵
Lighting requirements for parking lots. Section 17.24.050(F) - Clarifies that required
illumination in parking areas includes all drive aisles and pedestrian paths of travel.
ЊЍ͵
Definitions of terms. Section 17.34.010 Amends definition for Large Family Day Care
Home, amends definition for Guest Houses, adds definition for California Room, and deletes
.
ANALYSIS
Outlined below is the explanation for the proposed amendments.
Њ͵
Conditional use permits. Time extension. Section 17.04.010(H)
The proposed ordinance corrects a text error. The section currently indicates the extension
Ћ͵
Temporary use permits. Major temporary uses. Section 17.04.020(B)(1)
The proposed ordinance establishes temporary construction offices as a major temporary
use subject to issuance of a temporary use permit in all zones except the Open Space and
Conservation Zone. Refer to item 16 in this list for the associated amendment that deletes
temporary facilities and construction offices as an accessory structure to a main permanent
building because the use is not permanent, therefore, more appropriately permitted as a
temporary use.
Ќ͵
Temporary Use Permits. Findings. Section 17.04.020(D)(3)
There is a grammatical error in subsection 3, which is one of the findings that must be made
to approve a temporary use permit. The proposed ordinance adds the word "is" to the
following sentence: The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety,
or welfare of the community.
Ѝ͵
Modifications to an approved development plan. Time extensions. Section 17.05.030(F)
The proposed ordinance establishes provisions for the Director of Community Development
to grant a time extension for a modification to an approved development plan by adding
subsection F to section 17.05.030. A one-year extension may be granted subject to
notification requirements and compliance with development code provisions. Up to five
extensions may be granted. Projects of special significance or impact may be referred to the
Planning Commission. Requests for extensions beyond the fifth approval will be considered
by the City Council.
3
Ў͵
Modifications to an approved development plan. Revocations. Section 17.05.030(G)
There are two proposed changes to this section. First, the section was formerly section F.
With the addition of the time extension subsection (refer to item 9), it has been renumbered
G. Second, the reference to the procedures for the revocation or modification of a
development plan modification has been updated to correctly reference section 17.03.080.
Џ͵
Residential districts special use standards and regulations. Accessory structures and uses.
Section 17.06.050(D).
The proposed ordinance makes two changes to the notes in Table 17.06.050A regarding
setback requirements for accessory structures. First, it amends note 4 to change the name
of "second dwelling unit" to "accessory dwelling unit" to correspond with the referenced use
name. Second, it adds note 7 clarifying that only one detached guest house shall be
permitted on any one lot with a single family dwelling.
А͵
Residential districts special use standards and regulations. Fences, Hedges, Walls. Section
17.06.050(J)(1)
This section establishes regulations for fences, hedges, and walls in residential districts, but
currently does not mention chain link fencing. When a use or a regulation is not addressed
in the municipal code, it is considered prohibited; however, for public clarification, the
proposed ordinance adds a sentence stating that chain link fencing with or without slats is
prohibited in residential districts.
Б͵
Residential districts special use standards and regulations. Accessory Dwelling Units.
Section 17.06.050(L)
The proposed ordinance adds to the list of standards, that detached accessory dwelling
units are subject to compliance with the Building Code.
В͵
Residential performance standards. Section 17.06.070(B)
The proposed ordinance clarifies that additions or accessory structures "shall", not "should",
be designed in a manner that is integrated with the existing structures and avoid the
appearance of being simply tacked on by the owner.
ЊЉ͵
Commercial/Office/Industrial districts use regulations. Section 17.08.030
The proposed ordinance corrects a text error in first sentence of the introductory paragraph
to the Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts land use table
(Table 17.08.030) to change the reference from "residential" to "commercial."
ЊЊ͵
Supplemental development standards. Modular buildings and structures. Section 17.10.020
As discussed under number 7, temporary facility and construction offices in all zones except
the open space and conservation zone, are temporary uses, therefore, it is more appropriate
to permit them under the provisions for major temporary use permits than as an accessory
structure to a permanent building. The proposed ordinance deletes the use from this section.
ЊЋ͵
Off-street parking and loading. Parking spaces required. Section 17.24.040
4
The proposed ordinance amends the guest parking requirements in Table 17.24.040 for
multiple-family residential - 13 or more units. The proposed amendment clarifies the guest
parking requirements by unit type and that a minimum of four guest spaces are required for
all multi-family residential with 13 or more units.
ЊЌ͵
Off-street parking and loading. Parking facility layout and dimensions. Lighting. Section
17.24.050(F)
The proposed ordinance adds language to clarify a minimum requirement of one footcandle
of illumination throughout the parking area includes "all drive aisles and pedestrian paths of
travel."
ЊЍ͵
Definitions of terms. Section 17.34.010.
The proposed ordinance amends definition for
Large Family Day Care Home to be consistent with State definitions, amends definition for
Guest Houses to further differentiate from an Accessory Dwelling Unit, and adds definition
for California Room.
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the San Diego Union Tribune on March 7, 2019.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Exhibit A Draft City Council Ordinance
3. Notice of Public Hearing
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-
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 AMENDING TITLES 1, 8, 10, 15, 16 AND 17
OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD
DEFINITIONS, MAKE MINOR POLICY CLARIFICATIONS
AND MAKE MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL EDITS AND
FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION
15061 (B)(3).
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. City staff identified the need to amend portions of Title 17 Zoning of the
Temecula Municipal Code to make minor revisions and clarifications to the Temecula
Municipal Code (Planning Application No. LR18-0861).
B. The Ordinance was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the proposed
amendments to Title 17 Zoning of the Temecula Municipal Code on March 20, 2019, at
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition
to this matter.
D. The Ordinance is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, and
each element thereof.
E. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
.
F. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. In accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project has been deemed to be
exempt from further environmental reviewas there is no possibility that the proposed
ordinance would have a significant impact on the environment pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The proposed Municipal Code amendments are minor
policy changes, clarifications, and typographical corrections, which do not result in a
significant increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently
allowed. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared and will be filed in accordance with
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 3. Recommendation. The City of Temecula Planning Commission
hereby recommends the City Council approve Planning Application No. LR18-0861, a
proposed Citywide Ordinance a
incorporated herein by this reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED
Section 4. by the City of Temecula
th
Planning Commission this 20 day of March 2019.
Gary Watts, Chairman
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. 19-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the
th
20 day of March 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Luke Watson
Secretary
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. 19-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING TITLES 1, 8, 10, 15, 16 AND 17 OF
THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD
DEFINITIONS, MAKE MINOR POLICY CLARIFICATIONS
AND MAKE MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL EDITS AND
FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061
(B)(3).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings.
The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. City staff identified the need to make minor revisions and clarifications to
portions of Title 1 (General Provisions), Title 8 (Health and Safety), Title 10 (Vehicles and
Traffic), Title 15 (Building and Construction), Title 16 (Subdivisions), and Title 17 (Zoning)
of the Temecula Municipal Code.
B. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments to Title
17 Zoning of the Temecula Municipal Code on March 20, 2019, 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.
C. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 19-__,
recommending that the City Council approve the Title 17 amendments.
D. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Ordinance on ___,
2019, at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or opposition
to this matter.
E. Following the public hearing, the City Council considered the entire record
of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Section 2. Further Findings
. The City Council, in approving the proposed
Ordinance, hereby makes the following additional findings as required by Section
1
1. The proposed use is allowed in the land use designation in which the use is
located, as shown on the land use map, or is described in the text of the general plan.
The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code do not
proposed any land use that is inconsistent with the Temecula General Plan. The
proposed guest parking for multi-family residential developments of 13 or more units is
consistent with establishing parking standards for the established residential land use
designations of the General Plan. All other proposed amendments are minor clarifications
and typographical edits and do not propose any land use changes contrary to the adopted
General Plan.
2. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and
guidelines of the elements of the general plan.
The proposed parking standards for multi-family residential developments are
consistent with Goal 7 of the Circulation Element of the Temecula General Plan, which is
oposed guest parking for multi-family residential
developments of 13 or more units, provides the standards needed to ensure adequate
parking is available to residents and visitors to the City by establishing the parking
standards based on the number of bedrooms per unit for multi-family development
projects. The remaining proposed amendments to the Temecula Municipal Code are
minor clarifications and typographical edits and do not result in an contrary policy
direction, or indicate an inconsistency between the Temecula Municipal Code and the
adopted General Plan.
3. The proposed use is to be established and maintained in a manner which is
consistent with the general plan and all applicable provisions contained therein.
The proposed parking standards for multi-family residential developments will
ensure adequate parking is available to residents and visitors to the City when future
multi-family development proposals are reviewed by City staff through the entitlement
process, thus maintaining the supply of adequate parking residents and visitors. The
remaining proposed amendments to the Temecula Municipal Code are minor
clarifications and typographical edits and do not result in an inconsistency between the
Temecula Municipal Code and the adopted General Plan.
Section 3. Environmental Findings.
The City Council hereby finds that this
Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(3)
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed
ordinance would have a significant impact on the environment pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The proposed Municipal Code amendments are minor
policy changes, clarifications, and typographical corrections, which do not result in a
significant increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently
2
allowed. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared and will be filed in accordance with
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4.
Subsection C of Section 1.21.050 (Procedure for serving
administrative citation.) of Chapter 1.21 (Administrative Penalties - Citations) of Title 1
(General Provisions) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows (with deletions appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in
underlined text):
C. The enforcement official shall attempt to obtain on the administrative citation
the signature of the responsible person, or in cases in which the responsible person is a
corporation or business, the signature of the person served with the administrative
citation. If a responsible person or person served refuses or fallsfails to sign the
administrative citation, the failure or refusal to sign shall not affect the validity of the
citation or of subsequent proceedings.
Section 5.
Section 8.36.20 (Definitions) andSection 8.36.030
(Prohibition of smoking in public places, places of employment and other areas) of
Chapter 8.36 (Smoking in Public Places) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Temecula
Municipal Code is hereby amended by replacing s
and adding location where smoking is prohibited to read as follows (with deletions
appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text):
a lighted pipe, a lighted
hookah pipe, a lighted cigar, a lighted cigarette, a lighted hookah, and operating electronic
cigarette, or other similar type of device, or the lighting of a pipe, hookah, cigar, cigarette
or similar type of device containing tobacco, tobacco product, nicotine, spices, or any
-
operated device, the use of which may resemble smoking, that can be used to deliver an
inhaled dose of nicotine or other substances and includes any such device, whether
manufactured, distributed, marketed, or sold as an electronic cigarette, an e-cigarette, an
electronic cigar, an electronic cigarillo, an electronic pipe, an electronic hookah, or any
other product name o
prescribed by a licensed doctor.
or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product
intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form.
aerosol or vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for
B. Unenclosed Places. Smoking is prohibited in the following unenclosed places
except in places listed in subsection C of this section, and except in such places in which
smoking is already prohibited by state or federal law in which case the state or federal
law applies:
3
1. Places of employment;
2. Service areas;
3. Dining areas;
4. Parks, playgrounds, and recr-eational areas;
5. The grounds of any public or private elementary or secondary school and
includes the possession of tobacco, nicotine, vapes, and smoking paraphernalia. This
subsection does not prohibit the possession of smoking cessation products.
56. Ticket, boarding and waiting areas of transit depots;
67. Public plazas; and
78. The sites of public events including, for example, sports events,
entertainment, artistic or speaking performances, ceremonies, pageants, and fairs,
provided however that this prohibition shall not prevent the establishment of a separate,
designated smoking area set apart from and no larger than the primary event area.
Section 6.
Section 10.16.050 (Parking for certain purposes prohibited.) of
Chapter 10.16 (Stopping, Standing, and Parking) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the
Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions appearing
in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text):
No person shall park a vehicle upon any roadway for the principal purpose of
washing, waxing, wiping, greasing or repairing such vehicle, except repairs necessitated
by an emergency.
A. Displaying such vehicle for sale;
B. Washing, waxing, wiping, greasing or repairing such vehicle, except repairs
necessitated by an emergency.
Section 7.
Subsection A.2 of Section 15.06.050 (Fee reduction.) of Chapter
15.06 (Public Facilities Development Impact Fee) of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction)
of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions
appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text):
A.2. Any developer whose development is subject to the public facilities
development impact fee required by this chapter, including a developer who, in
connection with the development, has constructed or financed regional or regionally
significant public facilities substantially similar to those facilities that are listed or otherwise
identified in the ccapital improvement plan, either through participation in a special
district (e.g., a community facilities district or a special assessment district) or as a result
of conditions of approval for the development, may apply to the director of community
development for a reduction in that fee. The application shall be made in writing and fried
filed with the director of community development no later than ninety days after the
effective date of this section (the effective date of this section when originally enacted by
Ordinance No. 97-09 was June 26, 1997), or ninety days after the city issues a building
permit for the development, whichever is later. The application shall state in detail the
4
factual basis for the request for reduction. The city shall consider entering into an
agreement, or modifying an existing agreement, with any developer applying for a
reduction pursuant to this subsection (A)(2).
Section 8.
Subsection C of Section 16.36.080 (Processing procedures.) of
Chapter 16.36 (Lot Line Adjustment) of Title 16 (Subdivisions) of the Temecula Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions appearing in strikethrough text
and additions appearing in underlined text):
C. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act Guidelines, the The applicant shall provide
the City with new grant deeds which reflect the approved lot line adjustment. City shall
record new grant deeds and provide copies to the applicant.
Section 9.
Subsection H of Section 17.04.010 (Variances) of Chapter 17.04
(Permits) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read
as follows (with deletions appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in
underlined text):
H. Time extension. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the permittee may, prior to the
expiration of the conditional use permit, apply for up to three one-year extensions of time
in which to use the plot plan conditional use permit.
Section 10.
Subsection of Section 17.04.020 (Temporary use permits.) of
Chapter 17.04 (Permits) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows (with additions appearing in underlined text):
B. Permitted uses. Temporary uses are divided into three general categories:
major, minor and master. Major temporary uses have a potential to create health
and safety problems, can occur on undeveloped property, could create traffic
problems and/or could potentially disrupt community life. Minor temporary uses
occur on developed private property, generally commercial, for very short time
periods. These temporary uses produce little noise, and have no impacts to adjacent
properties or to traffic and public safety. Master temporary uses are similar, in effect,
to minor temporary uses; however, they commonly occur for longer time periods.
1. Major temporary uses. The following major temporary uses may be
permitted, subject to the issuance of a temporary use permit.
a. Real estate offices and model homes within approved development
projects;
b. Temporary construction offices in all zones, except the Open Space and
Conservation Zone.
c. On- and off-
approved active development project;
5
d. Trailers, coaches or mobilehomes as a temporary residence of the
property owner when a valid residential building permit is in force. The
permit may be granted for up to one hundred eighty days, or upon expiration
of the building permit, whichever first occurs;
e. Christmas tree sales lots, however, a permit shall not be required when
such sale is in conjunction with a business operating from a permanent
building on a developed commercial site, holding a valid business license,
provided such activity shall be only held from November 1st through
December 31st;
f. Fairs, festivals and concerts, when not held within premises designed to
accommodate such events, such as auditoriums, stadiums, or other public
assembly facilities;
g. Pumpkin sales lots;
h. Seasonal sale of agricultural products;
i. Outdoor temporary swap meets or auctions, limited to two events per
calendar year, not exceeding four consecutive days.
Section 11.
Subsection D of Section 17.04.020 (Temporary use permits.) of
Chapter 17.04 (Permits) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows (with additions appearing in underlined text):
D. Findings. The director of planning may approve, or conditionally approve a
temporary use permit application, only when the following findings can be made:
1. The proposed temporary use is compatible with the nature, character and
use of the surrounding area.
2. The temporary use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or
structures.
3. The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety, or
welfare of the community.
Section 12.
Subsection F (Revocations) of Section 17.05.030 (Modifications to
an approved development plan.) of Chapter 17.05 (Development Plans) of Title 17
(Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with
deletions appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text):
Revocations. Approval of a modification to a development plan may be revoked
or modified by the director of planning in accordance with Section 17.03.060
17.03.080
6
Section 13.
Section 17.05.030 (Modification to an approved development plan.)
of Chapter 17.05 (Development Plans) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal
Code is hereby amended to add a new subsection G to read as follows:
G. Time extensions. The Director of Community Development may, upon an
application being filed prior to the expiration, grant a time extension of one year (up
to five extensions may be granted). Upon granting the extension, the Director of
Community Development shall ensure that the modification to an approved
development plan complies with all Development Code provisions.
1. For any time extension that administratively extends an approval that was
originally approved at a public hearing, notice of the Director of Community
posted at the site and mailed at least ten days prior to its approval to the
applicant and its representative (as shown on the application); to the property
owner (as shown on the latest available equalized assessment roll of the County
appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Riverside as
owners of property within a distance of six hundred feet from the exterior
boundaries of the site for which the application is filed (a minimum of thirty
property owners); to anyone filing a written request for notification; and to such
other persons whose property might, in the Director of Community
requested. Notice shall also be sent to public departments, bureaus, or agencies
which are determined by the Director of Community Development to be affected
by the application.
2. For matters that are considered to have special significance or impact, the
Director of Community Development may refer such items to the Planning
Commission for consideration at a noticed public hearing.
3. A request for an extension of time beyond the fifth approval of an extension
of time may be granted by the City Council at a public hearing.
4. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the
original approval date of a development plan.
Section 14.
Table 17.06.050A (Accessory Structures Setbacks for the HR, RR,
VL, L-1, L-2, LM, M and H Zoning Districts) of Section 17.06.050(D) (Accessory
Structures and Uses.) of Chapter 17.06 (Residential Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the
Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (with deletions appearing in
strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text), with all other provisions of
Table 17.06.050A remaining unchanged:
7
Table 17.06.050A
Accessory Structures Setbacks for the HR, RR, VL, L-1, L-2, LM, M and H Zoning
Districts
Accessory
StructureFront YardRear YardInterior Side Yard 1
Accessory dwelling Not permitted in the Refer to the rear yard Refer to the side yard
unit actual front yard setbacks in Table setbacks in Table
66
unless it complies 17.06.040 17.06.040
with Section
4 6
17.06.050(L)(11)
Detached guest Not permitted in the Refer to the rear yard Refer to the side yard
75
house actual front yard setbacks in Table setbacks in Table
17.06.040 17.06.040
4. Second dwelling unit Accessory Dwelling Unit in the L-1, VL, RR and HR zoning
districts may be located in the actual front yard and shall be subject to the front yard setback
requirements in Table 17.06.040, the residential performance standards as outlined in
Section 17.06.070, and the special use standards as outlined in Section 17.06.050(L).
7. Only one detached guest house shall be permitted on any one lot with a single family
dwelling.
Section 15.
Subsection J.1 of Section 17.06.050 (Special use standards and
regulations.) of Chapter 17.06 (Residential Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula
Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions appearing in underlined text):
J.1. Solid fences, hedges and walls within the front setback shall have a
maximum height of three feet in order to maintain safe visibility for pedestrians
and egress and ingress of vehicular traffic. A combination of solid and open
fences not exceeding six feet in height may be located in a required front yard,
corner, side yard, or visibility clearance area, provided such fences are
constructed with at least ninety percent of the top three feet of their vertical
surface open, and non-view obscuring. Chain link fencing with or without slats
is prohibited.
Section 16.
Subsection L ofSection 17.06.050 (Special use standards and
regulations.) of Chapter 17.06 (Residential Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula
Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new number 12 to read as follows:
12. Compliance with Building Code. Accessory dwelling units shall comply with
local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings
Section 17.
Subsection B of Section 17.06.070 (Residential performance
standards.) of Chapter 17.06 (Residential Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions appearing in
strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text):
B. Additions and Remodeling and New Construction of Accessory Structures.
Additions, renovations and new accessory structures should be designed to provide
8
variety and interest while creating an overall unified image. Building facades should
be designed with consideration of appropriate materials, complementary colors, and
by using materials with textures and depth of materials such as brick or stone.
The additions or accessory structures shouldshall be designed in a manner that is
integrated with the existing structures and avoid the appearance of being simply
tacked on by the owner. This can be accomplished by:
1. Using similar roof pitches and types;
2. Using complementary or consistent materials and colors;
3. Designing additions as an integral part of the building;
4. Maintaining appropriate proportions of the existing building design; and
5. Maintaining a balance between the proportions of the existing building in
terms of building mass and scale. Avoiding placing architectural elements that
are visually more massive or heavier above elements that are visually lighter or
less massive.
Section 18.
Section 17.08.030 (Use regulations.) of Chapter 17.08
(Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions appearing in strikethrough text
and additions appearing in underlined text), with all other provisions of Section 17.08.030
remaining unchanged:
The land uses list in the following Table 17.08.030 shall be permitted in one or
more of the commercial zoning districts as indicated in the columns corresponding to each
residential commercial
- is prohibited within the zone. A letter
conditional use permit.
Section 19.
Subsection I of Section 17.10.020 (Supplement development
standards.) of Chapter 17.10 (Supplemental Development Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning)
of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions
appearing in strikethrough text:
)
I. Modular Buildings and Structures. Modular buildings may be allowed in some
circumstances as described in this section if they comply with the following
requirements:
1. Accessory Structure. Modular buildings may be approved as accessory
structures to a larger permanent building. The accessory buildings or structures
shall be smaller in size than the main permanent building. Accessory structures
can be allowed, subject to the approval of a development plan, for the following
uses or activities:
9
a. Religious institutions in all zones, except the open space and conservation
zone.
b. Industrial uses in the business park, light industrial, and service commercial
zones.
c. Temporary facility and construction offices in all zones, except the open
space and conservation zone.
Section 20.
Table 17.24.040 (Parking Spaces Required) in Section 17.24.040
(Parking requirements.) of Chapter 17.24 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of Title 17
(Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (with deletions
appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text), with all other
provisions of Table 17.24.040 remaining unchanged:
Table 17.24.040
Parking Spaces Required
Description of Use Required Number of Spaces
Residential Uses
Multiple-family residential13 or more units 1 covered parking space plus 1 uncovered
parking space for 2 bedroom units.
In addition, 1 guest space for every 6 units.
1 covered parking space plus 1 uncovered
parking space for 2 bedroom units.
In addition, 1 guest space for every 6 units.
2 covered parking spaces and 0.5 uncovered
parking space for three bedroom (or more)
units. In addition, 1 guest space for every 6
units.
In addition, 1 guest space for every 6 units,
with a minimum of 4 guest spaces
A minimum of 4 guest spaces is required for
all multi-family residential with 13 or more
units.
Section 21.
Subsection F of Section 17.24.050 (Parking facility layout and
dimensions) of Chapter 17.24 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the
Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions appearing
in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underlined text):
F. Lighting. Lighting of outdoor parking areas shall be designed and maintained
in a manner to prevent glare or direct illumination from intruding into any adjacent
residential zone. A minimum of one footcandle of illumination shall be provided
throughout the parking area, including all drive aisles and pedestrian paths of travel.
Light standards shall conform to design specifications as determined by the director
10
of public works. Lighting shall be consistent with the requirements established by
Riverside County to reduce impacts upon the Mount Palomar Observatory
Section 22.
Section 17.34.010 (Definition and illustration of terms.) of Chapter
17.34 (Definition of Terms) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby
amended to delete the definitions of of
in a
care homedeletions shown in strikethrough text, additions
shown in underline), with all other provisions of Section 17.34.010 remaining unchanged:
site and intended for occupancy by a caretaker, security guard, servant or similar person
generally requiring residence on the site.
more walks and a roof that includes indoor amenities such as cooking facilities and
heating. A California Room shall be considered part of the living space and shall be
subject to the same setbacks of the primary structure for rear and side yard setbacks.
hich provides family day care to
seven to fourteentwelve children, including children under the age of ten years who reside
in the home, as defined in Chapter 3.4, Division 2 of the California Health and Safety
Code, and up to fourteen children under specified conditions as provided in Section
1597.465 of the California Health and Safety Code.
zoned for single-family residential, designed to provide accommodations for visitors,
attached or detached, utilized as an incidental use to the primary residence, but shall not
be utilized as self-contained living quarters or a secondary dwelling unit (see Secondary
dwelling unit) an accessory dwelling unit, and shall not contain provisions for the
preparation of food, cooking, facilities or wet bar, which require outside venting per the
Uniform Building Code. A guest house shall not exceed one thousand two hundred
square feet in area and shall contain a bathroom with a toilet, sink, and a bathtub and/or
Section 23.Severability.
If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or
contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or
provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it
would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of
the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or
unconstitutional or contravened via legislation.
Section 24.Certification.
The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify
to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary
thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law.
11
Section 25.Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after
passage.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED
by the City Council of the City of
Temecula the __day of ___, 2019.
Michael S. Naggar, 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. 19- 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 , 2019, 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 , 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl
City Clerk
12
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula
PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
CASE NO: APPLICANT:
LR18-0861 City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
An amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code amending twenty sections in
six titles to add definitions, make minor policy clarifications and make minor
typographical edits.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
of the City Council of the City of Temecula amending Titles 1, 8, 10, 15, 16 and
17 of the Temecula Municipal Code to add definitions, make minor policy
clarifications and make minor typographical edits and finding that this ordinance
is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines
ENVIRONMENTAL:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
proposed project has been deemed to be exempt from further environmental
review as there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance would have a
significant impact on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3). The proposed Municipal Code amendments are minor
policy changes, clarifications, and typographical corrections, which do not result
in a significant increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what
is currently allowed. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared and will be filed
in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
CASE PLANNER:
Dale West, 951-693-3918
PLACE OF HEARING:
41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590,City of Temecula, Council Chambers
DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING:
March 20, 2019 6:00 p.m.
Thecomplete agenda packet (including any supplemental materials) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at
the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting.
TemeculaCA.gov and will be available for public review at
the respective meeting. Any writing distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting
of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street,
Temecula), 8:00 a.m. TemeculaCA.gov and
will be available for public review at the meeting.
Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within time required by, and controlled by,
Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review
of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Planning Commission shall be limited to those issues raised at
the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice.
Questions?
Please call the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400.
STAFF REPORT PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING:
March 20, 2019
TO:
Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning
Commission
FROM:
Luke Watson, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY:
Dale West, Associate Planner II
APPLICANT NAME:
City of Temecula
PROJECT
Long Range Nos. LR16-0223 and LR17-0724, an amendment to the
SUMMARY:
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan to make clarifications for the
setbacks of buildings and parking spaces, the placement and/or
relocation of utilities, clarification of legal non-conforming uses, the
allowance of certain land uses as required by state law, to make
minor typographical edits and the adoption of Appendix G,
establishing streetscape and sidewalk standards for the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan, which includes the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants.
CEQA:
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to
the EIR was prepared, which concludes that the proposed changes,
additions, or modifications do not result in any new or greater
environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed,
and/or mitigated in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified in November
2015 (SCH #2013061012). None of the conditions in State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent
EIR are present, and no additional environmental review is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula adopt a
resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan amendments and the Uptown
Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan (UTSP) encompasses approximately 560 acres and is
located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, east of Diaz Road/Murrieta Creek
and south of Cherry Street. The UTSP includes six districts and two overlay areas, consisting of
a mixed-use residential development, as well as property designated for conservation/open space
(Murrieta Creek).
1
The City Council adopted the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan on November 17, 2015, and as
part of the adoption, the Council also directed staff to prepare a streetscape beautification and
marketing plan for the newly adopted Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. In June of 2017, Staff
entered into an agreement with Spurlock Landscape Architects to prepare the Uptown Temecula
Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards (Sidewalk Standards). The development of
the Sidewalk Standards involved two community workshops on July 17, 2017 and August 31,
2017, two meetings with Public Works, two meetings with the Planning Commission Sub
Committee, and four meetings with the City Council Uptown Temecula Ad Hoc Subcommittee to
obtain input and direction while developing the plan. In addition to preparing the Sidewalk
Standards, staff has identified various typographical edits and needed clarifications to improve
the implementation of the Plan. Both the Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards and
the proposed Specific Plan amendments are further in the following pages.
2
ANALYSIS
Proposed Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan is a form based code. A
form base code focuses on the physical form of buildings and
their relationship to the public realm, which consists of the
sidewalk and street. Generally speaking, for the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan, this means that any new building that
fronts a street, is to be placed ten feet behind the property line,
creating a 20 foot sidewalk. The sidewalk is made up of four
sections, or zones: 1) Curb Zone, 2) Utility Zone, 3) Pedestrian
Zone, and 4) Frontage Zone. The Curb and Utility Zones do
not change in size, whereas, the Pedestrian Zone and
Frontage Zone may vary depending on if the frontage zone is
used for outdoor seating or not. The Frontage Zone allows the
opportunity to activate the public realm with sidewalk café style
seating. This results in a minimum of six feet within the
Pedestrian Zone, where pedestrians can move about freely
from any obstructions from the Utility Zone or Frontage Zone,
as shown in the adjacent illustrations.
The proposed Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement
Standards primarily focus on this area of the sidewalk by
identifying the concrete finish and color, tree species, tree
grates, understory plant mix, and street light fixtures for all of
Uptown Temecula.
The streets are categorized into three
street types: Major District Connector,
Minor District Connector and
Neighborhood Street. The concrete
finishes and score pattern, tree species,
and understory plants vary depending
on the street type within Uptown
Temecula. This is done to add variety,
-
Temecula area.
The following is a summary of the major
elements of the Streetscape and
Sidewalk Improvement Standards for
Uptown Temecula.
3
Allees, Medians and Gateways:
Two primary entrance gateways into Uptown Temecula are located at the north and southern
ends of Jefferson Avenue. The north gateway begins at Cherry Street and the south gateway
begins at Rancho California Road. Both gateways share a distinguishing characteristic in that
they are linear gateways framed by Jefferson Avenue to the east and Murrieta Creek to the west.
These open space areas provide an opportunity to create unique pedestrian gateways at the north
and south entprovide an
opportunity for a generously landscaped walkway, lined with California Sycamore, and an
alternating sand/aggregate concrete finish, also adding interest and character to the allee.
e
-
n
i
-L
o
t
d
l
i
u
B
k
e
e
r
C
a
t
e
i
r
r
Median
Allee
PL
u
M
In addition to the allee, these two primary gateways include landscaped medians wide enough to
accommodate drought tolerant understory planting and the flowering Western Redbud accent
tree. These primary gateways will also allow for wayfinding signage, accent lighting and/or public
art. The cross street section at the entry gateways is shown above and illustrates the tree lined
allee along the creek side, the landscaped median, and the tree lined sidewalk adjacent to the
building façade.
4
Key intersections within the UTSP will also act as gateways to the neighborhoods of Uptown
Temecula. As illustrated below, key intersections will be unique in that their intersecting corners
will have distinct characteristics including bulb-outs (where appropriate), concrete pavers,
stamped asphalt crosswalks, and enhanced landscaping. All key intersection gateways will
include the flowering Western Redbud accent tree to emphasize their importance as a gateway
from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. The key intersection gateways are located at
Jefferson Avenue/Sanborn Avenue, Jefferson Avenue/Buecking Drive, Jefferson Avenue/Via
Montezuma, Jefferson Avenue/Del Rio Road, Jefferson Avenue/La Haciendas, Jefferson
Avenue/Calle Cortez, Winchester Road/Commerce Center Drive, Commerce Center
Drive/Overland Drive, Commerce Center/Via Montezuma, Winchester Road//Diaz Road, and
Overland Avenue/Diaz Road (See page 18 of the Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement
Standards).
5
Sidewalk Materials, Street Trees and Street Lights
In order to add variety, interest and natural way-finding throughout the Uptown Temecula area,
sidewalk concrete finishes and score patterns, tree species, understory plants and light standards
will differ depending on the district and street within Uptown Temecula.
Major District Connector Street (Jefferson Avenue)
The Major District Connector
Specific Plan. Like the allees, Jefferson Avenue will use the alternating sand/aggregate concrete
finish; however, it will include brick pavers within the utility zone, tree grates, and an evergreen
street tree (Fern Pine). Jefferson Avenue will have the only sidewalk with tree grates, pavers in
the utility zone, and light poles with both a street light and pedestrian light, equipped with the
option for banners. Because Jefferson Avenue is the main thoroughfare through Uptown
Temecula, it will be the only sidewalk to have such unique character.
Fern Pine - Evergreen
6
Minor District Connector Streets
Minor District Connector streets form the major circulation spines of each District. They are
different from the Major District Connector in that they will only have the sand concrete finish as
opposed to the alternating sand/aggregate concrete finish. They will have the African Sumac or
the Brisbane tree species, as well as understory planting within the tree well, and pedestrian only
lights instead of the street/pedestrian light combination. The variation in materials is intended to
provide interest and differing character depending on where one is within Uptown Temecula.
African Sumac Evergreen
Brisbane Box Evergreen
7
Neighborhood Streets
Neighborhood Streets are the smaller streets that are internal to the Districts within Uptown and
are important for building the character of a particular neighborhood for providing walkability.
Similar to the Minor District Connector, Neighborhood Streets are characterized with having the
sand concrete finish, but have an alternating five foot and two and half foot score pattern.
North/south direction Neighborhood Streets will have the Crape Myrtle with understory planting
within the tree well, whereas, the east/west direction streets will have the Marina Madrone with
understory planting within the tree well. All Neighborhood Streets will include pedestrian only
lights.
Score joints 5ft. And 2.5 ft.
As required in the UTSP, the sidewalk improvements will happen as new development occurs, as
a condition of approval.
The draft UTSP Streetscape and Sidewalk Standards may be found in Attachment B of the
corresponding Ordinance of this staff report.
8
Proposed Amendments to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
The proposed amendments to the UTSP include correcting typographical errors, clarifications for
the setbacks of buildings and parking spaces, clarification for the placement and/or relocation of
utilities, clarification for legal non-conforming uses, and the inclusion certain land uses as required
by state law.
During the initial adoption of the UTSP, specific language was crafted to protect property owners
with newly created legal non-conforming land uses. Following the adoption of the UTSP in
November 2015, additional clarification was requested by real estate brokers and land owners
concerning the policies for legal non-conforming land uses, as it relates to parcels with multiple
buildings and parcels with multiple tenants.
As such, the policy for Legal Non-Conforming Land Uses was further clarified for situations when
there is an individual parcel with a multi-tenant building that contains one or more legal non-
conforming land use, or an individual parcel with multiple buildings and tenants where there is on
or more legal non-conforming land use. In these situations, a property owner may lease a vacant
suite or building to a similar non-conforming use, as permitted under the previous zoning, until
such time that the building or buildings on site are occupied by only legally permitted uses, as
allowed under the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan for a period of twenty-four months or more.
This policy allows flexibility for land owners consistent with the goals and objectives of Uptown
Temecula as the area transitions from a suburban commercial uses into urban mixed use
neighborhoods.
The remaining proposed amendments are minor in nature and add clarification or correct
typographical edits and are further outlined in Attachment A to corresponding Ordinance of this
staff report.
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the U-T San Diego on March 7, 2019.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the EIR has been prepared,
which concludes that the proposed changes, additions, or modifications do not result in any new
or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and/or mitigated in
the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified in
November 2015 (SCH #2013061012). None of the conditions in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that require the preparation of a subsequent EIR are present, and no additional
environmental review is required. A Negative Declaration will be filed with the County Clerk of
the Board.
FINDINGS
In recommending approval of Planning Application No. LR16-0223 and LR17-0724, the
Planning Commission must make the following findings:
A.
The proposed specific plan is consistent with the general plan and development code.
The Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement
Standards are consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan,
as amended. The Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk
9
Improvement Standards impose appropriate standards and requirements with
respect to land development in order to maintain the overall quality of life within the
City. The Specific Plan, when approved, was reviewed and determined to be in
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. The proposed amendments
to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan include clarifications to the setbacks of
buildings and parking spaces, the placement and/or relocation of utilities, legal non-
conforming uses, the allowance of certain land uses as required by state law, minor
typographical edits, and the adoption of a streetscape and sidewalk standards for
the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, which include the specifications for concrete
materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. These amendments do
not conflict with any goals, policies or standards of the Temecula General Plan and
do not conflict with any goals, policies or development standards of the adopted
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan.
B.
The proposed specific plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the city.
The proposed amendments to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan project has been
reviewed by the Public Works and Fire Departments staff to ensure conformance
with the Development, Building, and Fire codes. These codes contain provisions
designed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
The Specific Plan, when approved, was reviewed and determined to be in
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. The proposed amendments
to the Specific Plan include clarifications to the setbacks of buildings and parking
spaces, the placement and/or relocation of utilities, legal non-conforming uses, the
allowance of certain land uses as required by state law, minor typographical edits,
and the adoption of a streetscape and sidewalk standards for the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan, which include the specifications for concrete materials, street lighting,
street trees, and understory plants. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan
amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards are compatible
with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
C. subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations
The
and the anticipated land use developments.
The proposed Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement
Standards do not change the land use designations or anticipated land use
developments as proposed under the Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan
amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards provide
clarifications development standards, state required land uses, and provide specific
improvement standards for streets and sidewalks within the Specific Plan area.
10
D.
The proposed specific plan amendments and Sidewalk Improvement Standards shall
ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and
proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.
The approved Specific Plan is a form-based code which emphasizes the physical form of
buildings to foster predictable built results as the organizing principle for the code, rather than
focusing on the strict separation of uses. The proposed Specific Plan amendments and
Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards clarify development standards and
requirements related to legal non-conforming uses, and provide specific improvement
standards for streets and sidewalks within the Specific Plan area, thereby, ensuring the
Specific Plan area will be developed in the desired character as anticipated with the adoption
of the Specific Plan and continue to provide for a mix of land uses including commercial and
residential uses, consistent with the surrounding area.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 19-
2. City Council Draft Ordinance No. 19-
A. Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Amendments
B. Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement
Standards
3. Uptown Temecula Specific Plan EIR Addendum
4. Notice of Public Hearing
11
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
PC RESOLUTION NO. 19-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE UPTOWN TEMECULA
SPECIFIC PLAN, TO CLARIFY THE SETBACKS OF
BUILDINGS AND PARKING SPACES, THE PLACEMENT
AND/OR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES, TO CLARIFY LEGAL
NON-CONFORMING USES, TO INCLUDE CERTAIN LAND
USES AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, TO MAKE MINOR
TYPOGRAPHICAL EDITS AND TO ADOPT UPTOWN
TEMECULA STREETSCAPE AND SIDEWALK STANDARDS
FOR THE UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH
INCLUDE THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONCRETE
MATERIALS, STREET LIGHTING, STREET TREES, AND
UNDERSTORY PLANTS, AND MAKING THE
DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED STREETSCAPE
AND SIDEWALK STANDARDS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE
UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN ARE EXEMPT FROM
FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (LONG
RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR16-0223 AND
LR17-0724)
Section 1.
Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On November 17, 2015, the Temecula City Council adopted the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan and directed staff to prepare a streetscape beautification plan for
the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan.
B. In February of 2016, staff initiated the preparation of the Uptown Temecula
Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards and entered into an agreement with
Spurlock Landscape Architects to assist with the preparation of the streetscape and sidewalk
standards.
C. In April of 2017, staff identified a need to amend the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan to make clarifications for the setbacks of buildings and parking spaces, the placement
and/or relocation of utilities, clarification of legal non-conforming uses, the allowance of
certain land uses as required by state law, and to make minor typographical edits.
D. In July and August of 2017, staff along with Spurlock Landscape Architects
held two community workshops to obtain the input into the development of sidewalk
landscape standards.
E.
Throughout the process of preparing the UTSP Streetscape and Sidewalk
Improvement Standards, staff met with the Planning Commission and City Council Ad-Hoc
Subcommittees to present findings from the community workshop
recommendations for incorporation into the UTSP Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement
Standards.
F. The City of Temecula Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered
the Application and environmental review on March 20, 2019, at a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity
to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2.
Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending
approval of Planning Application No. LR16-0223 and LR17-0724, hereby finds, determines
and declares that:
A.
The proposed specific plan is consistent with the general plan and development
code.
The Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement
Standards are consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan, as
amended. The Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk
Improvement Standards impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect
to land development in order to maintain the overall quality of life within the City. The
Specific Plan, when approved, was reviewed and determined to be in conformance
eneral Plan, as amended. The approved Specific 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. The proposed amendments to the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan include clarifications to the setbacks of buildings and parking
spaces, the placement and/or relocation of utilities, legal non-conforming uses, the
allowance of certain land uses as required by state law, minor typographical edits, and
the adoption of a streetscape and sidewalk standards for the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan, which include the specifications for concrete materials, street lighting,
street trees, and understory plants. These amendments do not conflict with any goals,
policies or standards of the Temecula General Plan and do not conflict with any goals,
policies or development standards of the adopted Uptown Temecula Specific Plan.
B.
The proposed specific plan would not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city.
The proposed amendments to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan project has been
reviewed by the Public Works and Fire Departments staff to ensure conformance with
the Development, Building, and Fire codes. These codes contain provisions designed
to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Specific
Plan, when approved, was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the
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. The proposed amendments to the Specific Plan include
clarifications to the setbacks of buildings and parking spaces, the placement and/or
relocation of utilities, legal non-conforming uses, the allowance of certain land uses as
required by state law, minor typographical edits, and the adoption of a streetscape and
sidewalk standards for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, which include the
specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory
plants. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and
Sidewalk Improvement Standards are compatible with the health, safety and welfare
of the community.
C. subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use
The
designations and the anticipated land use developments.
The proposed Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement
Standards do not change the land use designations or anticipated land use
developments as proposed under the Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan
amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards provide
clarifications development standards, state required land uses, and provide specific
improvement standards for streets and sidewalks within the Specific Plan area.
D.
The proposed specific plan amendments and Sidewalk Improvement
Standards shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with
existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.
The approved Specific Plan is a form-based code which emphasizes the physical form
of buildings to foster predictable built results as the organizing principle for the code,
rather than focusing on the strict separation of uses. The proposed Specific Plan
amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards clarify
development standards and requirements related to legal non-conforming uses, and
provide specific improvement standards for streets and sidewalks within the Specific
Plan area, thereby, ensuring the Specific Plan area will be developed in the desired
character as anticipated with the adoption of the Specific Plan and continue to provide
for a mix of land uses including commercial and residential uses, consistent with the
surrounding area.
Section 3.
Environmental Compliance. In November 2015, the City Council
certified an EIR for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan (State Clearing House #2013061012).
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the EIR was prepared
because some changes or additions to the certified EIR are necessary, but none of the
conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present and therefore a
subsequent EIR does not need to be prepared.
Section 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 20th day of March 2019.
Gary Watts, Chairman
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. 19- was duly and regularly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th
day of March 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Luke Watson
Secretary
DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. 19-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE UPTOWN TEMECULA
SPECIFIC PLAN, TO CLARIFY THE SETBACKS OF
BUILDINGS AND PARKING SPACES, THE PLACEMENT
AND/OR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES, TO CLARIFY
LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES, TO INCLUDE
CERTAIN LAND USES AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, TO
MAKE MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL EDITS AND TO ADOPT
UPTOWN TEMECULA STREETSCAPE AND SIDEWALK
STANDARDS FOR THE UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC
PLAN, WHICH INCLUDE THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
CONCRETE MATERIALS, STREET LIGHTING, STREET
TREES, AND UNDERSTORY PLANTS, AND MAKING THE
DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED STREETSCAPE
AND SIDEWALK STANDARDS AND AMENDMENTS TO
THE UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN ARE EXEMPT
FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (LONG
RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR16-0223 AND
LR17-0724)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On November 17, 2015, the Temecula City Council adopted the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan and directed staff to prepare a streetscape beautification plan for
the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan.
B. In February of 2016, staff initiated the preparation of the Uptown Temecula
Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards and entered into an agreement with
Spurlock Landscape Architects to assist with the preparation of the streetscape and
sidewalk improvement standards.
C. In April of 2017, staff identified a need to amend the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan to make clarifications for the setbacks of buildings and parking spaces, the
placement and/or relocation of utilities, clarification of legal non-conforming uses, the
allowance of certain land uses as required by state law, and to make minor typographical
edits.
D. In July and August of 2017, staff along with Spurlock Landscape Architects
held two community workshops to obtain the input into the development of sidewalk
landscape standards.
E. On March 20, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider whether to recommend the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Specific
Plan, and the proposed Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards. City staff
presented a report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to the proposed Project. At the conclusion of the March 6, 2019
Planning Commission hearing, and after due consideration of the entire record before the
Planning Commission, including both an oral and written staff report and public comment,
the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 19- __, entitled A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE UPTOWN
TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN, TO CLARIFY THE SETBACKS OF BUILDINGS AND
PARKING SPACES, THE PLACEMENT AND/OR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES, TO
CLARIFY LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES, TO INCLUDE CERTAIN LAND USES AS
REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, TO MAKE MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL EDITS AND TO
ADOPT UPTOWN TEMECULA STREETSCAPE AND SIDEWALK STANDARDS FOR
THE UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH INCLUDE THE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONCRETE MATERIALS, STREET LIGHTING, STREET
TREES, AND UNDERSTORY PLANTS, AND MAKING THE DETERMINATION THAT
THE PROPOSED STREETSCAPE AND SIDEWALK STANDARDS AND
AMENDMENTS TO THE UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN ARE EXEMPT FROM
FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR16-0223 AND LR17-
F. On ___ 2019, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the
proposed Project including the proposed amendments to the Specific Plan and the
proposed Uptown Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards, 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 Specific Plan amendment,
and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards prior to and at the public hearing.
SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. Based on the evidence and all other applicable
information presented, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the
Specific Plan:
A. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City
Council in amending the Specific Plan and adopting the Streetscape and Sidewalk
Improvement Standards finds determines and declares that:
(1) The proposed Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk
Improvement Standards are consistent with the General Plan and Development Code.
The Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards
are consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan, as amended.
The Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards
impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development in
order to maintain the overall quality of life within the City. The Specific Plan, when
approved, was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the C
Plan, as amended. The approved Specific 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. The proposed
amendments to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan include clarifications to the setbacks
of buildings and parking spaces, the placement and/or relocation of utilities, legal non-
conforming uses, the allowance of certain land uses as required by state law, minor
typographical edits, and the adoption of a streetscape and sidewalk standards for the
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, which include the specifications for concrete materials,
street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. These amendments do not conflict with
any goals, policies or standards of the Temecula General Plan and do not conflict with
any goals, policies or development standards of the adopted Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan.
(2) The proposed Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk
Improvement Standards would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience or welfare of the City.
The proposed amendments to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan project has been
reviewed by the Public Works and Fire Departments staff to ensure conformance with the
Development, Building, and Fire codes. These codes contain provisions designed to
ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Specific Plan,
when approved,
General Plan, as amended. The approved Specific 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.
The proposed amendments to the Specific Plan include clarifications to the setbacks of
buildings and parking spaces, the placement and/or relocation of utilities, legal non-
conforming uses, the allowance of certain land uses as required by state law, minor
typographical edits, and the adoption of a streetscape and sidewalk standards for the
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, which include the specifications for concrete materials,
street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan
amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards are 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.
The proposed Specific Planamendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement
Standards do not change the land use designations or anticipated land use developments
as proposed under the Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan amendments and
Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards provide clarifications development
standards, state required land uses, and provide specific improvement standards for
streets and sidewalks within the Specific Plan area.
(4) The proposed Specific Plan amendments and Streetscape and Sidewalk
Improvement Standards shall ensure development of desirable character which will be
compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.
The approved Specific Plan is a form-based code which emphasizes the physical form of
buildings to foster predictable built results as the organizing principle for the code, rather
than focusing on the strict separation of uses. The proposed Specific Plan amendments
and Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards clarify development standards
and requirements related to legal non-conforming uses, and provide specific improvement
standards for streets and sidewalks within the Specific Plan area, thereby, ensuring the
Specific Plan area will be developed in the desired character as anticipated with the
adoption of the Specific Plan and continue toprovide for a mix of land uses including
commercial and residential uses, consistent with the surrounding area.
SECTION 3. Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Amendment.
A. The City Council hereby amends portions of the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan and directs staff to incorporate the changes as indicated in Exhibit A of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Uptown Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement
Standards.
A. The City Council hereby adopts the Uptown Temecula Streetscape and
Sidewalk Standards as shown in Exhibit B of this Ordinance, and amends the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan to incorporate the Uptown Temecula Streetscape as a new
to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan.
SECTION 5. CEQA
In November 2015, the City Council certified an EIR for the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan (State Clearing House #2013061012). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164, an Addendum to the EIR was prepared because some changes or
additions to the certified EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions described in State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present and therefore a subsequent EIR does not
need to be prepared. Staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination.
SECTION 6. Severability.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the
remainder of this Ordinance shall be and remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 7. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
SECTION 8. 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.
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Amendments
Exhibit A
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Amendments
Deleted text shown with strikethrough and red font
New text shown with underline and blue font
Chapter 2 Plan Administration
C. Plan Applicability
The regulations of this plan shall not apply to any application for a conditional use permit on a
property within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area that was submitted to and deemed
yet approved, denied or conditionally approved by the City Council following a recommendation
from the Planning Commission on or before the effective date of Ordinance No. 2015-13__
approving this plan. In considering such an application, the City Council may impose reasonable
conditions on the conditional use permit in order to mitigate the impact of the project that would
otherwise be compatible with the allowable uses and development standards under the Plan,
including, without limitation, the duration of the incompatible use and architectural design of the
project.
E. Legal Non-Conformities
2. Legal Non-Conforming Land Uses
Any use of land that was lawfully established and in compliance with all applicable ordinances and
laws at the time the use was established; however, due to a subsequently enacted ordinance or
law, no longer complies with the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which the use
is located shall be considered a legal non-conforming use. Legal non-conforming uses that were
legally established prior to the adoption of this specific plan are allowed to continue as they were,
prior to the date of adoption of the specific plan.
For an individual parcel with a multi-tenant building, or an individual parcel with multiple
buildings, where a legal non-conforming use exists on site, the property owner may lease a vacant
suite or building to like non-conforming uses, as permitted under the previous zoning, until such
time that the building or buildings on site are occupied by only legally permitted uses as allowed
under the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan for a period of twenty-four months or more.
I. Specific Plan Phased Compliance
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is expected to redevelop incrementally over a
20-year horizon as new development becomes economically feasible. As such, flexible
development standards have been established based upon the scope of the proposed
project as outlined in table 2-2.
Table 2.2: Uptown Temecula Specific Plan - Phased Compliance Matrix
Scope of Development Proposal Corresponding Planning Specific Plan Compliance
Application Type Required
Any project that proposes the Adaptive Reuse Application Adaptive Reuse Standards
adaptive reuse of an existing building.
A proposed change or modification to Sign Permit Architectural Design Guidelines
the exterior of an existing building Sign Program
without the addition of new square Minor Modification
footage. 1 Major Modification
Building additions totaling 10% or less Minor Modification Relative to the new addition only:
of the existing square footage on a Major Modification
Architectural Design Guidelines
project site in existence prior to the
Signage Standards
adoption of the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan.
Building additions greater than 10% Major Modification Relative to the new addition only:
and up to 50% of the existing square
Architectural Design Guidelines
footage on a project site in existence
Signage Standards
prior to the adoption of the Uptown
Building Type Standards
Temecula Specific Plan.
Frontage Type Standards
Building Placement Standards
Maximum Building Height
Standards
Parking Placement Standards
Minimum Parking Space
Requirements
Building additions greater than 50% of Major Modification All specific plan requirements
the existing square footage on a apply (including land uses)
project site in existence prior to the
adoption of the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan, or proposed additions
which exceed 50% of the current
market value of the existing structure
(s) on a project site (as determined by
an appraisal certification)
New development proposals Development Plan All specific plan requirements
apply (including land uses)
Examples include: paint color changes, patio additions, addition of awnings, material changes, relocation of window and door, etc.
1
Chapter 3 Land Use & Development Standards
B. Land Use Regulations
Table 3-1: Land Use Matrix
List of Uses UC UHT US UA WH-RO 6 CV CV-CO 6 MCR-OS
Day care/preschool
P P P P C P C P C -
(commercial)2
Residential care facilities (six or
- - - - P - - -
fewer)2
Residential care facilities (seven
- - - - C - - -
to twelve) 2
Residential care facilities for the
- - - - P - - -
2
elderly (six or fewer)
Residential care facilities for the
- - - - C - - -
elderly (seven to twelve) 2
FOOTNOTES:
1
Subject to the Standards for Specific Uses outlined in Section 3.I. C.
6
All new development on a vacant parcel or redevelopment of a parcel within an Overlay area shall conform to the
allowable uses of the Overlay as specified. Additionally, until such time that a parcel within an Overlay area is redeveloped
by adding more than 50% of the existing square footage on the project site, or by proposed addition which exceeds 50% of
the current market value of the existing structure(s) on site, (as specified in Table 2-2 of the UTSP), land uses within a legal
non-conforming building may be those uses that are allowed within the underlying District, as specified in Table 3-1.
F. Building and Parking Placement Standards
The standards for building and parking placement are the same for all districts within the specific
plan; however, the standards may vary depending on adjacent streets, freeway frontage and
creek frontage.
New buildings constructed in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area are required to be placed
on a build-to line, adjacent to the street, to create a pedestrian scaled environment and facilitate
. The placement of buildings on the build-to-line may
vary depending on the existing Right-of-Way and street cross section as specified in Chapter 3.H
Sidewalk Standards.
Parking and Loading Facilities shall be placed on a site in accordance with the following
requirements.
Exhibit 3-18 Exhibits 3-9 through 3-12 identifies the building and parking placement requirements
for lots based on the geographic location within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan areas as
follows:
1. Lots Fronting a New and/or Existing Street
Table 3-10: Building and Parking Placement Standards for Lots Fronting a New or Existing Street
Parking Placement
Building Placement
Surface, tuck under, alley loaded, garage, and podium
2,3
Property Line to Build-
A 10 ft. from property line N/A
to Line
Rear or Interior Side
Yard Setback (with or
B 0 ft. from property line 0 ft. from property line
without an alley)
With Alley 0 ft. from property
line
B Rear Yard Setback 0 ft. from property line
Without Alley 5 ft. from property
line
50 ft. from the build-to line
Street Frontage 10 ft. behind the property line on
C (recommended)
4
Setback the build-to line
1
20 ft. from the build-to line (minimum)
4
Parking setbacks apply to all stories of the building, except the rooftop deck of a parking structure.
1
When individual detached garages are provided for any building type they shall be located at the rear 25 percent of the site and screened from
2
the street.
Podium level parking must meet the required parking setback and may not front the street.
3
At least one street frontage
4
Table 3-11: Building and Parking Placement Standards for Lots Fronting I-15
Parking Placement
Building Placement
Surface, tuck under, alley loaded, garage, and podium
2,3
Property Line to Build-to
A 10 ft. from property line N/A
Line
Rear or Interior Side
B Yard Setback (with or 0 ft. from property line 0 ft. from property line
without an alley)
With Alley 0 ft. from property line
B Rear Yard Setback 0 ft. from property line
Without Alley 5 ft. from property
line
C Freeway Frontage 0 ft. from property line 0 ft. from property line
50 ft. from the build-to line
Street Frontage Setback 10 ft. behind the property line on the
D (recommended)
4
build-to line
1
20 ft. from the build-to line (minimum)
4
Parking setbacks apply to all stories of the building, except the rooftop deck of a parking structure.
1
When individual detached garages are provided for any building type they shall be located at the rear 25 percent of the site and screened from
2
the street.
Podium level parking must meet the required parking setback and may not front the street.
3
4
Table 3-12: Building and Parking Placement Standards for Lots Fronting Murrieta Creek
Parking Placement
Building Placement
Surface, tuck under, alley loaded, garage, and podium
2,3
A Property Line to Build-to Line 10 ft. from property line N/A
Rear or Interior Side Yard
Setback (with or without an
B 0 ft. from property line 0 ft. from property line
alley)
With Alley 0 ft. from property
line
B Rear Yard Setback 0 ft. from property line
Without Alley 5 ft. from
property line
C Murrieta Creek Frontage 20 ft. from property line 0 20 ft. from property line
10 ft. behind the property line
D Street Frontage Setback 50 ft. from the build-to line (recommended)
1 4
on the build-to line
20 ft. from the build-to line (minimum)
4
Parking setbacks apply to all stories of the building, except the rooftop deck of a parking structure.
1
When individual detached garages are provided for any building type they shall be located at the rear 25 percent of the site and screened from
2
the street.
Podium level parking must meet the required parking setback and may not front the street.
3
4
Table 3-13: Building and Parking Placement Standards for Lots Fronting Santa Gertrudis Creek
Parking Placement
Building Placement
Surface, tuck under, alley loaded, garage, and podium
2,3
Property Line to Build-to
A 10 ft. from property line N/A
Line
Rear or Interior Side
B Yard Setback (with or 0 ft. from property line 0 ft. from property line
without an alley)
With Alley 0 ft. from property
line
B Rear Yard Setback 0 ft. from property line
Without Alley 5 ft. from
property line
Santa Gertrudis Creek
C 20 ft. from property line 0 20ft. from property line
Frontage
50 ft. from the build-to line (recommended)
4
Street Frontage Setback 10 ft. behind the property line
D
on the build-to line
1
20 ft. from the build-to line (minimum)
4
Parking setbacks apply to all stories of the building, except the rooftop deck of a parking structure.
1
When individual detached garages are provided for any building type they shall be located at the rear 25 percent of the site and screened from
2
the street.
Podium level parking must meet the required parking setback and may not front the street.
3
4
H. Sidewalk Standards
The sidewalks are intended to establish
the pedestrian as the priority from curb
to storefront. The functionality of a
walkable district is achieved through
logical streetscape design and
compliance with uniform sidewalk
standards. The sidewalk design
standards emphasize the importance of
the placement of buildings in relation to
the sidewalk, street and public realm.
Consequently, the sidewalk design
standards take a two-pronged approach
to sidewalk design: 1) they outline
requirements for the property located
within the public right-of-way, and 2)
they provide requirements for the space
located on private property between the
property line and build-to line. In order to achieve adequate sidewalk width to accommodate
pedestrian movement, all development projects shall be required to comply with the sidewalk
cross sections show in Exhibit 3-15.
Several of the street cross sections are shown having more than 10 feet within the Right-of-way.
In these circumstances, if the building is placed ten feet behind the property line (or on -
the full sidewalk width would be greater than 20 feet.
Due to the approved street cross sections and existing Right-of-Way, the placement of the
buildings may vary in order to achieve a 20-foot sidewalk.
Example: The Jefferson Avenue Cross Section Area 2-B (Section 3-H) shows the sidewalk area
within the Right-of-Way as 12 feet. A developer that is required to build the sidewalk between
the face of the building and the Right-of-Way may be allowed to place the building at eight feet
behind the property line, in order to comply with the intent of the Specific Plan for having 20-foot
sidewalks.
)ȁ3³±¤¤³ #±®²² 3¤¢³¨® 3³ £ ±£²
The existing streets within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan include Jefferson Avenue,
Winchester Road, Enterprise Circle North, Enterprise Circle South, Commerce Center Drive,
Overland Drive, Del Rio Road, Calle Cortez, Las Haciendas, Via Montezuma, Ryder Way, Beuking
Road, Sanborn Avenue, Madison Avenue and McCabe Court.
Cross section standards have been developed for the existing streets to transform them into more
complete streets with on-street parking, bike lanes, and wider sidewalks. The following cross
section standards were designed to fit within the existing right-of way and curb-to-curb widths of
the above mentioned streets, eliminating the need to widen streets and relocate utilities. These
cross sections are to be used when the City prepares its Capital Improvement Program for re-
striping and when a developer is required, as part of a development project, to construct the
remaining improvements as a condition of approval.
A new street that is proposed or required as part of a new development project shall be connected
to another new or existing street and/or alley. When a new street is proposed, the new street
design shall be compatible with the connecting street design and the proposed right-of-way
width, lane width, location of bike lanes or sharrows, curb bulb-outs and on-street parking
Director of Public Works. When a new street is proposed, the new street cross section shall be
1) one of the approved cross sections from this Plan, 2) compatible with the connecting street
design, and 3) or of
Public Works.
Chapter 5 Design Guidelines
E. Utility Guidelines
1. Existing and New Water Service Design Considerations:
i.Underground water plans should shall be provided to the City to allow Community
Development staff to verify the proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector
check (DDCs) prior to final agreement with the utility companies.
ii.Double detector check valves should shall be placed above ground to meet Rancho California
-20. Double detector checks should shall be installed
in a location that is internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right-of-
way, or placed in a manner that is architecturally integrated into the building design.
iii.The placement of DDCs and other water related utilities in alleyways, parking lots, or within a
equip
iv.DDCs and other water related utilities should shall not be placed adjacent to the sidewalk
along the building facades that face the street. This will ensure safe and comfortable
pedestrian path of travel along the sidewalks.
v.
vi.Landscape construction drawings should shall show and label all utilities and provide
appropriate screening. A three-foot clear zone should be provided around fire double
detector checks as required by the Riverside County Fire Department. Utility equipment
should be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look
like an afterthought.
vii.DDCs and other water utility equipment should shall be placed on private property and not
within the right of way. Easements should be obtained for DDCs and other water utility
equipment when they are placed on private property.
viii.Fire Department connections shall be wall mounted on the street side of the building.
2. Existing and New Electrical Service Design Considerations:
i.As required by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 04-02, all new electrical lines up to 34 Kv shall
be under-grounded.
ii.All utility equipment shall be located out of the pedestrian path of travel. All electrical utility
equipment, electrical meters, and junction boxes are encouraged to shall be placed within a
utility room. If a utility room is not feasible or appropriate, ensure that then all utility
equipment is shall be purposefully and aesthetically designed as an integral part of the
building, placed adjacent to alleyways, within parking areas, or within rear or side yards and
screened from public view.
iii.Purposeful and aesthetically integrated placement of electrical meters, junction boxes and
other utility equipment shall be achieved by encouraging that all equipment be placed
trian path of travel.
iv.Early coordination with Southern California Edison should occur in order to ensure that
transformers are placed in a manner that makes the least aesthetic impact, and to ensure that
transformers are well screened and in compliance wit
3 Existing and New Natural Gas Service Design Considerations:
i.Ensure safe ingress and egress to gas meters for maintenance, meter reading, and service
while simultaneously encouraging the placement of equipment that makes the least aesthetic
impact to the built environment.
ii. All utility equipment shall be located out of the pedestrian path of travel. All utility
equipment shall be purposefully and aesthetically placed adjacent to alleyways, within
parking areas, rear or si
view. Purposeful and aesthetically integrated placement of gas meters and other utility
equipment should be achieved by encouraging that all equipment be placed adjacent to
alleyways, withAll utility
equipment should be located out of the pedestrian path of travel.
iii.Gas meters should shall
A 3-foot wide minimum clearance should be provided when landscaping is utilized as the
screening method.
iv.When appropriate, gas meters should shall be painted to blend into the built environment.
v.Consultation with Southern California Gas regarding meter cabinet design guidelines and
appropriate screening methods should occur early in the project design process.
EXHIBIT B
Uptown Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED
by the City Council of the City of Temecula
this day of , 2019.
Michael S. Naggar, 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. 19- 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 , 2019, 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 , 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
EIR Addendum
Page
Introduction/Background ........................................................................................................ 2
CEQA Authority for an Addendum ........................................................................................ 3
Project Details and Background ............................................................................................ 4
1.Project Title ............................................................................................................. 4
2.Lead Agency Name and Address ........................................................................... 4
3.Contact Person and Phone Number ....................................................................... 4
4.Project Location and Existing Site Conditions ........................................................ 4
5. .................................................................... 5
6.General Plan Designation ....................................................................................... 5
7.Zoning ..................................................................................................................... 5
8.Project Description and Background ...................................................................... 5
9.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ..................................................................... 20
10.Required Approvals .............................................................................................. 23
Environmental Checklist ....................................................................................................... 24
I.Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 24
II.Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 26
III.Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 29
IV.Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 32
V.Geology and Soils Seismicity................................................................................ 34
VI.Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................. 38
VII.Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 41
VIII.Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................ 44
IX.Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 46
X.Noise ..................................................................................................................... 49
XI.Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 50
XII.Public Services ...................................................................................................... 52
XIII.Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................ 56
XIV.Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................... 60
References .............................................................................................................................. 62
List of Figures
1Project Location .............................................................................................................. 21
2Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 22
Appendices
A. Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Amendments
B. Uptown Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards
i
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN
EIR Addendum
Introduction/Background
This document is an addendum to the Certified Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Program
Environmental Impact Report (Certified PEIR) (SCH #2013061012) prepared for the City of
Temecula, which was approved by City Council in November 2015. The Certified PEIR analyzes
the potential environmental impacts that may result from the implementation of the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan, which covers an area of approximately 560 acres. In accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Addendum analyzes the Proposed Specific
Plan Amendment Changes and Landscape Design Guidelines (the proposed Project) to the
Certified PEIR for the City of Temecula (City) to determine whether the project would result in
any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts
identified in the Certified PEIR.
The Certified PEIR analyzed the adoption and implementation of the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan that would replace the existing land use, zoning, and planned development districts as the
land use and design document for all future development in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
area. The overarching intent of the Specific Plan was to spark revitalization in the area by
allowing for greater development flexibility and a wider array of land use and development
options within the project area. In addition, the Specific Plan focuses on increasing mobility
opportunities and facilitating alternative transportation options, including walking, biking, and
t
calming strategies, pedestrian-oriented facilities, and bike lanes. The Specific Plan includes a
form-based code to better define development regulations and design standards in order to
encourage higher density urban development as well as facilitate a walkable, pedestrian-friendly
environment through appropriate building placement, streetscape design, and a strong focus on
the public realm. The Specific Plan land use mix includes residential, commercial, retail, office,
employment, education, tourism, hotel, recreation, and arts-related uses. The approved Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan and Certified PEIR are also referred to hereafter as the Approved
Project.
The City of Temecula is processing a City-initiated Specific Plan Amendment (LR16-0223 and
LR17-0724) for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. The proposed amendment to the existing
Specific Plan would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the
specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The
implementation of the proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within
the existing right-of-way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The
proposed clarification amendments to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan include various typo
2
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
corrections as well as, clarifications for the setbacks of buildings and parking spaces, the
placement and/or relocation of utilities, legal non-conforming uses, and the allowance of certain
land uses as required by state law. The updated sections of the Specific Plan can be found in
Appendix AAppendix B
, Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Amendments, and , Uptown
Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards. No construction activities are
proposed as part of the recommendation; the minor amendments only clarify standards for future
development projects.
CEQA Authority for an Addendum
The Certified PEIR includes all statutory sections required by CEQA, comments received on the
Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and supporting technical appendices. CEQA
establishes the type of environmental documentation required when changes to a project occur
after an EIR is certified. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) states that:
The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a
previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of
the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent
EIR have occurred.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requires a Subsequent EIR when an MND has already been
adopted or an EIR has been certified and one or more of the following circumstances exist:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
3
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan ESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
environment but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
Likewise, California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21166 states that unless one
or more of the following events occur, no subsequent or supplemental environmental
impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency:
Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of
the environmental impact report;
4. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report; or
5. New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.
As demonstrated by the analysis herein, the proposed Project would not result in any additional
significant impacts, nor would it substantially increase the severity of previously anticipated
significant impacts. Rather, all of the impacts associated with the proposed Project would be
within the envelope of impacts addressed in the Certified EIR and would not constitute a new or
substantially increased significant impact. Based on this determination, the proposed Project does
not meet the requirements for preparation of a Subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162.
Project Details and Background
1. Project Title
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Addendum
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Temecula
Temecula Planning Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, California 92590
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Dale West, Associate Planner II, (951) 693-3918
4. Project Location and Existing Site Conditions
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area, which encompasses approximately 560 acres of land
located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15 (I-15), south of Cherry Street, and
construction of I-15, the area was once a vibrant and important community destination along the
historic Highway 395. However, in recent decades, the area has developed under typical post-
World War II development patternsan eclectic mix of auto-oriented light industrial, office,
strip-commercial, and retail uses serving the local community. Although many of the businesses
4
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
in the Project area are still economically viable, the City prepared the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan in order to implement the goals and policies of the Temecula General Plan, which include
-use
community destination in proximity to I-15.
5.
The City of Temecula.
6. General Plan Designation
Specific Plan Implementation (SPI).
7. Zoning
Specific Plan 14 (Uptown Temecula Specific Plan).
8. Project Description and Background
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan and Certified PEIR (Approved
Project)
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, adopted in November 2015, outlines the development and
design standards for Uptown Temecula. The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is
approximately 560 acres of mostly developed land. The Specific Plan includes design guidelines,
replaced existing land use plans and zoning regulations for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
area. Implementation of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan was intended to guide future
development, increase mobility opportunities and facilitating alternative transportation options,
roadway configurations, traffic calming strategies, pedestrian-oriented facilities, and bike lanes.
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan includes a form-based code to better define development
regulations and design standards in order to encourage higher density urban development as well
as facilitate a walkable, pedestrian-friendly environment through appropriate building placement,
streetscape design, and a strong focus on the public realm. The land use mix would include
residential, commercial, retail, office, employment, education, tourism, hotel, recreation, and arts-
related uses.
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan is divided into six unique planning districts and two overlay
zones. The planning districts include, Uptown Center, Uptown Hotel/Tourism Center District,
Uptown Sports District, Uptown Arts District, Uptown Arts Wilder Hills- Residential Overlay,
Creekside Village District, Creekside Village- Commercial Overlay, and Murrieta Creek
Recreational District.
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan development scenario accounts for land use mix assumptions
Table 1
applied to each planning district (). This approach provides a refined worst-case scenario
that is useful in analyzing impacts. The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan development scenario
assumes that the gross land area of the planning districts with residential and non-residential
development is reduced to account for future streets (30 percent) and surface or structure parking
5
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan ESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
(50 percent). It also assumes the FAR target for the various planning districts as follows: a FAR of
2.0 for all planning district except the Uptown Center District which would have a FAR of 2.5,
assigns a percentage of residential and non-residential (commercial) development in each planning
district, and applies a target density and unit size to the residential component. The new
development is assumed to replace all existing development in the Specific Plan area, which
currently totals approximately 3,800,00 square feet. The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
development scenario would yield approximately 1.7 million square feet of commercial
development, 3,726 dwelling units, and 315 hotel rooms of development at buildout.
TABLE 1
UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Buildout
Land Use Mix
District Name Commercial (sf)Residential (du) Hotel Rooms Assumptions
2 1,3
Uptown Center 855,381 1,243 111 32% commercial;
68% residential
Uptown 188,885 195 176 60% commercial;
Hotel/Tourism 40% residential
Uptown Sports 114,558 600 28 20% commercial;
80% residential
Uptown Arts 384,322 1,303 0 20% commercial;
80% residential
Creekside Village 139,833 385 0 20% commercial;
80% residential
Total 1,682,979 3,726 315
NOTES:
1. Assumes 1,250 square feet for each unit; this calculation does not include common areas, hallways, stairwells, etc., of the
residential development. (Source KMA, 2013).
2. Development is assumed at a FAR of 2.0 (building height of 4 stories) for all districts, except the Uptown Center District where a
FAR of 2.5 (building height of 5 stories) was assumed.
3. Assumes a target residential density of 45 dwelling units per acre.
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan was the subject of a Program EIR which analyzed the
potential environmental impacts that may result from the adoption and implementation of the
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. The Certified PEIR provides a programmatic level of
environmental impact analysis for a broad array of environmental topics for the entire Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan area. The Certified PEIR analyzes the impacts of an estimated buildout
scenario of residential units, offices, retail uses, restaurants, and hotel rooms. The Certified PEIR
determined the implementation of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would cause significant
and unavoidable impacts to the following resource areas: air quality, cultural resources, and noise.
All other resources areas were determined to have impacts that were either less than significant or
Table 2
less than significant with mitigation. , Summary of Certified PEIR Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, includes a list of the impact statements the Certified PEIR determined required
mitigation measures
6
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
t
Significance after
Less than Significan
Significant and
Unavoidable
Mitigation
November 2018
ESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
specific development within the Project area that No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, ncluding security, roadway,
and task installation inspection to ensure that the site is in compliance with the design
by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance
site
Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the
ction from cars.
mirrored glass, painted
level development shall incorporate the following mitigation
includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be
opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an
tion materials on exterior wall surfaces. The exterior of permitted
-
The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for
The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on
ly for security lighting.
The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all future
measures to minimize emissions of NOx associated with construction activities for the Project:
1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655.
site architectural massing to block light sources and refle
Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and,
tilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays.
-
buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non
ASURES
Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especial
A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, i
-
TS AND MITIGATION ME
horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the shield;
cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces.
Specification of each light fixture and each light shield;
-
Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project
ceed 4,050 lumens;
external shielding.
-
Future project
-
AES
the following information and standards:
2
TABLE
CERTIFIED PEIR IMPAC
development within the Specific Plan area:
-
The use of highly reflective construc
7
standards in Mitigation Measure MM
-
architectural massing, and off
Light fixtures shall not ex
The City shall conduct a post
1a:
1:
automatic lighting system u
flat glass and internal and
-
-
AES
AIR
reviewed and approved
-
metal panels and pre
--
Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
Mitigation Measures
lighting;
SUMMARY OF
: The Project would significantly increase
implementation of the Project would violate air quality
sources of light and glare throughout the Project area.
Construction activities associated with
standards related to ROG and NOx emissions and
would result in significant air quality impacts.
Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Environmental Impact
Temecula
Uptown
1:
1
-
-
Impact AES
Air Quality
Aesthetics
Impact AIR
Significance after
Mitigation
/
November 2018
ESA
in over time in California, these engines may not always be readily available for the construction activities associated with
duty highway engines between 2007 and
or equivalent by January 1, 2023. Under this regulation, PM and NOx
rovide this evidence to the City and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet USEPA Tier equipment.
Under conditions where a newer or alternative technology becomes available in the future that for a project, the applicant shall be required to show evidence to the City that comparable
NOx emissions iesel emissions control strategy for meeting Tier IV emission standards are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall control device used by
the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could missions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB Require that construction
operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site
s. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices would result in either equivalent or larger reductions in NOx emissions than the use of tiered construction
ogy shall be applied. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier III equipment are chosen powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the
model year or newer diesel trucks are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall
addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions
(e.g., material delivery
Under conditions where it is determined that 2010
-
ble. Under conditions where it is determined that equipment
truction
motor vehicles, and
level development shall incorporate the following in the
equipment. In
level development shall document project construction
ble unit of equipment.
applicable unit of
by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible.
1113.
emissions prior to City approval of a project. If it is shown that a development would generate cons
use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under SCAQMD Rule
-
in for heavy
be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use USEPA Tier III
portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.
Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks
duty equipment,
SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each
a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations would be achieved.
operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applica
-
ed
phas
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 d
the Project. As such, under these circumstances the USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions standards, which were scheduled to be
-
related equipment, including heavy
in of 2010 model year engines
1
trucks and soil import/export) to the extent feasible.
emissions are projected to be reduced by approximately 3 tons per day and 88 tons per day, respectively, in 2023.
construction specifications of a development project:
-
-
: Future project
: Future project
rather than electrical generators powered
Tier IV emission standards, where availa
-
road diesel
2
8
year NOx emissions requirements.
be achieved by a Level 3 diesel e
road emissions standard
1b1c
-
-
-
Use) Regulation requires the phase
After January 1, 2015, off
Require that construction
--
equipment, that technol
AIRAIR
--
Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
Mitigation Measures
-
be required to p
road diesel
As the 2010 model year engines or equivalent would be gradually phased
-
III off
-
Off
-
Duty Diesel Vehicle (In
2010, would be used instead.
-
Road Heavy
Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
-
Environmental Impact
Temecula
Uptown
12
Less than SignificantLess than SignificantLess than Significant
Significance after
Significant and
voidable
Mitigation
November 2018
ESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Una
Prior to City approval of an individual development project that would have the exceedance of the of 3,500 cubic yards of dirt handling associated with grading specific residential developments
within exposure from status plant species observed shall be marked shall be updated. A biologist will provide verification and report through memorandum to the Western Riverside
de, but are not
duty diesel equipment operating concurrently for
encourage all construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD
submitted that identifies the resulting construction emissions and demonstrates how the emissions would not
and afforded a level of protection within 100 feet of the construction footprint, per the terms and conditions of
,
is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG emissions generated under the Project to the extent that
apping within the construction limits
disturbing activities for individual development projectsdisturbing activities. The
duty
evaluate the health risks to these residential developments associated with TACs from the mobile sources
15, a health risk assessment (HRA) shall be conducted to
construction clearance surveys shall be conducted in accordance with Section 6.0 of the MSHCP for
the Project area. Based on the findings in the HRA,
specific LST analysis shall be prepared and
limited to, relocating the residential development beyond 500 feet of the freeway or implementation of
-
road diesel vehicles such as heavy
-
exposed individual. These measures may inclu
appropriate Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters at the residential development.
appropriate measures shall be taken, if necessary, to reduce the cancer risk resulting from TAC
County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Monitoring Program Administrator.
-
status plant species in suitable habitat areas that will be subject to ground
site travel by haul trucks per day; and,
, as discussed above.
.
most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards.
-
Prior to City approval of future project
status or habitats of concern m
site storage (soil) pile of more than 0.02 acres
-
-
riate season. All special
-
Requires more than a maximum of six pieces of heavy
-
w, a project
1d
-
As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer p
15 that is adjacent to
-
Prior to any ground
Involves more than a maximum daily amount
AIR
The City shall
-
-
-
area and located within 500 feet of I
15 to below 10 in one million for the maximally
construction equipment and activity listed belo
MM
through
-
-9
the MSHCP. As appropriate, the special
Requires more than 10 miles of on
surveys will be conducted in the approp
1a
1d:
3: 4:
1:
-
-
-
---
AIRtraveling along the portion of I
BIO
AIRAIRAIR
-
eight hours per day;
----
Mitigation Measures MM
construction equipment.
Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
Mitigation Measures-
Involves an on
activities;
the Project
-
special
-
pre
-
I
standards related to ROG emissions and would result in For the purposes of this analysis, future associated with the implementation of the Project would re no more than a duty diesel
equipment involve no more than a maximum daily amount of 3,500 15 Project could result in direct and indirect compete special status plants. All impacts to special status plants
travel by haul trucks per day; and 4) involve an onsite
implementation of the Project would violate air quality
level development could exceed -
sensitive receptors to TACs from mobile sources on I
Operational activities associated with
status plants from future projects. Impacts could include trampling, crushing, grubbing,
re than 10 miles of onsite
t
roject could potentially expose
cubic yards of dirt handling associated with grading
these construction activity thresholds, resulting in a
trimming or completely removing the plants or their
significant air quality impacts at this program level.
habitat during construction. Construction equipmen
storage (soil) pile of no more than 0.02 acres. It is
operating concurrently for eight hours per day; 2)
level development construction activities
-
could introduce invasive weeds that could out
not have a significant localized impact when
to an extent that health risks could result.
localized air quality impact.
construction activities: 1) would requi
would be considered significant.
-
Specific Plan
maximum of six pieces of heavy
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
activities; 3) require no mo
Environmental Impact
Biological Resources
Temecula
-
The P
possible that project
-
impacts to special
3: 4:
Uptown
1:
2:
-
---
Impact BIO
Impact AIRImpact AIRImpact AIR
significant
-
project
Less than SignificantLess than SignificantLess than Significant
Significance after
Mitigation
/
November 2018
ESA
with a minimum of one year nest survey experience foot approved by CDFW) using construction ccordance with the sampling methods described in the 1996 USFWS Interim Survey Guidelines
to Permittees term conservation value for the fairy shrimp shall be conserved. The MSHCP provides general be conserved and ten percent
construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of
birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the
modified depressions) currently exist within the construction
ect site,
certain percentage of the occupied portions of the property that
the MSHCP. Prior to City approval of an individual development project located outside of land designated as -
tlands or seasonally inundated habitats (vernal pools, stock ponds, ephemeral
surveys, no additional mitigation is necessary and construction can commence. If burrowing owl(s) are found
ction 6.1.2 of
an active translocation plan, if appropriate and approved, and identifying a
lified biologist. If no
specific mitigation actions would be
process and, if suitable fairy shrimp habitat is identified on the wetland maps and cannot be avoided, a single
, and MSHCP covered species; USFWS for
-
shall take place outside of the raptor breeding season
performing raptor surveys). The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or The specific MSHCP conservation objectives for fairy shrimp shall be met
-
reviewed as part of the project review
o a state that they can leave the nest on their own). A 500
CDFW approved burrowing owl survey protocols a maximum of 30 days prior to construction to determine
Sheltering in place of nesting owls until nest fledges or fails, as determined by a qualified biologist (a
for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool
If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season (February 1
August 30), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a
1, an assessment of the construction footprint shall be conducted to
season dry or wet season survey for fairy shrimp species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in
disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the proj
be avoided by the
-
these pre
: Future development that occurs outside of land designated as
through implementation of the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Policy presented in Se
presence/absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified on the site during
the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qua
surveyed by a qualified biologist (i.e.,
Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall
guidance which suggests ninety percent of the occupied portions of the site shall
-
site, CDFW, the City, and RCA will be notified. The following species
footprint. Wetland mapping assembled as part of that policy shall be
receptor site for the owl(s) (per WRC MSHCP and CDFW).
concern
active nests are identified, construction may commence.
biologist (a person possessing a bachelors in science
(CDFW for state listed species, species of special
activities
-
implementation of one of the following measures:
young have hatched and fledged (matured t
ponds, impoundments, road ruts, or other human
Branchiopods. If survey results are positive, a
1 shall be
All construction and ground disturbing
10
rowing owls are found:
--
Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3
2: 4:
e).implementing
3
---
determine whether suitable we
August 30).
owl monitoring experienc
BIOBIOBIO
---
Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
Mitigation Measures
Preparing and
-
(February 1
-
provide for long
required if bur
-
ground
-
on
a
birds include direct loss of potential foraging and nesting Potential nesting habitat onsite includes mature migratory birds would nest onsite due to the proximity to foraging and nesting
(i.e., burrowing) habitat. Individuals status vernal areas between the developed portions of the project site
and Murrieta Creek. Suitable habitat would include the
pool species (fairy shrimp) that may occur in flat, open
Potential impacts to this species would include loss of
: Impacts to raptors and other migratory
construction related
prior to project construction as appropriate burrowing
trees and shrubs as well as grassland (in the case of
1.
Burrowing owls could inhabit the site
uitable
mourning dove). It is possible that raptors and other
could result in
activities have the potential to be killed or displaced
open space and riverine system of Murrieta Creek.
-
n harrier and
designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3
habitat would include the areas outside of land
owl foraging and nesting habitat is present. S
through burrow collapse and other impacts.
-
adverse effects to vernal pools and special
1.
proposed Project
nesting birds such as norther
e of land designated as
-
Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3
present during grading and other
Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Environmental Impact
Temecula
The
4:
Uptown
3:
2
---
areas outsid
t BIOImpact BIOImpact BIO
-
habitat.
ground
Impac
Significance after
Mitigation
November 2018
ESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
of the occupied portions allowed for development under the MSHCP; however, the required conservation/impact wing restriction and protection will be implemented to avoid or status vernal
pool branchiopods and aquatic habitats suitable for these species (e.g., vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands) from October 15 to disturbing activities may begin once the habitat
Program Administrator, and/or USACE. The biologist will document compliance through a memorandum during protected by erecting exclusion fencing. The contractor, under the supervision
of the project biologist, will erect In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for site restoration is site
fencing ractor
If temporary impacts can be avoided, the vernal pool(s) will be
cquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods shall be implemented
hrough informal or formal consultation with the
branchiopods. The DBESP shall contain a mitigation strategy, subject to the approval of the RCA, which may
If vernal pools and/or listed branchiopods are detected, and an avoidance alternative is not feasible, then the nt ratio shall be determined by the RCA based on the specifics of
the MSHCP, a DBESP shall be prepared as part of an individual development project approval by the City to
disturbing activities and the . Should an avoidance alternative not be feasible, vernal pool basins and watershed
-
s (e.g., western spadefoot toad), the contractor will not work within 250 feet of
the project. Vernal pool restoration sites shall be conserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement,
. Should both an avoidance alternative and habitat creation not be feasible, then off
term
site acquisition shall occur by
at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. The required replacement ratio shall be purchasing vernal pool mitigation credits at the Barry Jones (aka Skunk Hollow)
Wetland Mitigation Bank.
seasonal wetlands as determined through consultations with the RCA Monitoring
and erosion control measures will be placed at the vernal pools (or other seasonal wetlands) by the contmonitoring program (typically five years, complete with success criteria) shall
be included in the DBESP.
aintain the exclusion fencing. Resource agency consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program
site location will be selected that exhibits the appropriate vernal pool soil
-
is no longer inundated for the season. If any work remains to be completed after October 15 exclusion
ensure replacement of any lost functions and values of habitat as it relates to vernal pools and listed
of habitat and a long
g Program Administrator.
-
site at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. If on
-
a biologist. The fencing will act as a buffer between ground
deed restriction, or other appropriate mechanism. Specifications for the creation
-
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP).
-
basis. Mitigation through off
For seasonal avoidance of special
the establishment of the fencing activities submitted to the RCA Monitorin
project basis.
-
RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or USACE. Ground
vernal pools and listed branchiopods; each is described below.
June 1 (corresponding to the rainy season), or as determined t
-
tion, or off
minimize impacts to the resource during construction:
-
by
Administrator and/or USACE will occur as needed.
-
ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project
If listed branchiopods are detected, then the follo
Implement and Monitor Vernal Pool Protection.
determined by the RCA on a project by project
site habitat creation and conserva
site replaceme
llowing measures shall be implemented:
11
.
Seasonal Vernal Pool Work Restriction
-
dependent specie
-
infeasible, an appropriate off
The required off
site Land Acquisition
site Habitat Creation
vernal pools and other
Mitigation Measures
under supervision of
-
d on
shall be create
-
vernal pool-
conditions.
contain on
land a
and m
--
Off
On
fo
Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Environmental Impact
Temecula
Uptown
Less than SignificantLess than Significant
Significance after
Mitigation
/
November 2018
ESA
development within the construction footprint, the bats shall be safely excluded by either opening the roosting area to change related activities for a minimum of one week after implementing
exclusion and/or eviction activities. The o evict bats from established maternity roosts. The Biologist specific basis prior Commission (NAHC) and with interested Native Americans identified
by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological
resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Recommendations shall be made for
r other ground disturbing activities such as
records search to be conducted at the Eastern Information Center; scoping with the Native American Heritage
nurseries are identified within the construction footprint. The biologist will submit a
treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the City and the appropriate Native
nd landscapes. Methods of
disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant cultural resources as determined by a
accepted protocol. The biologist will contact the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or CDFW if any
ources are evaluated for their
is.
in place shall be the preferred means of mitigation to avoid
way doors, or other appropriate methods specified by the
representatives expressing interest. The City shall conduct consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño
develop additional treatment measures, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in
In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological monitors and Native American monitors during
identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
ps of bats are found
conducted in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and any other local Native American
sources
impacts to significant cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, locations of
andards for professional archaeology, and shall be
specific bas
, if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall
projects, a biologist or designee shall conduct a visual and acoustic survey for roosting bats according to
oring Program Administrator and/or CDFW. The contractor will leave the roost undisturbed by
resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms. If potentially significant cultural
design, project cancellation, or
y the archaeologist; and recordation of all identified archaeological
dians and any other local Native American
will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator.
disturbing activities associated with individual
American groups, including the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians. Per CEQA Guidelines Section
representatives expressing interest. The cultural resources inventory would consist of: a cultural re
-
Indians, and any other local Native American representatives expressing interest, on a project
-
subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project
memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator.
disturbing activities, if individuals or grou
importance to Native Americans, human remains, historical buildings, structures a
resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the res
-
route or re
Individual development projects o
-
avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re
consultation with the City, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño In
-
Prior to any ground
contractor will not implement exclusion measures t
-
lighting and airflow conditions, or by installing one
15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation
-
During ground
12
survey where deemed appropriate b
1:
5:
Bat Exclusion and Deterrence.
-
, shall be
-
CUL
BIO
hibernation roosts or active
--
Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
Mitigation Measures
installation of utilities
15126.4(b)(3)(C)
RCA Monit
-
-
project
ground
occurring under the Project has the potential to result in
The Project area has moderate to high
including prehistoric and historic period archaeological significantly impact archaeological sites and/or sites of
deposits. Future development under the Project could
disturbance or removal of roosting habitat (trees and
could result in
adverse effects to special status bats through the
potential for significant archaeological resources,
. Development
significant impacts to these resources.
proposed Project
Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
buildings) within the project site.
traditional cultural value to tribes
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Environmental Impact
Temecula
Cultural Resources
The
1:
5:
Uptown
-
-
Impact CUL
Impact BIO
Less than Significant
Significance after
Significant and
Unavoidable
Mitigation
November 2018
ESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
consultation with the City, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and any other local covered, all , project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid
impacts to significant cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if paleontologist
shall be retained to determine the necessity of conducting a study of the project area(s) based on t site for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the paleontologist disturbing
paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and
Native American groups expressing interest, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
Indians, and any other local Native American groups expressing interest, appropriate avoidance measures or er the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or
logist shall provide recommendations regarding additional work for the project. Impacts to significant
shall conduct a paleontological resources inventory designed to identify potentially significant resources. The
atment plan to
structures 50 years old or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey, and potentially historic
dians, and any other local
The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the
activities that have the potential to impact significant paleontological resources as determined by a qualified
significant resources are encountered during the
shall determine, in consultation with the City, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño
deemed appropriate by the paleontologist; and recordation of all identified paleontological resources. The
documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be conducted at the San Bernardino County Museum and/or other appropriate facilities; a field survey where
level development involving ground disturbance and containing
level development involving ground disturbance, a qualified
it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional
survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of
with the City, which may include data recovery or other appropriate
ion of
gical resources records search to be
activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the
significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be measures. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and
at the discretion of the
In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified
-
for ground
level construction, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be dis
design, project cancellation, or identificat
identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a tre
In addition, the project proponent shall retain paleontological monitors during construction
consulting archaeologist and in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño In
other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation.
Native American representatives expressing interest in the project.
paleontological resources inventory would consist of: a paleontolo
documentation according to current professional standards.
-
paleontological resources, if identified, shall be avoided.
route or re
-
-
For project
include, but shall not be limited to, project re
-13
Project
structures shall be evaluated for their
assess the significance of the find und
the potential sensitivity of the projec
treatment measures in consultation
2: 3:
-
include, but not limited to, photo
--
CULCUL
significant, the archaeologist
--
qualified archaeologist in
Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
Mitigation Measures
-
paleontologist.
During project
paleonto
implementation of the Project could cause a substantial
associated with
activities could result in the inadvertent discovery and
paleontological resources to be located beneath the
damage of these paleontological resources, which
15064.5, including the Gonzalez Adobe and other
sts for significant
resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
adverse change in the significance of a historical
ground surface in the Project area. Construction
Construction activities
.
structures that are 50 years or older
The potential exi
Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
.
would be a significant impact
Environmental Impact
Temecula
2: 3:
Uptown
--
Impact CULImpact CUL
Less than SignificantLess than SignificantLess than Significant
Significance after
Mitigation
/
November 2018
ESA
. y ), and Public Resources he applicant shall 05 prior to building permit approval. Any recommendations made in the Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that
appear
determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find
area shall address the potential discovery and proper treatment of human remains, which is always a potential
t of identification, catalogued, and profit institution with a research interest in the materials. Accompanying notes, maps,
ied paleontologist, in accordance with
in areas that have not been previously disturbed or only partially disturbed through prior development. The Cit
asured, appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for
remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find
und disturbance within the Project
y remediation as required by the overseeing agency shall be completed prior to
Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner
either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of
each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record pertinent geologic data,
analysis, and any other activities necessary for the timely and professional documentation and removal of Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely
Descendent of the
If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, the qualified paleontologist shall implement a paleontological
determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage
excavation activities and notification of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Soils
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to
retain a qualified environmental consulting firm to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in
deceased Native American, who will engage in consultation to determine the disposition of the remains.
shall cease and the Riverside County coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the
fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be
For individual development projects within the Project area, t
Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c
fossils. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the poin
level development involving gro
temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualif
and photographs shall also be filed at the repository.
1b
-
HYD
commencement of any construction activities.
-
Implementation of the Project would not result in significant global warming or climate change impacts.
MM
-14
Project
-
and
accordance with ASTM standard E1527
procedures and protocols set forth in
1a
1b:
4:
1a
stratigraphic sections shall be me
-
-
--
HYD
CUL
HAZHAZ
Phase I report as well as an
-
if human
suspect of contamination,
---
-Mitigation Measures MM
t Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
donated to a public, non
A
Mitigation Measures
mitigation program.
shall require that,
future development could disturb soils that are protected
Construction activities associated with
Construction activities occurring under
concrete, resulting in soil erosion and loss of topsoil.
associated with implementation of the Project could by vegetation or expose soils covered by asphalt or
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
result in damage to previously unidentified human
contamination, which could result in releases of
disturbing construction
conducted throughout the Project area that is
the Project may occur on sites containing
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
-
Environmental Impact
Ground
Temecula
hazardous materials.
1:
4:
1:
Uptown
-
--
Impact CULImpact GEO
Impact HAZ
remains.
Less than SignificantLess than Significant
Significance after
Mitigation
November 2018
ESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
ved odors, shall be segregated from other contained and profiled in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or Temecula Valley drains or sanitary sewers. Any water
that does not meet permitted requirements by these two agencies shall be require the preparation of a construction BMP plan detailing erosion, sediment, and waste management control
of approval, each future development project will be required , which will ensure Ordinance requirements. Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include scheduling, minimization of vegetation
groundbreaking activities within areas of identified or suspected contamination shall cease and shall
ty, or treated, if necessary to meet applicable standards,
ehicle fueling and maintenance in designated areas, and storm drain stenciling. This
bs one acre or more individually shall
WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading
specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula
comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit regulations in effect at the time so as not to violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the Construction General Permit
not resume until a site specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed professional and approved by
Reclamation Facility requirements depending on whether water will be discharged to storm
requirements. Compliance with the MS4 permit for construction projects disturbing less than an acre would
construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Development
BMPs to be implemented throughout construction to be submitted and approved by the City of Temecula.
ld include filing of a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating
ually shall comply with the MS4 permit issued by the
accordance with direction received from the County. If contamination is found to be present, any further
Any groundwater generated during construction dewatering shall be
prior to discharge in accordance with approval from the RWQCB or Temecula Valley Regional Water
soils and placed on and covered by plastic sheeting and characterized for potential contamination in
SDRWQCB in effect at the time so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
completed and submitted to the City.
as discussed above
Development construction that distur
suspected of contamination through visual observation or from obser
,
transported offsite for disposal at an appropriate facili
1b
construction that disturbs less than one acre individ
As a condition
-
HYD
Department of Environmental Health, has been
-
MM
15
and
1a
1c:
1b:
1a:
-
--
-
HYD
HAZ
HYDHYD
-
---
Mitigation Measures MM
disturbance, sandbags, v
Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
-
Mitigation Measures
Reclamation Facility.
to generate a project
Regional Water
proposed
permit.
wou
and loosen sediment, which has the potential to mix with during the operation of
groundwater, which would result in a significant impact
ditching, and excavation; these activities could expose potentially discharge into surface waters either directly
transmission fluid, grease, solvents and paints. These
ty.
related chemicals,
demolition of existing structures, pavement breaking,
Buildout of the Project would require
spilled or improperly disposed of during construction
the new commercial and residential structures could
Furthermore, construction would require the use of
storm water runoff and degrade surface water quali
identally
and could wash into and pollute surface waters or
such as concrete, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze,
or during storm water runoff events, resulting in
potentially harmful materials could be acc
degradation of surface water quality.
-
heavy equipment and construction
: Chemicals used
Specific Plan
Hydrology and Water Quality
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Environmental Impact
Temecula
to water quality.
1:
Uptown
2
--
Impact HYDImpact HYD
Less than SignificantLess than Significant
Significance after
Significant and
Unavoidable
Mitigation
/
November 2018
ESA
related exception request to These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction
in the amount of equipment generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact
of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general
muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust
la Municipal Code. If a
5). If it is determined that City noise standards for
sensitive land
ssible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
related exception request is denied by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the
exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust
specific
k noise
Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on a
:
tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be
specific development located within the Project area shall
-
Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits for project
Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest pea
-
and vibration
exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecu
-
construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction
-
k idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise
, as discussed above
-
ent site.
dards for construction (see Table 3.10
, as discussed above
construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever po
1b
the City Manager at least one week in advance of
-
HYD
that would operate concurrently at the developm
-
MM
-
Project
16
and
1a
1b:
1a:
1a
-
-
HYD
--
NOINOI
HYD
-
-
the
---
Measures MM
-
Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
of
-
Mitigation Measures
of advanced or state
exterior noise stan
Implementation of the Project would not result in significant land use impacts.
noise standards.
-
construction
Mitigation
uses.
truc
Project area would expose their respective nearby land
-
: Construction activities occurring at each
e off
excavation, which could temporarily alter the existing
New development within the Project
individual development site under the Project in the
impermeable surfaces would alter the direction and
activities such as pavement breaking, ditching, and
development within the Project area would require
Consequently, a substantial temporary or periodic
could result in significant impacts related to water
volume of overland flows during both wet and dry
increase in ambient noise levels would occur at th
periods and could result in increases in polluted
area and changes in the extent of permeable or
Construction of the proposed
uses to substantial increases in noise levels.
Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Land Use and Planning
Environmental Impact
Temecula
Noise and Vibration
3:4:
Uptown
site land uses.
--1
-
Impact NOI
stormwater.
Impact HYDImpact HYD
quality.
sit
SignificantLess than Significant
Significance after
Significant and
Unavoidable
Mitigation
November 2018
ESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Less than
tired construction equipment shall be used mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away from receptor nt shall provide documentation
to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed
These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the
manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound
Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the Project
tor or onsite project
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
nsure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing
specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the
y the City of Temecula, which
institutional structures during construction activities associated with any noise standards. If City noise standards would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that
residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that
Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property
tion noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed
responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and
d to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards.
Operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing
areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into
The operation of construction equipment that generates high levels of
l be prohibited within 45 feet of
ithin this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects where feasible.ise impacts from
within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible.
specific
-
residential structures and 35 feet of institutional structures during construction of any project
shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible.
Individual development projects shall minimize no
L of 45 dB in any habitable room.
exceed the
Ensure that all construction truck traffic is restricted to routes approved b
buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented.
vibration, such as large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shal
City that operational noise levels generated by the development would
specific development in the Project area, to the extent feasible.
-
development in the Project area, to the extent feasible. Small, rubber
design of adequate setback distances for the new developments.
or CNE
-
For project
dn
17
decibels.
operational noise levels would be reduce
interior noise levels would be below an L
residential structures and 20 feet of
owners who is responsible for
2b:
2a: 4a:
4b:
3:
development by more than five
onstruc
-----
used whenever feasible.NOINOINOINOINOI
-----
Locate stationary c
Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
Mitigation Measures
building design to e
Hold a preco
area, the applica
-
project
w
activities occurring at each residential and institutional land uses to vibration levels
uilding damage and human annoyance area could expose nearby sensitive resources to noise
vels that could exceed the
: New developments within the Project : New developments within the Project
individual development site under the Project in the
levels exceeding 5 dBA due to operation of HVAC
site
that would exceed the applicable FTA vibration
-
are located adjacent to and/or near the new
Project area may expose their respective off
for residential and institutional land uses.
Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
: Construction
area may introduce noise le
Environmental Impact
Temecula
development sites.
thresholds for b Uptown
234
---
Impact NOIImpact NOIImpact NOI
equipment.
Less than SignificantLess than SignificantLess than Significant
Significance after
Mitigation
/
November 2018
ESA
the Project area, y standards include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the : The City shall monitor the performance of the intersections
listed below on an The City shall monitor the performance of the intersections listed below on an westbound right turn lane to the northbound
pment within the Project area, specific development within the Project area,
share contribution is
the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the improvements for the intersections
going basis and ensure that the following improvements occur at these intersections prior to or concurrent
signal timing optimization occurs at these intersections prior to or concurrent
share contribution for this mitigation
the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the signal timing optimization for the
-turn overlap traffic
lane, two through lanes, and a shared through
hour delay by more than two seconds.hour delay by more than two seconds.
ion for this mitigation
/ Proposed French Valley Parkway, the
development within
share contribution is 5 percent).
-
-
At the intersection of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, add a right
-
uthbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway, add an exclusive right
share contribut
specific develo
specific
-
-
--
-
Prior to City approval of a project
related development that would increase the AM peakrelated development that would increase the AM peak
--
Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each projectPrior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project
Avenue at Cherry Street
configured from one left turn -
percent).
on is 5
share contributi
18
Nicholas Road & Winchester Road
design of adequate setback distances.
Ynez Road & Winchester Road
Jefferson
2:
5:
population and housing impacts.
going basis and ensure that
1
-
--
-
approach lane shall be re
NOI
TRATRA
percent)-
s 5 percent)
At the intersection of
intersections listed herein.
---
Implementation of the Project would not result in significant public services impacts.
Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
Mitigation Measures
measure is 10
15 So
10 percent).
measure i
-
rein.
At the I
--
with Projectoject
compatibilit
listed he
with Pr
--
onon
Implementation of the Project would not result in significant
: Due to changes in the community noise ons under the Existing impacts at the following intersections under Future Year emecula Parkway
meet the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise
: The Project would result in significant Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road
: The Project would result in significant
not
Avenue at Cherry Street/Proposed
year buildout period, the new land use
proposed
developments proposed in the Project area may
AM peak hour
environment in the Project area over the
Nicholas Road & Winchester Road
Ynez Road & Winchester Road
15 Southbound Ramps and T
standards established by the City.
impacts at the following intersecti
Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
(2013) Plus Project Conditions:
(2035) Plus Project conditions:
French Valley Parkway
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Transportation and Traffic
Population and Housing
Environmental Impact
AM peak hour
Temecula
AM peak hour
Jefferson
Public Services
Uptown
12
5
--
-
-
Impact NOI
Impact TRAImpact TRA
-
I
Project
12.13.26.
1.4.
Less than Significant
Significance after
Mitigation
November 2018
ESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio
fic development
l pay its fair share of Eastern Municipal Water
specific
speci
-
Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project
-
Prior to issuance of construction permits for a project
Jefferson
District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted sewer pipelines at
development within the Project area, the project applicant shal
Participation Charge associated with obtaining sewer service.
19
1b:
1a:
--
UTLUTL
--
Mitigation Measure MMMitigation Measure MM
Mitigation Measures
Road.
The buildout of the Project would result in three lengths of sewer pipe within the Project area, and the
flow; the construction of which could result in significant
wastewater
the need for larger diameter or parallel sewer lines for
need to increase the capacity of the Temecula Valley
Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
to handle an additional 0.8 mgd of
Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Environmental Impact
Temecula
environmental effects.
Uptown
1:
-
Impact UTL
RWRF
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Proposed Project
The City of Temecula is processing a City-initiated Specific Plan Amendment (LR17-0724) for
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area in Temecula. The proposed amendment to the existing
Specific Plan would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the
specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The
implementation of the proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within
the existing right-of-way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The
proposed clarification amendments to the Uptown Specific Plan include various typo corrections
as well as, clarifications for the setbacks of buildings and parking spaces, the placement and/or
relocation of utilities, legal non-conforming uses, and the allowance of certain land uses as
required by state law. No construction activities are proposed as part of the recommendation; the
minor amendments only clarify standards for future development projects.
Comparison of Approved and Proposed Project
For the purposes of this Addendum, the Approved Project is used as a baseline for the analysis.
As described above, full implementation of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would increase
the density and intensity of existing Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area of Temecula. The new
development is assumed to replace all existing development in the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan area, which currently totals approximately 3,800,00 square feet. The Project development
scenario would yield approximately 1.7 million square feet of commercial development, 3,726
dwelling units, and 315 hotel rooms, of development at buildout. over a 20-year time period. The
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan replaced the seven existing zoning designations (Community
Commercial, Service Commercial, Highway Tourist Commercial, Business Park, Industrial Park,
Public Institutional, and Open Space Conservation) with new use and development regulations
and standards for the Specific Plan area. As described above, the proposed amendment to the
existing Specific Plan would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the
specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The
implementation of the proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the
existing right-of-way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The Project area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres
located in the northwestern area of Temecula, bounded by Cherry Street on the north, I-15 on the
Figure 1
east, Rancho California Road on the south, and Diaz Road on the west (). The Project
area is characterized by an eclectic mix of automobile-oriented strip commercial/retail, office, and
Figure 2
light industrial development (). The total existing building area is approximately
3,800,000 square feet. Typical uses in the Project area include religious facilities, government
facilities, office uses, general retail, service commercial, automobile-oriented uses, restaurants
(drive-thru and sit down), industrial uses, and hotels.
20
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Figure 1ProjectLocation
21
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Figure 2Existing Conditions
22
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
10. Required Approvals
The following approvals are required as a part of this project:
Specific Plan Amendment to amend:
Update the Specific plan to clarify language in the Specific Plan
Amendment to the Specific Plan to create sidewalk improvement standards, which would
include the specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory
plants.
The City of Temecula is the lead agency and the approvals of other public agencies are not required.
23
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Environmental Checklist
This section addresses each of the environmental issues discussed in the Certified PEIR and
subsequent CEQA documents to determine if the currently proposed Project has the potential to
create new significant impacts or a result in a substantial increase in the severity of a significant
impact as compared to what was identified in the Certified PEIR and subsequent CEQA
documents. Additionally, impacts are compared to existing on-the-ground conditions. As
described above, the approved Uptown Temecula Specific Plan and Certified PEIR are also
Project. Topics that were scoped out in the Initial
Study, hereby referred to simply as Certified PEIR, are included in this analysis.
I. Aesthetics
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Specific Plan PEIR
1. AESTHETICS Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion
a) Scenic Vista
The Certified PEIR determined that the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would result in a less-
than-significant impact or no impact to scenic vista.
The proposed Project would be within the density parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and
would not plan for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. The
proposed Project merely amends the existing Specific Plan and would create sidewalk improvement
standards, which would include the specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees,
and understory plants. The implementation of the proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape
standards would occur within the existing right-of-way or within the right-of-way where any new
street is constructed. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in an impact to scenic vista that
was not previously considered.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
24
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
b) Scenic Resources
The Certified PEIR determined that the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would result in less-
than-significant impact or no impact to scenic resources.
The proposed Project would be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and
would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus,
the proposed Project would not result in an impact to scenic resources that was not previously
considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
c) Visual Character
The Certified PEIR determined that the visual character of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
area would be altered through the encouragement of higher density/intensity development that
concepts and other related improvements in order to increase the vibrancy of the area and
encourage pedestrian activity. In addition, there would be an adoption of a form-based code that
would define development regulations, including building disposition on a lot, building height,
building massing, parking and development density and intensity, to better facilitate urban design
and a pedestrian-friendly environment. Design standards contained in the Specific Plan provides
architectural guidelines, setbacks, sidewalk widths, signage standards, a streetscape and
landscaping plan, and lighting standards in order to create a cohesive and well-recognizable
character for the area. Therefore, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan aims to enhance rather than
degrade the visual character of the area and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed Project would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the
specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The
implementation of the proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within
the existing right-of-way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The
proposed Project would be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and
would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the
proposed Project would not result in an impact to visual character that was not previously
considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
d) Light and Glare
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is largely built out and, therefore, includes existing
sources of light and glare. The nighttime lighting environment surrounding the site mainly
consists of passing vehicle headlights, street lighting, lighting of the I-15 corridor, and building
lighting from commercial and industrial uses.
25
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Surface parking lots currently within the specific plan areaare the only substantial source of glare
from sunlight or artificial light reflecting from cars. These lots include one large surface parking
lot on Bueking Drive, located behind the Foundation for Course in Miracles Education Center;
one along Via Montezuma, east of Best for Less Tires in the auto-oriented use area; a large
parking area associated with Winchester Square; and two large parking surface lots located on
Calle Cortez and Del Rio Road for the Old Adobe Plaza Shopping Center.
The proposed Project would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the
specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The
implementation of the proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the
existing right-of-way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed
Project would be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow
for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in an impact to light and glare that was not previously considered in the Certified
PEIR.
Same IProject
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
II. Air Quality
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Project Specific Plan PEIR
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Discussion
As discussed in Certified PEIR Section 3.2, Air Quality, buildout of the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan area was determined to result in significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to
construction and operational emissions. The Certified PEIR determined that the construction
pursuant to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan and resulting emissions would exceed South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds for, nitrogen
oxides (NO) and reactive organic gas (ROG). However, even with compliance with applicable
X
26
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
SCAQMD rules and mitigation measures specified in the Certified PEIR, emissions would still
impacts from construction pursuant to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would be significant
and unavoidable.
The Certified PEIR found that implementation of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would
result in significant and unavoidable long-term operational impacts from operational emissions
due to increased vehicle trips and associated emissions. However, during operation of the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan, traffic generated as the result of full buildout is not predicted to result in
the formation of localized CO hotspots at impacted roadway intersections.
With respect to toxic air contaminants (TACs), the land uses analyzed in the Certified PEIR could
potential expose receptors to TACs from mobile sources on I-15 to an extent that health risks
could result. As the existing auto-oriented retail and light industrial facilities generally emit
greater amounts of TACs than residential, office, hotel, or commercial uses, the removal of these
uses would result in a reduction in the amount of existing TAC emissions in the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan area. Mitigation measures such as relocating the residential development
beyond 500 feet of the freeway would reduce concentrations of TAC that sensitive receptors
would be exposed to.
Odors from construction pursuant to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan were found to be less
than significant. During the construction phases for each of the new developments that would
occur in the Project area over the course of the buildout period, exhaust from equipment and
activities associated with the application of architectural coatings and other interior and exterior
finishes may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Such odors would be a
temporary source of nuisance to adjacent uses, but because they are temporary and intermittent in
nature, would not be considered a significant environmental impact. Therefore, impacts
associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant.
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan was determined to be consistent with the applicable air
quality plan because it would not increase the allowable density in the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan area from densities allowed under the General Plan. The Certified PEIR determined that the
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan is consistent with the growth assumptions contained in the Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is the air quality plan for the region.
a) Air Quality Plans
The 2012 Air Quality Management Plan was applicable to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan at
the time of the analysis. Since then, the 2016 AQMP has been released. Projects that are
consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG
are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast
assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the
forecasts are based upon, among other
things, land uses designated in general plans, a project that is consistent with the land use
projections, and thus, also with the AQMP growth projections.
27
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
No additional construction activities are anticipated for Specific Plan Amendment project,
therefore there will be no additional environmental impacts to air quality than anticipated under
the Certified PEIR.
Same or
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
b) Air Quality Standards
The Certified PEIR did not perform quantitative emissions calculations for the construction
emissions from individual implementation of projects within the entire Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan, but conservatively assumed 5.7 percent of buildout of the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan per year. These emissions could exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds even
with implementation of mitigation, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
No additional construction activities are anticipated for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
therefore there will be no additional environmental impacts to air quality.
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be significant and unavoidable as there are no other feasible mitigation measures available to
reduce these impacts at this program level.
c) Cumulative
project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same, and
projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered to be cumulatively
considerable. Projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are not considered to be
cumulatively significant. As discussed above, no additional construction activities are anticipated
for the proposed Project, therefore there will be no additional environmental impacts to air
quality.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR.
d) Sensitive Receptors
No additional construction activities are anticipated for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
therefore there will be no additional environmental impacts to sensitive receptors.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation.
28
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
e) Odors
The Project would not introduce any new sources of odors not previously considered and
analyzed in the Certified PEIR. Therefore, the Specific Plan Amendment would not result in any
new significant odor impacts nor would it result in a substantial increase in the severity of
impacts compared to those identified in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
III. Biological Resources
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Specific Plan PEIR
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion
Topography within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is generally flat with elevations
ranging from 304 to 335 meters (1,000 to 1,100 feet) above mean sea level. The majority of the
Project is developed; however, the area also includes large open space/conservation parcels that
are owned by the Riverside County Flood Control District. These parcels total approximately 240
acres and represent the largest land use within the Project. These parcels are comprised of
disturbed/ruderal vegetation near the northwestern end to wetlands and riparian/riverine resources
within Murrieta Creek, along the western edge of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area. Both
29
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
natural drainages and artificial stormwater management channels direct on-site generated
stormwater from the adjacent developments and open vacant lots into Murrieta Creek.
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area supports a variety of vegetation communities including
meadows and marshes, riparian scrub/woodland/forest, and disturbed/open vacant land that may
provide habitat for a variety of common wildlife species. Based on previous experience within the
region, general wildlife species expected to occur on or within the vicinity of the Project include,
bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), California towhee
cooperii), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), spotted towhee (Pipilo
maculatus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), wren
(Thryomanes sp.), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus).
Plant communities, identified below, are defined according to the MSHCP Collapsed Vegetation
Communities Classifications, and are based on the Riverside County Land Information System
2005 plant community/vegetation data. This information represents the best currently available
information for a program-level analysis. Table 3 from the PEIR shows the vegetation community
acreages for the Project site. As specific projects are proposed, on-site habitat surveys should be
conducted for a more accurate depiction of habitat type.
The total acreage listed in Table 3 for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is higher than the
560 acres defined in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, due to the fact that the vegetation
communities map is based on the total land area falling within the overall Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan boundary, while the 560 acres listed in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
description is based on parcel data and excludes streets, easements, and other such areas that are
not included in parcel data; thus, the acreage upon which the vegetation communities map is
based is higher.
T3
ABLE
2005CVCAPS
OUNTY EGETATION OMMUNITY CREAGES WITHIN THE ROJECT ITE
Vegetation Community Acres
Developed 351.6
Disturbed/Ruderal 176.1
Meadows and Marshes 74.9
Open Water/Reservoir/Pond 10.9
Riparian Scrub/Woodland/Forest 8.5
622.0
Grand Total
A total of 26 species of plants were recorded within a one-mile radius of the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan area in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and within the United
States Geological Survey Murrieta 7.5-minute quadrangle in the CNPS, and were evaluated for
potential occurrence based on elevations and the type and quality of soils and habitats present
30
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
within the Uptown Temecula Specific Planarea.Environmental conditions within the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan area are considered suitable for 21 species of plants considered to have a
moderate or high potential to occur on-site.
Potential impacts to the special-status plants identified would include trampling, crushing,
grubbing, trimming or completely removing the plants or their habitat during construction. Also,
construction equipment could introduce invasive weeds that could out-compete special status
plants. Impacts to special status plants are considered significant.
A total of 27 special-status wildlife species were recorded in the CNDDB and evaluated for
potential occurrence within a one-mile radius of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Specific
area based on the type and quality of habitat mapped by the County in 2005 and aerial
photographs. Additional species not identified by the CNDDB but are known to occur within the
vicinity of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Specific area based on previous experience in the
City of Temecula and the surrounding region were also added identified. Environmental
conditions within the Project area are considered suitable for 24 species of wildlife considered to
have a moderate or high potential to occur on-site.
To mitigate potentially significant impacts to special-status plants and wildlife, mitigation
measures were recommended in the PEIR. Prior to any ground-disturbing activities for individual
development projects, pre-construction clearance surveys shall be conducted in accordance with
Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for special-status plant
species in suitable habitat areas that will be subject to ground-disturbing activities. The surveys
will be conducted in the appropriate season. All special-status plant species observed shall be
marked and afforded a level of protection within 100 feet of the construction footprint, per the
terms and conditions of the MSHCP. As appropriate, the special-status or habitats of concern
mapping within the construction limits shall be updated. A biologist will provide verification and
report through memorandum to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority
(RCA) Monitoring Program Administrator.
Future development within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Specific area would result in a
potential direct, indirect, temporary, and permanent impact to biological resources. However, as
development occurs, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to less than
significant.
a-f) Biological Resources
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in additional construction activities than
envisioned under the Certified PEIR. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in impacts that
were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation.
31
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
IV. Cultural Resources
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in the identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Specific Plan PEIR
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
The western portion of the Project area is bounded by Murrieta Creek, and the northern portion is
bisected by Santa Gertrudis Creek, making the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area well suited
to human habitation and use. The geoarchaeological review prepared for the Certified PEIR,
indicated that portions of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area have a high to moderate
probability for buried archaeological resources. This is also evidenced by the high number of
prehistoric archaeological resources, some with buried deposits, recorded within and near the
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Specific area. Previously recorded resources CA-RIV-717, a
prehistoric artifact scatter, and CA-RIV-644, a prehistoric temporary-use campsite with deep
midden deposits, are located within the Project area (Schlanger, 1974). Additionally, prehistoric
site CA-RIV-237, a possible village site with midden soil, is located west of Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan area on the opposite bank of Murrieta Creek (Drover and Smith, 1991). Pechanga
cultural resources specialists have indicated that they believe that CA-RIV-237 is part of the
village of Qéngva, and that the village may have encompassed the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan area.
Based on the historic aerial and map review, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area has likely
been used for agricultural purposes for over 100 years, and manifestations of those activities in
the form of historic-period archaeological deposits may be present, possibly including those
associated with the Gonzalez Adobe, which was constructed in 1879. Given the number and type
of archaeological resources in the vicinity of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area, as well as
the presence of Murrieta and Santa Gertrudis creeks and other natural water sources, and the
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area should be considered
highly sensitive for the presence of archaeological resources.
The Temecula General Plan Open Space Element calls for the City to work to preserve or salvage
potential archeological resources on sites proposed for future development through the
development review and mitigation monitoring processes, as well as maintain an inventory of
areas with archaeological sensitivity and historic sites. Given the high archaeological sensitivity
of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area, previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological
resources may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for individual projects. This
can occur even in already developed areas, as older buildings are known to have often been built
32
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
on top of or within archaeological deposits. Although much of the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan area is already heavily developed, the potentially significant buried archaeological resources
could nevertheless still exist within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area, beneath and
between structures and roads. If previously undiscovered artifacts or remains are uncovered
during excavation or construction, significant impacts could occur.
In addition, future development under the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Specific could
significantly impact sites of traditional cultural value to tribes. Representatives of the Pechanga
Tribe indicate the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is sensitive for cultural resources, that the
Project area is within an area traditionally inhabited by the Pechanga Tribe, and that several tribal
named places, including the village of Qéngva, existed within the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan area. The Pechanga Tribe considers the Temecula area, including the Project area, to be part
of a cultural landscape. Archaeological sites identified as a result of future development within
the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area could potentially contribute to the significance of this
landscape or to other sites of traditional cultural value to tribes. Moreover, development within
the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area could include the construction of buildings up to eight
stories in height, which could visually infringe on a cultural landscape. Potential impacts to Tribal
resources, including the surrounding landscape, should be considered.
Given the above, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan has the potential to adversely affect
archaeological resources. Implementation of mitigation measures listed in Table 1 would reduce
these impacts to less than significant.
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is underlain by the Pauba Formation and Quaternary
Alluvium (McLeod, 2013). Although shallow deposits of the Quaternary Alluvium, which occur
throughout much of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area, are not likely to contain significant
vertebrate fossils, deeper deposits in the alluvium may very well contain non-renewable
paleontological resources. Moreover, the Pauba Formation localities located in the northeastern
portion of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area may contain significant non-renewable
paleontological resources. The paleontological records search indicated that fossil localities have
been documented in the vicinity of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area in Quaternary
Alluvium and Pauba Formation sediments similar to those that occur within the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan are-26)
requires that a paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable
presence of paleontological resources is identified. However, significant paleontological
resources can be uncovered even in areas of low sensitivity, and it is possible that ground-
disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan could result in the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources, which could
be a significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to
less than significant levels at this program-level of analysis.
33
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
a-d) Cultural Resources
The proposed Project would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the
specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The
implementation of the proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within
the existing right-of-way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The
proposed Project would be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and
would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus,
the proposed Project would not result in an impact to cultural resources that was not previously
considered in the Certified PEIR.
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation.
V. Geology and Soils Seismicity
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in the identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Specific Plan PEIR
6. GEOLOGY and Soils
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
34
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Discussion
a.iiv) Seismically Induced Ground Shaking
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is located in a seismically active region with an active
fault segment, the Wildomar segment of the Elsinore fault, intersecting the site, and another, the
Willard fault segment, within 1,500 feet of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area boundary. In
2007, estimates by the Working Group on Earthquake Probabilities indicated a 97 percent chance
that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake would occur in the southern California region over the
following 30 years (USGS, 2008). The Elsinore Fault Zone is one of the faults considered capable
of producing significant groundshaking. If not designed appropriately, a 6.7 or greater magnitude
earthquake on the Elsinore or one of the other regional active faults could produce significant
groundshaking within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area, causing damage to structures.
Furthermore, the Uptown Temecula Specific area is essentially relatively level with very little
topographical relief and generally not susceptible to landslides with the exception of the creek
banks.
The proposed Project would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the
specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The
implementation of the proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within
the existing right-of-way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The
proposed Project would be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and
would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered.
Therefore, there will be no additional environmental impacts to geology, soils and seismicity.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation.
b) Soil Erosion
Construction activities associated with future development of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
could disturb soils that are protected by vegetation or expose soils covered by asphalt or concrete,
resulting in soil erosion and loss of topsoil.
Implementation of mitigation measures MM-HYD-1a and MM-HYD-1b would reduce impacts to
less than significant.
The proposed Project would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the
specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The
implementation of the proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within
the existing right-of-way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The
proposed Project would be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and
would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus,
the proposed Project would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the
Certified PEIR.
35
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Projectwould be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
not be significant.
c) Liquefaction
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Specific Plan area is a Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction
due to historic occurrences, the presence of unfavorable soils and shallow groundwater (CGS,
2007). Liquefaction at the site could result in loss of bearing pressure, lateral spreading, sand
boils (liquefied soil exiting at the ground surface), and earthquake-induced settlement. Future
earthquakes could potentially produce damaging effects at the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
area, if proposed improvements are not adequately designed.
Due to the location of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan in an area of high liquefaction
potential, people could be harmed and structures may be damaged from earthquake-induced
liquefaction, rapid settlement or other earthquake-induced ground failures. Because the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan is in a liquefaction hazard zone, pursuant to the Seismic Hazards
Mapping Act of 1990, a geotechnical report must be prepared that evaluates and provides
mitigation for potential liquefaction hazards. The investigation and mitigation recommendations
must be made in accordance with the California Geological Survey, Special Publication 117A,
Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards. Adherence to these requirements,
which would include incorporation of industry standard measures of minimizing the potential for
liquefaction through foundation design, treatment of site soils and/or replacement of liquefiable
soils with engineered fills, would ensure that seismically induced ground failure is a less than
significant impact to proposed development.
The proposed Project would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the
specifications for concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The
implementation of the proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within
the existing right-of-way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The
proposed Project would be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and
would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus,
the proposed Project would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the
Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation.
36
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
d) Expansive or Unstable Soils
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is relatively level with very little topographical relief
and generally not susceptible to landslides with the exception of the creek banks.
Development of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would be required to adhere to City building
code requirements, which include the preparation of a 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. Where settlement and/or differential
settlement is predicted, site preparation measuressuch as use of engineered fill, surcharging,
wick drains, deep foundations, structural slabs, hinged slabs, flexible utility connections, and
utility hangerscould be used. These measures would be evaluated and the most effective,
feasible, and economical measures recommended in a geotechnical report and incorporated into
site design in accordance with building code requirements. Engineering recommendations
included in the Project engineering and design plans would be reviewed and approved by the
City. Therefore, with adherence to building code requirements the potential for unstable soils to
adversely affect proposed improvements would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation.
e) Wastewater Disposal
Development associated with the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would deliver wastewater to
the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) wastewater treatment plant in Temecula.
Therefore, this issue is not applicable to the Project.
37
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
VI. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in the identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Specific Plan PEIR
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Discussion
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions from a variety of sources.
First, GHG emissions would be generated during construction of each of the project-specific
developments under the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. Once each individual development is
fully operational, the operations of those developments would generate GHG emissions from both
area sources and mobile sources. Indirect source emissions that would be generated from
operation of all the proposed developments in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area would
also include electrical consumption, water and wastewater usage (transportation), and solid waste
disposal. Mobile (direct) sources of air pollutants associated with the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan would consist of motor vehicles trips generated by residents, employees, and visitors.
As discussed previously, it was conservatively assumed in the air quality analysis that under a
worst-case construction scenario approximately 5.7 percent of the total maximum development
scenario would be constructed within any given year prior to Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
buildout. For the purpose of determining the total construction GHG emissions that would be
generated by full buildout of the Specific Plan area, the GHG emissions that would be generated
under the worst-case construction scenario used in the air quality analysis were taken and
proportionately extrapolated out to full (100 percent) development of the proposed land uses.
T5
ABLE
EC-O-RGHGE
STIMATED ONSTRUCTION AND PERATIONSELATED MISSIONS FOR THE PROJECT
Project Emissions COe
2
Emission Source (MT/yr)
Project Construction
Total 16,480
Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 549
Project Operations
a,b
Mobile Sources 58,616
Electricity Consumption 16,694
Natural Gas Consumption 7,918
Water Consumption 4,463
Solid Waste 1,881
Area Source 1,184
Total (Project Construction and Operations)c 91,305
38
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Project Emissions COe
2
Emission Source (MT/yr)
Existing Use Operations (To Be Removed)
d,e
Mobile Sources 49,785
Electricity Consumption 17,950
Natural Gas Consumption 6,864
Water Consumption 3,094
Solid Waste 1,672
Area Source 0.10
Total (Existing Uses) 79,365
TOTAL PROJECT NET EMISSIONS 11,940
NOTES: COe= carbon dioxide equivalent; MT/yr = metric tons per year; see Appendix B for CalEEMod model
2
outputs.
a
threshold, which was developed based on a target date of 2020 in accordance with the requirements of AB 32,
the Pt full buildout were assumed to occur in 2020 even though the Project
buildout horizon extends beyond 2020.
b
for any emissions reductions resulting from the required compliance with the 2010 California Green Building
Standards Code requirements.
c
construction emissions that have been amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology.
d
The operational GHG emissions estimated for the existing developments in the Project area are for year 2020,
which is the target date for the requirements of AB 32.
e
A future baseline for the GHG emissions associated with the existing uses is used in this analysis to provide an
accurate comparison of the net difference in emissions between the Project and existing uses. When the GHG
emissions associated with the existing uses at this future baseline is compared to the 2013 baseline emissions),
the only change is a reduction in mobile source emissions. Given that mobile source emissions in California are
expected to continually improve over time due to vehicle fleet turnover and the implementation of more advanced
vehicle technologies, including lower emission fuels, it is reasonable to assume that future emissions in the
Project area occurring without the Project would still experience a net decrease in mobile source GHG emissions.
Doing so would prevent the o
area. Thus, for these reasons, it is reasonable for the purpose of this analysis to use a future baseline for the
GHG emissions generated by the existing uses.
It should be further noted that starting in 2016, the updated Title 24 building requirements
requires further reductions in energy consumption emissions by the residential and nonresidential
developments associated with the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. The Certified PEIR analyzed
the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan under compliance with the Title 24 building requirements.
Thus, once the energy reductions from compliance with the 2014Title 24 building requirements
are accounted for, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan net annual GHG emissions increase
over the existing uses in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area would be less than the
estimated 11,940 MTCOe per year. Furthermore, as building standards would continue to be
2
updated periodically over time (2016 Title 24 building requirements), the energy efficiencies of
new residential and nonresidential buildings in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area would
continue to improve as well over time. Thus, GHG emissions generated by the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan would be less than significant.
As discussed in the impact analysis above, the GHG emissions generated by the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan would not exceed the GHG efficiency threshold. Consequently, the
implementation of the Project would not hinder
achieving 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020. Furthermore, emissions from vehicles, which
are the main source of operational GHG emissions associated with the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan, would also be reduced through implementation of the state Pavley standards, the
federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and the state LCFS.
39
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Implementation of the Uptown Temecula Specific Planwould also allow for more mixed-use
developments in a walkable, pedestrian-oriented environment through building placement,
streetscape design, and a strong focus on the public realm when compared with the existing land
uses in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area. The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan aims to
establish an efficient and interconnected multi-modal mobility network through circulation and
transit improvements, and enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility in the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan area through the development of human-scaled streets, blocks, and alleys as well as
incorporating public plazas and providing links with open spaces and recreational amenities.
a) Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
b) Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
40
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in the identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Project Specific Plan PEIR
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
As described in the Certified PEIR, construction activities would require the use of certain
hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, and glues. Inadvertent release of large quantities
of these materials into the environment could adversely impact soil, surface waters, or
groundwater quality. However, the onsite storage and/or use of large quantities of materials
capable of impacting soil and groundwater are not typically required for the anticipated individual
projects that would occur under the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. In addition, for any sites
that would disturb more than one acre, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit for General Construction would be required which include measures that cover
the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction. With adherence to
these existing regulations, the potential impact associated with routine transportation, use, and
disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Demolition of any existing structures, especially older structures where hazardous building
materials such as asbestos, lead-based paint, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were
commonly used in construction, could be released during demolition activities and expose
41
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
construction workers, the public, or the environment. The level of potential impact is dependent
upon the age, construction, and building materials in each building and the protocols employed
for demolition. However, there are established measures that certified contractors commonly use
to contain, store, and dispose of these hazardous materials in a manner that limits exposure. The
first step towards appropriate handling and demolition is conducting thorough surveys to identify
the presence of these materials. ACMs are regulated both as a hazardous air pollutant under the
Clean Air Act and as a potential worker safety hazard under the authority of Cal-OSHA. Cal-
OSHA also regulates worker exposure to lead-based paint.
Potential exposure to these hazardous building materials can be reduced through appropriate use
of personal protective equipment, isolation and containment of work areas, and placement of
waste in approved transport containers.
Proposed development facilitated under the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would be expected
to increase commercial and residential land uses and could involve a range of increased chemical
products that are considered hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Exposure to hazardous
chemicals through improper handling or through accidental upset conditions could cause acute or
chronic health effects to the public and environment.
Handling and use of these hazardous materials and the disposal of the resulting hazardous wastes
would be required to follow the applicable laws and regulations. The net result of compliance
would be the reduction of risks and hazards to workers, the public, and the environment to levels
that would be considered acceptable.
Hazardous materials would typically be stored in their original containers prior to use. As
required, the hazardous materials would be stored in each building, in locations according to
compatibility and in storage enclosures (i.e., flammable material storage cabinets and biological
safety cabinets) or in areas or rooms specially designed, protected, and contained for such
storage, in accordance with applicable regulations. Hazardous materials would be handled and
used in accordance with applicable regulations by personnel that have been trained in the
handling and use of the material and that have received proper hazard-communication training.
Hazardous materials reporting (i.e., California Hazardous Materials Business Planning, California
Proposition 65 notification, and Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act
reporting) would be completed as required.
Temporary construction activities associated with development under the proposed Project may
involve limited quantities of gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, and paints for the
construction of individual, projects within the plan area. These materials would be transported
along the roadways and temporarily stored onsite. Containment and spill cleanup is encompassed
in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and
Water Quality, to prevent hazardous materials from spreading off the property. Hazardous
materials being generated during construction would be disposed of as described in the required
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Therefore, as a condition of construction,
compliance with existing regulations (NPDES) would address potential upsets and accidents
limiting the potential impacts during construction to less than significant.
42
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
As stated in the Certified PEIR, a number of sites within the plan area have been impacted by
petroleum hydrocarbons from leaking underground storage tanks or other chemical constituents
such as solvents associated with dry cleaning operations that could expose individuals to
hazardous conditions resulting from exposure of contaminated soils or groundwater. Exposure of
residents to underground hazardous wastes is considered a potentially significant impact. Areas
impacted by former releases could expose construction workers or future residents to hazardous
materials or hazardous wastes.
Some of the sites listed have been closed indicating that there is no longer any contamination at
levels that could adversely affect human health or the environment. Investigations and
remediation efforts are generally required by overseeing agenc
Materials Program, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the Department of
Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), which establish cleanup levels according to existing or
proposed uses. In general, soils contaminated from releases of petroleum hydrocarbons associated
with Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) are found in limited areas around the origin of release
and do not migrate very far offsite. Groundwater contamination, depending on a number of
factors can migrate further. Solvents are generally very soluble in water and can be found to
migrate well offsite. The former Dutch Dry Cleaners has been documented with releases of
solvents that have been found in the underlying groundwater. In addition to the documented
cases, there may be other sites where previously unidentified contamination is encountered.
Implementation of the defined mitigation measures would reduce the potential impact related to
sites with past releases of hazardous materials to less than significant levels.
ah) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
not be significant.
43
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in the identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Project Specific Plan PEIR
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion
Of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
space, which are mostly pervious surfaces. The remaining acres are zoned for commercial and
industrial uses; total existing building area in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is
approximately 3,800,000 square feet.
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area overlies the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin,
which has a surface area of about 137 square miles. The basin is bounded by nonwater-bearing
crystalline rocks of the Penninsular Ranges. Natural -bearing
alluvium is from direct precipitation and percolation in the Warm Springs, Tucalota, Santa
Gertrudis, Murrieta, and Pechanga Creeks and the Temecula River. Groundwater flows to the
southwestern part of the basin. Groundwater is generally unconfined, excluding beneath the
Pauba Valley and near some faults that cut the basin.
44
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
2010 list of impaired water bodies pursuant to provisions of Clean Water Act Section 303(d).
Murrieta Creek is impaired by metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity. Santa
Gertrudis Creek is impaired by metals/metalloids, nutrients, pathogens, and pesticides.
Buildout of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would require demolition of existing structures,
pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation; these activities could expose and loosen building
materials and sediment, which has the potential to mix with storm water runoff and degrade
surface water quality. Furthermore, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and
construction-related chemicals, such as concrete, cement, 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 water quality.
Furthermore, implementation of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would include both
commercial and residential structures. The introduction of residential uses to an area previously
containing only commercial and open space uses would introduce the potential for new or
additional pollutants to be generated in the area (e.g., pathogens, nutrients, pesticides, sediment,
trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease). The Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan would also increase the amount of commercial development in the area, thus increasing the
amount of commercial-related pollutants (organic compounds) potentially generated. Chemicals
used during the operation of the new commercial and residential structures could potentially
discharge into surface waters either directly or during storm water runoff events, resulting in
degradation of surface water quality. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in the
Certified PIER would ensure that construction-related and operation-related impacts on water
quality would be less than significant.
A portion of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area adjacent to Murrieta Creek containing both
open space and commercial uses would be located in the 100-year flood zone. No structural
development would occur in the open space area. However, existing commercial development
would be subject to redevelopment and possibly higher density commercial or residential
development. Thus, the Project would introduce housing or structures into a flood zone area that
could potentially impede or redirect flood flows. However, specific building standards, as
described within the flood damage prevention and floodplain management regulations of the City
Development Code (Chapter 15.12 Floodplain Management) apply. In all areas of special flood
hazards, all new construction and substantial improvements are required to comply with the Title
24 and follow standards identified for anchoring, use of flood-resistant building materials, use of
adequate drainage paths, and elevating the structures to or above the base flood elevation. The
City would also review development plans for future projects within the floodplain, to ensure
compliance with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. Furthermore, the City
participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes flood insurance
available to affected property owners within the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, impacts related
to flooding are expected to be less than significant.
45
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
The Uptown Temecula Specific Planwould not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow because the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan area is not located immediately near a coast or large body of water, nor does it have
steep slopes. The closest large body of water to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan capable of
causing a seiche is Lake Skinner Dam, located 6.4 miles away. The Specific Plan area is located
approximately 28 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a large enough distance to avoid
tsunami impacts. Additionally, due to the gently rolling hills located adjacent to the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan area, mudflows would not likely reach the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the Project. Therefore, this impact threshold
was not studied further.
a-j) Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
IX. Land Use and Planning
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in the identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Project Specific Plan PEIR
10. LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
a) Community
As discussed in the Certified PEIR, Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would facilitate the
development of a more cohesive community and, therefore, would not physically divide an
established community.
46
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activitiesThe proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in an impact to community division that was not previously considered in the
Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
b) Consistency with Land Use Plans
As discussed in the Certified PEIR, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan is consistent with
Southern California Association of Regional
Comprehensive Plan and the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan.
Furthermore, land uses for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan was derived primarily from the
Uptown Temecula Specific Plangoals and guiding
principles. As such, the land uses are generally compatible with existing uses in the area but
would allow for more mixed-use in a walkable, pedestrian oriented environment through building
placement, streetscape design, and a strong focus on the public realm through the Mixed Use
Overlay. The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan intends to facilitate in-fill development, public and
private reinvestment in the area, and guide overall future revitalization of the area.
Implementation of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan requires a General Plan Amendment.
modifying
Element to accommodate mixed-use areas that encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures
of compatible, pedestrian-oriented retail, office, public facilities, open space, and housing at
activity nodes through urban design standards and regulations. The Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan does not conflict with the existing General Plan because the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan that aim to conserve natural resources
and those that consider development compatibility.
The proposed Project proposes new streets be added to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan in
order to create a grid pattern street network with smaller blocks and increased connectivity
creating more pedestrian friendly and walkable neighborhoods and improved mobility throughout
the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area. The location of new streets is proposed as a
hypothetical street network will be constructed as new development occurs where new block size
standards are exceeded. The highest priority new streets are those that help complete overall
connectivity within the District for example by resolving existing cul-de-sacs (as within the
Sports District), creating strong Neighborhood connector streets (as at Commerce Center Drive)
and completing connections to the community from west to east (as at Overland Drive).
47
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
The proposed Projectwould not result in additional construction activitiesThe proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in an impact to hazards and hazardous materials that was not previously
considered in the Certified PEIR
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
c) Habitat Conservation
The Certified PEIR determined that the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would result in less-than-
significant impact or no impact to habitat conservation.
The proposed Project would be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and
would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus,
the proposed Project would not result in an impact to habitat conservation that was not previously
considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
not be significant.
48
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
X. Noise
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in the identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Project Specific Plan PEIR
12. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of, noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
As discussed in Certified PEIR, implementation of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan could
expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise and vibration levels that would result in potentially
significant impact. Mitigation measures proposed in the Certified PEIR would reduce
construction noise levels to less-than-significant. Vibration impacts due to construction would be
minimized by use of administrative controls (such as scheduling construction activities with the
highest potential to produce susceptible vibration to hours with least potential to affect nearby
properties), and would result in a less-than-significant impact. However, pile-driving and other
substantial impact equipment (e.g., jackhammers) during construction would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact (however, the proposed Project would not use pile-driving or
other substantial impact equipment).
Noise from increased traffic and stationary sources from the implementation of the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan would increase noise levels by a maximum of 0.8 dBA (L) over future
dn
traffic noise and would be less-than-significant. Vibration impacts with respect to operation
would result in a less-than-significant impact.
a-f) Noise
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
49
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
not be significant.
XI. Population and Housing
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in the identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Specific Plan PEIR
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a) Population Growth
As discussed in the Certified PEIR, the addition of 3,726 new residential dwelling units would
generate a net population increase of approximately 10,805 residents. However, the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan would introduce mostly multi-family housing, which typically does not
have as large a household size as single-family housing; therefore, the addition of 10,805 new
residents represents a conservative estimate for population generated by the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan. Based on this number, the development of the proposed residential uses would
constitute approximately 68 percent of the population growth expected in the City between 2012
and 2035. Thus, the population associated with the proposed residential uses would be within the
anticipated population growth for the city and would not exceed the projections on which the City
has based plans related to provision of public services, utilities, and other amenities to maintain
the current quality of life it provides its residents.
In addition, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would generate new employment populations in
the area, mostly in the retail, professional/business services, educational/health services, finance,
and leisure/hospitality sectors (KMA, 2012). However, the new retail, hotel, and office space that
would be developed under the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would be accommodating demand
for this type of commercial space that is projected to occur in the city and surrounding area
existing employment stock, it is not expected that new office and retail space would draw large
numbers of new employees from outside of the region; and therefore would not result in a new
population of employees that would result in growth inducement beyond that already projected
for the City.
50
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
The proposed Projectwould not result in additional construction activitiesThe proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be significant and unavoidable.
b, c) Household Displacement
There are no existing residential units or homes located within the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan area; therefore, no displacement of existing housing would occur. In addition, the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan would encourage mixed-use and residential projects and would result in
additional housing opportunities. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these two threshold
criteria.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Same oProject
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would
result in less impacts than those identified in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would be less than
significant.
51
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
XII. Public Services
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in the identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Specific Plan PEIR
14. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the following public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Discussion
a.i) Fire Protection
As discussed in the Certified PEIR, new development from the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
could include a total of 3,726 new dwelling units within the plan area, which would result in a
maximum of approximately 10,805 new residents in the Project area over the next 20 years. The
new development and population would increase the demand for fire protection services,
including emergency medical response, and could result in the need for additional personnel or
fire protection facilities. Project-level conformance with City goals, policies and performance
standards and payment of fees as required by the Municipal Code would reduce or avoid
program-level impacts related to fire protection services to below a level of significance.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
a.ii) Police Protection
As discussed in the Certified PEIR, police protection services would be provided by the
Temecula Police Department. The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is located in a developed
52
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
area that has officers routinely patrolling the area and would not require the police department to
expand patrol routes. Police would be able to access the site through any of the main access
roads, including those that define the Project boundary (Rancho California Road, Interstate 15,
Cherry Street, Diaz Road) as well as connecting streets.
In addition, the City of Temecula has developed impact fees to enable the expansion of police
protection facilities, the addition of police protection personnel, and enables the City to obtain
additional police equipment, as necessary. Future development would be subject to project-level
CEQA analysis and mitigation, and be required to pay any impact fees prior to the issuance of
building permits. Also, the police department has indicated that the Project would not result in the
need for expanded or additional facilities to accommodate the additional officers. For these
reasons, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered police facilities.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
a.iii) Schools
As discussed, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would result in 10,805 new residents, which
would generate an additional student population for the Temecula Valley Unified School District
(TVSD). Implementation of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan is anticipated to generate 4,198
K-12 students; however, this represents a conservative estimate because the generation rates are
based on single-family housing, and the multi-family housing Projects that would be developed
under the Project typically do not have as large a household size as single-family housing.
The schools serving the Project area would not have sufficient capacity to handle additional
numbers of students generated by the Project. TVUSD plans to build additional schools in the
area to accommodate future population growth in the next 10 to 15 years.
In 1986, the State passed AB 2926 to assist in providing funding for school facilities to serve
students generated by new development Projects. AB 2926 allowed school districts to collect
impact fees from developers of new residential and commercial/industrial developments. These
development fees are deemed to fully mitigate for impacts to schools caused by new
development. The developer fees in 2013 were $2.97 per square foot of residential development
and $0.47 per square foot school fee for commercial, industrial and federally qualified senior
53
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
housing. New rates have been approved that increased developer fees for residential development
to $3.79 per square foot and commercial, industrial, and federally qualified senior housing to
$0.61 per square foot (City of Temecula, 2018). All residential and non-residential development
would be required to pay the school fees in effect at the time of development. Therefore, Project
impacts to schools are considered to be less than significant.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
a.iv) Parks and Recreation
As discussed above and in the Certified PIER, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would
increase the population of the City of Temecula by introducing new residential units into the area.
The additional 10,805 residents would increase the use of city parks. The Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan includes plans for a future sports park located at Cherry Street and Jefferson
Avenue. The proposed approximately 56-acre sports park would provide additional park and
recreational space for residents.
The City of Temecula currently offers 3.1 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The addition of
10,805 new residents would reduce the existing parkland ratio to 2.7 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents. Therefore, in order to maintain the existing ratio, an additional 41 acres of new
parkland would need to be provided. The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would include a 56-
acre park, which would result in a new ratio of 3.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. In
residential projects greater than 200 units to dedicate land based on the park acre standard of 5
acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents. In lieu of parkland dedication, the City of Temecula
allows developers to pay impact fees to fairly distribute the costs of park expansion and
maintenance to new development as stipulated by the Quimby Act. Future development would be
subject to project-level CEQA analysis and mitigation, and be required to dedicate parkland or
pay fees-in-lieu prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, current developer fees are
$6,626.17 per unit for attached units and $9,255.12 per unit for detached units (City of Temecula,
2018).
While the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would result in an increase in demand for recreation
facilities, payment of the developer fees and dedication of parkland or fees-in-lieu would offset
54
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
any increased deterioration of existing parks. Therefore, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
would result in less than significant impacts related to recreational facilities.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR
roved Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would
be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts
would be significant and unavoidable.
a.v) Libraries and Other Public Facilities
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would incrementally increase the demand for library
services over the buildout timeframe of 20 years. However, the population increase generated by
the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
anticipated population growth forecast of 118,900 people by 2035 (SCAG, 2012). The Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan is anticipated to have minimal impacts on library services and would not
ct new library
facilities or expand existing facilities. Therefore, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would
result in less than significant impacts to library services.
There are a number of healthcare facilities that would have capacity to serve residents of the
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. These include the Rancho Springs Medical Center, which
expanded its facilities and increased medical beds to 120 beds in 2011 to accommodate the
growth in the region, and the Inland Valley Medical Center, which has expanded its facilities and
the size of the emergency department and intensive care unit to 122 beds. In addition, Universal
Health Services has opened and expanded its emergency departments in Murrieta and has opened
the new Temecula Valley Hospital, which consists of a 140-bed hospital, a 20-bed intensive care
unit (ICU), a Consolidated Treatment Unit, a cardiac catheterization lab and a fitness
rehabilitation center. This hospital is located approximately 3.2 miles southeast of the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan site and would serve the future residents of the Uptown Temecula
Specific Plan. Given the capacity of the existing healthcare facilities, the population generated by
the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would be adequately served by the existing facilities and
impacts related to the expansion or provision of additional healthcare facilities would be less than
significant.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
55
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Projectwould
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would
be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts
would be significant and unavoidable.
XIII. Transportation/Traffic
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in the identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Project Specific Plan PEIR
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Discussion
The discussion of potential impacts related to transportation and traffic is based on the Jefferson
Avenue Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis (TIS), prepared by Fehr & Peers on March
23, 2015.
a) Plans, Ordinances, and Policies
As discussed in the Certified PEIR, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would be required to be
consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (i.e., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks). Furthermore, the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would promote the use
of bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would incorporate
several trails that connect to existing trails along Murrieta Creek, which would encourage
56
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
additional pedestrian travel. In addition, the Uptown Temecula Specific Planwould provide
additional opportunities throughout the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area for sidewalks as
new roadways are constructed, particularly west of Jefferson Avenue. These roadways would
increase connectivity and create a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Finally, the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan would create a denser, mixed-use environment, which would encourage
greater use of transit. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be significant and unavoidable.
b) Congestion Management Programs
The focus of the Congestion Management Programs (CMP) is the development of an Enhanced
Traffic Monitoring System in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to evaluate the condition of the Congestion
Management System (CMS) as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the State and
federal levels. Per the adopted level of service target of Level of Service (LOS) E, a deficiency
plan is required when a CMS segment falls to LOS F. Preparation of a deficiency plan is the
responsibility of the local agency where the deficiency is located. Other agencies identified as
contributors to the deficiency also will be required to coordinate with the development of the
plan. The plan must contain mitigation measures, including Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) strategies and transit alternatives, and a schedule of mitigating the deficiency. To ensure
that the CMS is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, it is the
responsibility of local agencies, when reviewing and approving development proposals, to
consider the traffic impacts on the CMS.
The main CMP facility within Southwestern Riverside County is I-15. There are no CMP arterials
or roadway segments within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area; therefore, there would be
no impacts to CMP facilities.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities. Thus, the proposed
Project would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR
57
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Projectwould be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
significant and unavoidable.
c) Air Traffic Patterns
The Certified PEIR determined that the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would result in a less-
than-significant impact or no impact to air traffic patterns.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in an impact to air traffic patterns that was not previously considered in the
Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
not be significant.
d) Hazardous Design Features
The Certified PEIR determined that the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would result in a less-
than-significant impact or no impact to hazardous conditions due to a design feature or
incompatible uses.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in an impact to hazardous conditions due to a design feature or incompatible uses
that was not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
not be significant.
58
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
e) Emergency Access
The Certified PEIR determined that the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would result in a less-
than-significant impact or no impact to hazardous conditions due to a design feature or
incompatible uses.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in an impact to hazardous conditions due to a design feature or incompatible uses
that was not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
f) Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities
The Certified PEIR determined that the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would not conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would introduce any conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
pproved Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would be
consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts would
not be significant.
59
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
XIV. Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially Significant Same or less impact than
Impact Not Identified in the identified in the certified
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Specific Plan PEIR
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Wastewater
As discussed in the Certified PEIR, buildout of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would
intensify land uses within the site and would, therefore, result in an increased generation of
wastewater flows from the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan site. All wastewater produced by the
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would be treated by the Temecula Valley RWRF. The Temecula
Valley RWRF currently has an 18 MGD treatment capacity. EMWD has plans for two expansion
projects to increase the total treatment capacity to 28 mgd (EMWD, 2013). Recent planning
studies have indicated that the footprint of the Temecula Valley RWRF could accommodate
treatment facilities with up to 37 mgd of capacity, if needed. EMWD has indicated that projected
wastewater flows generated by the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan would require approximately
0.8 mgd of additional capacity at the Temecula Valley RWRF beyond the currently planned
capacity expansion to 28 mgd. The additional 0.8 mgd of wastewater flow would necessitate a
future capacity expansion from 28 mgd to 32 mgd (EMWD, 2013). Therefore, the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan would result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects. Implementation of mitigation measures discussed in the Certified PEIR would reduce the
potential impacts to be less than significant.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities. Thus, the proposed
Project would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
60
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Projectwould
be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts
would be less than significant.
c) Storm Drain Resources
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan PEIR would involve the expansion of commercial
development and the introduction of residential uses into the area. However, the majority of this
increase in square footage would be from new vertical, and not horizontal, development. New
development would not occur within the existing open space district, a large impervious area.
Furthermore, some of the development districts, located in existing impervious settings, may
include residential and commercial open space. Therefore, the amount of impervious surfaces in
the Project area would not be anticipated to increase substantially and would not result in the
construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities. Thus, the proposed
Project would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
Project
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would
be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts
would be less than significant.
d) Water Supply and Demand
As discussed in the Certified PEIR, a water supply assessment is required for the Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan, as it would result in the construction of more than 500 residential units
and would include a commercial component with more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
The buildout of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan will increase the Dist
demand by the year 2043 by approximately 1,671 AFY of water, yielding a total Projected
potable demand of 125,372 AF by 2043. The water supply Projections in the Certified PEIR
demonstrate that Projected supplies exceed demand through the year 2043, while factoring in the
projected demand required for the Project. These projections consider land use, water
development programs and projects, and water conservation. Analyses of normal, single-dry, and
multiple-dry year scenarios in the WS
during the 30-year planning period in all hydrologic conditions, even under reduced imported
water supply conditions. Collectively, the information included in the WSA identifies a sufficient
and reliable water supply for the District, now and into the future, including a sufficient water
supply for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts to water supply demand are
less than significant.
The proposed Project would not result in additional construction activities The proposed Project
would create sidewalk improvement standards, which would include the specifications for
concrete materials, street lighting, street trees, and understory plants. The implementation of the
proposed streetscape and sidewalk landscape standards would occur within the existing right-of-
way or within the right-of-way where any new street is constructed. The proposed Project would
be within the design parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and would not allow for
61
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
Specific Plan EIR Addendum
development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed Project
would not result in impacts that were not previously considered in the Certified PEIR.
CONCLUSION: The proposed Project would
be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR; thus, impacts
would be less than significant.
References
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2018. CNPS Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Plants of California, http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/, accessed on June 10, 2018
CGS, 2002. California Geological Survey (CGS), How Earthquakes Are Measured, CGS Note
32, Available at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Note_32.pdf.
CGS, 2018. California Geological Survey (CGS), Seismic Hazard Zones, Murrieta quadrangle,
Available at
http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Reports/SHZR/SHZR_115_Murrieta.pdf
City of Temecula, 2018. Development Impact Fees, available https://temeculaca.gov/fees
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), 2013. Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Technical
Memorandum. December 20, 2013.
Fehr and Peers, 2013. Jefferson Avenue Specific Plan, Transportation Impact Analysis Draft
Report. Prepared for ESA and City of Temecula. Published August 16, 2013.
Keyser Marston Associates (KMA), 2012. Jefferson Avenue Study Area Market Assessment.
Published July 27, 2012.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. SCAQMD Air Quality
Significance Thresholds. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-
compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993)
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2008. Adopted 2008 RTP Growth
Forecast, by City. Available at http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/adoptedgrowth.htm
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2010. Integrated Report (Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2016. Integrated Report (Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtml
62
Uptown Temecula Specific PlanESA
Specific Plan EIR Addendum November 2018
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula
PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
CASE NO: APPLICANT:
LR16-0223 and LR17-0724City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
An amendment to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan to make clarifications for the
setbacks of buildings and parking spaces, the placement and/or relocation of utilities, clarification of legal
non-conforming uses, the allowance of certain land uses as required by state law, to make minor
typographical edits and the adoption of Appendix G, establishing streetscape and sidewalk standards for
the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, which includes the specifications for concrete materials, street
lighting, street trees, and understory plants.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission of the city of Temecula adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Uptown Temecula Specific Plan amendments
and the Uptown Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the EIR
was prepared, which concludes that the proposed changes, additions, or modifications do not result in any
new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and/or mitigated in the
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified in November 2015
(SCH #2013061012). None of the conditions in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that require the
preparation of a subsequent EIR are present, and no additional environmental review is required.
CASE PLANNER:
Dale West, (951) 693-3918
PLACE OF HEARING:
41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590,City of Temecula, Council Chambers
DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING:
March 20, 2019 6:00 p.m.
any supplemental materials
The complete agenda packet (including ) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception
area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning
TemeculaCA.gov and will be
available for public review at the respective meeting. Any writing distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any
item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the
Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available
TemeculaCA.gov and will be available for public review at the meeting.
Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within time required by, and controlled
by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial
review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Planning Commission shall be limited to those
issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing
Questions?
described in this notice. Please call the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400.